1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue that occurs daily in our society. Some
victims of IPV seek help to stop the violence. One way for a victim to try to stop the
violence occurring and prevent future cases of violence is to file for a civil restraining
order. Civil restraining orders have been used since 1976; within 13 years, all 50 states
and the District of Columbia passed similar legislation (Postmus 2007). Civil restraining
orders are intended to allow the victims of IPV to take control of their situations and
begin to lead their lives in a more positive direction.
In recent years IPV has evolved from a private behavior to a public issue. This
evolution has been indicated from the passage of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) in 1994, mandatory arrest laws, the creation of specialized IPV courts, and in
some jurisdictions, the mandatory treatment for batterers (Buzawa et al. 2012). Perhaps
reflecting these developments, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that from 1994 to
2012, the overall rate of IPV in the United States declined by 64% (Catalano 2012). The
number of IPV occurrences also declined from approximately 2.1 million in 1994 to
907,000 in 2010. Despite the decline, IPV is still a significant social problem.
The purpose of this research is to determine the influence of perpetrator race on
the judicial response to the requests for intimate partner violence civil restraining orders
in Sacramento County. This research is significant because it can show whether the civil
court system is unbiased and fair, as it should be. There has been no previous research
2
regarding race and civil restraining orders and this research can bring attention to a
possible problem or show that our civil court system is working correctly.
To begin this research, a review of prior research regarding race disparities in the
criminal court system (because no research exists regarding civil court systems and race)
will be conducted. There will also be a review of prior research regarding race issues and
intimate partner violence and the effectiveness/ limitations of civil restraining orders.
This review of the literature will help support the purpose of this study.
3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Race and Intimate Partner Violence
There have been many studies conducted on the topic of race and intimate partner
violence. Many of the studies find that IPV occurs at a higher rate in communities of
color. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics states that in 2010 the victimization
rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older was 6.2 for whites and 7.8 for African Americans
(Catalano 2012).
When discussing race and intimate partner violence, Buzawa, Buzawa and Stark
(2012) say that “many minority groups, including African Americans, seem to be at an
increased risk for abuse… the higher observed rates of domestic violence between some
ethnic and racial minority groups is simply attributable to higher rates of poverty (110).”
Buzawa et al. (2012) also mention that “the effects of differences in social structure (such
as poverty, social dislocation, unemployment and population density) also might
encourage more domestic violence among African Americans (110).”
Buzawa et al. (2012) find though, “to some extent, relatively higher rates of
domestic violence in the African American community also can be viewed simply as
maladaptive behavior in response to continued actual or perceived societal oppression,
racism, and discrimination (111).” Kingsnorth and MacIntosh (2004) suggest that African
American women (many of whom are also poor) lack alternatives to the criminal justice
system and are more likely to use the court system to suppress the abuse. African
4
American victims support the arrest but are more likely not to follow through with
prosecution.
When comparing the victimization rates of different racial and ethnic groups,
Buzawa et al. (2012:43) found that African Americans had four times the rate of IPV
compared to Whites and intimate partner violence victimizes African Americans at rates
significantly higher than most other groups. The authors also find that Mexican-born
women reported rates similar to African American women when it comes to IPV
victimization.
Kingsnorth and MacIntosh (2004) discuss a reluctance of women of Asian
descent to bring domestic problems to the attention of authorities out of concern for
bringing shame on family and community. They also suggest that if the victim is an
immigrant, either undocumented or whose immigrant status depends on their spouse, fear
of deportation adds weight to the decision not to come forward. These considerations
suggest that the willingness to invoke official action may vary by racial/ ethnic status.
Race and Court Proceedings
A literature search of Sociology and Criminal Justice databases revealed there is
no literature on the topic of race and civil restraining orders; for that reason alone, this
research is important. We can, however, look at the broad topic of discrimination in
criminal court proceedings. The judges who work at the criminal court and the civil court
are of the same experience and can bring the same knowledge or discrimination to the
court.
5
When discussing criminal courts, Neubauer and Fradella (2011) state that critics
of the criminal justice system believe that the high rates of arrest and incarceration for
African Americans and other minorities is evidence of racial discrimination in the court
system. Even though the actual written law contains no racial bias, critics believe that
because judicial officials as well as other criminal justice officials can exercise discretion,
racial discrimination occurs.
