The Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Reducing Recidivism in Domestic Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Preventing and reducing domestic violence is a national and international social priority. Civil law protection orders (POs) have been the primary legal response to domestic violence internationally for a number of decades. However, evidence of their effectiveness is mixed due to variations in application within and across countries and variable quality of the research with most studies at high risk of bias. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of POs in reducing violation rates of domestic violence, compare violation rates reported by victims and police reports, and identify factors that influence violation and reoffense. Two electronic databases were searched; two independent researchers screened abstracts. Data were collected and assessed methodologically, using the Kmet Checklist Appraisal Tool and National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence. Twenty-five studies that evaluated the effectiveness of POs in reducing recidivism in domestic violence met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of weighted means of violation in the studies were conducted. Violation rates were found to be higher for victim reports compared with police reports. Violation rates were reduced when POs used in combination with arrests. PO violation rates were lower among perpetrators without histories of arrest for committing violence, perpetrators not engaging in stalking, and where couples have had medium to high incomes. There is no consensus among the studies about what the most appropriate methodology is to measure PO effectiveness. Future research should establish a more unified approach to evaluating the effectiveness and violations of POs.

‘Not bullet proof’: The complex choice not to seek a civil protection order for intimate partner violence

“…The evidence regarding the ability of POs to reduce violence and enhance safety is mixed, at least in part due to differing definitions of recidivism (Cordier et al, 2019). Violation rates range from 17.4%–66% and are higher for victim reported violations (average = 34.3%) than for violations contained in police reports (average = 28.2%), indicating the importance of data sources when researching IPV recidivism (Cordier et al, 2019). Studies that examined the same victims over time generally found decreases in violence both before and after issuance of a PO (Cordier et al, 2019).…”

“…Violation rates range from 17.4%–66% and are higher for victim reported violations (average = 34.3%) than for violations contained in police reports (average = 28.2%), indicating the importance of data sources when researching IPV recidivism (Cordier et al, 2019). Studies that examined the same victims over time generally found decreases in violence both before and after issuance of a PO (Cordier et al, 2019). However, across research comparing groups that obtained and did not obtain a PO it was found that the orders do not result in reductions in recidivism although a combination of arrest and PO issuance may be effective (Cordier et al, 2019).…”

“…Studies that examined the same victims over time generally found decreases in violence both before and after issuance of a PO (Cordier et al, 2019). However, across research comparing groups that obtained and did not obtain a PO it was found that the orders do not result in reductions in recidivism although a combination of arrest and PO issuance may be effective (Cordier et al, 2019).…”

“…In contrast to legal system interventions that remove decision-making from the victim once the police are called, the decision to file for a Protection Order (PO) rests in the hands of the survivor (Conner, 2015). POs (also called restraining orders, orders of protection) are a common international intervention, but the specifics of legislation, eligibility, procedures, and enforcement of POs varies widely between countries as well as between states or territories within the same country (Cordier et al, 2019). In the United States, the protection order process generally includes the ‘petitioner’ obtaining a temporary or short-term order, filing for a longer-term order (e.g.…”

The Courts, Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Illness: The Case of Dwight Lamon Jones

“…In a review article, Benitez and colleagues (2010) acknowledge that protection orders are not a panacea but can play a useful part in managing threat. A recent meta‐analysis by Cordier and colleagues (2019) finds that protection order violation rates were lower when orders were used in conjunction with arrest.…”