Studies conducted in Sacramento County have found that race/ ethnicity do not
play a role in their judicial processes. As Kingsnorth et al. note in their 2001 study
“specialized prosecutorial units that promote vertical case prosecution also facilitate
standardization of decision-making norms that mitigate against invidious discrimination.
Such a unit was formed in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office in 1991
(137).” Other reasons for discrimination not existing in the Sacramento County criminal
court system include “progress in the recruitment of personnel from more diverse
backgrounds into the criminal court system in recent years has encouraged sensitivity to
the illegitimate intrusion of discriminatory values in case decision making (137).”
For the above reason, it is assumed that racial discrimination does not occur in
Sacramento County civil courts because Sacramento County criminal courts have
promoted diversity and standardization of judicial decisions. Even though Sacramento
County criminal and civil courts are different, the judges are of the same knowledge and
experience. Civil court judges are highly experienced because they are typically in
retirement or have pre-retirement status.
6
Civil Restraining Orders
Civil restraining orders are a common route for those who are experiencing
intimate partner violence- the restraining order, usually initiated in civil court by the
victim of intimate partner violence, is designed to increase victim safety by reducing
further harm or risk (Diviney et al. 2009). Federal law prohibits all persons against whom
a domestic violence restraining order has been issued from purchasing or possessing a
firearm. A restraining order not only separates the victim from the offender, but it
involves measures to decrease further risk to the victims. Civil restraining orders have a
lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) and presumably less personal and
societal cost than there would be for criminal charges (Logan and Walker 2009).
Those who file for civil restraining orders generally have a reason to fear their
abusers (Muller et al. 2009). Ideally, restraining orders should be available to victims
without them having to overcome unnecessary obstacles or putting themselves at risk for
further harm, yet not be so freely granted that they can be manipulated by a vindictive
partner. They should also be effective in protecting all genuine victims and should be
properly enforced.
Another topic of research is why victims of intimate partner violence do not
request civil restraining orders. There can be many reasons why victims do not seek
restraining orders such as fear of retaliation from the offender, perceived effectiveness
and barriers in obtaining an order, embarrassment, lack of resources, and a negative
perception of the justice system (Diviney et al. 2009). Buzawa et al. (2012) discuss other
limitations such as fear of unfamiliar and unfriendly courtroom rituals. For some victims,
7
the consequences of filing for a civil restraining order outweigh the positive aspects. For
some, filing for an order can be costly in terms of time, days off work, transportation, and
perhaps childcare. Taken together with the factors mentioned above, these differences
suggest that the frequency of requests may vary by racial/ ethnic group. On the other
hand, these deterrent factors may be outweighed by differential access of these groups to
alternatives to the formal court system.
There are also advantages to filing for civil restraining orders, as Buzawa and
Buzawa (2003) discuss in, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response (2012).
Advantages include the fact that civil restraining orders incur far less costs than criminal
prosecution and require less time. Civil restraining order hearings are also shorter so they
don’t require as much time off work or childcare. Offenders can still maintain jobs unlike
if they were in the criminal court system. Buzawa et al. (2012) further the discussion of
advantages and mention that a restraining order may empower the victim and he or she
may then be able to take control over their home and other assets. The victim will feel
more secure and offenders are less likely to resume abuse.
There is also a question as to why those victims who do obtain civil restraining
orders withdraw their orders. Roberts, Wolfer and Mele (2008) suggest that the
withdrawal of a restraining order occurred when there was a change in the situation of
either the victim or defendant. Changes included the victim or defendant moving to
another area, separation or divorce between the two parties, and/or the defendant
attending counseling or rehabilitation. These latter changes involved a conscientious
effort by the defendant to change his/her behavior and the victim felt it was no longer
8
necessary to have a civil restraining order. To the extent these developments may operate
differently for various social groups, the decision to withdraw from the restraining order
process (e.g. not appear at the PRO hearing) may vary by racial/ ethnic status.
One further topic of research regarding civil restraining orders is their
effectiveness. Diviney et al. (2009) suggest that the judicial system could be more
aggressive in improving the safety of victims of intimate partner violence by using the
full extent of the sentencing guidelines when applying sanctions to violators of
restraining orders. Enforcement is shown to be a key element of effectiveness of
restraining orders. Logan, Walker, Shannon and Cole (2005) say the perceived problems
with restraining orders centered on the lack of enforcement or service by the criminal
justice system and the failure of petitioners to follow through with the hearings. Postmus
(2007) says that many of the complaints regarding the ineffectiveness of restraining
orders include the lack of enforcement of violations, ineffectiveness in deterring batterers
from abusing, and further aggravation of the abusers. She also found that the restrainingorder process relied on the police to arrest violators, and in many cases police use their
own discretion on whether or not to do so.
Harrell and Smith (1996) found that with a group of 355 women who were
interviewed after filing a temporary restraining order, sixty percent of them said that their
partners violated the order in the year following the order. Calls to police regarding
violations were high, but arrest rates were low. Klein (1996) also claims that restraining
orders are ineffective at protecting women against further cases of abuse because abusers
9
don’t take the orders seriously enough and enforcement isn’t taken seriously enough
either.
Even though race and civil restraining orders have not often been studied, other
inequalities with civil restraining orders have been studied. One main topic is gender and
whether or not discrimination exists among judicial officials and their decisions on
granting temporary restraining orders. Basile (2005) finds that in some courts, male
victims of domestic violence are not afforded the same protections as their female
counterparts. “The inequality in court response occurred even though male and female
plaintiffs were similarly victimized by their opposite gender defendants (178)”.
Concurring with Basile (2005) Muller et al. (2009) also found gender discrimination
occurring in granting both temporary and permanent restraining orders. Muller et al.
(2009) found that court restraining orders were issued more frequently to women
plaintiffs and women made significantly more requests than did men. A replication study
by Kingsnorth, Wolcott and Lonnquist (2013) in the same jurisdiction did not confirm
these findings.
In summary, some of the crucial points this review of the literature has shown,
and which provide the foundation for hypothesis development, include: there is a higher
representation of intimate violence in minority communities, including African American
communities; available evidence suggests that no racial/ ethnic discrimination occurs in
the processing of IPV cases in the Sacramento county criminal court system; judges in
the civil court system in Sacramento County have vast experience and knowledge in
10
criminal case processing; and finally, African Americans are more likely than other
groups to withdraw from criminal prosecution.
Building on the summary above, this study will test multiple hypotheses to
determine the influence of perpetrator race on judicial decisions to issue temporary and
permanent restraining orders. Following research on in the social science literature as
detailed above, I hypothesize that
1.
Victims of African Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented in the
requests for civil restraining orders whereas Whites are underrepresented,
based on Sacramento County demographics.
2.
There are no perpetrator racial/ethnic differences in the judicial decision to
grant temporary restraining orders.
3.
There are no perpetrator racial/ethnic differences in the judicial decision to
grant permanent restraining order hearings.
4.
Rates of appearance for permanent restraining order hearings ( i.e.
withdrawal from the CRO process) are lower for victims of African
Americans and Hispanics than for Whites.
5.
There are no perpetrator racial/ethnic differences in the judicial decision to
grant permanent restraining orders.
Court Procedures
Specific to Sacramento County, victims of intimate partner violence seek
temporary restraining orders by either obtaining documents online or in person at the
courthouse. There are workshops and interpreters provided by the court to help with
11
filling out the paperwork. Plaintiffs fill out the necessary paperwork, and if turned in by 2
o’clock in the afternoon, a response will be given by 3:45PM. If the paperwork is turned
in after 2 o’clock, the plaintiff will receive a response the next business day. All
information on the TRO is self-reported. The official standard is that there must be a
“sufficiency of facts” to justify granting the requested orders. If there are insufficient
facts the judge will deny the order. If granted, the TRO is in force for three weeks until
the scheduled permanent restraining order (PRO) hearing. If the plaintiff fails to attend
the hearing, it results in a denial of the PRO.
12
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
This study sampled family court records of temporary restraining orders (TROs),
also known as civil restraining orders, maintained at the William R. Ridgeway Family
Relations Courthouse located in Sacramento, California. The data collection occurred
over a four month period from September 2010 to December 2010. In order to collect the
necessary information, a group of three researchers met twice a week during this period.
The TRO case files contained many documents but this research only required the
knowledge and coding of (1) Request for order- DV100 (2) Description of abuse- DV101
(3) Temporary restraining order and notice of hearing- DV110 (4) Court hearing
summary-Minute Order and (5) Restraining order after hearing- DV130.
While it is understood that intimate partner violence (IPV) has a broad definition,
for the purpose of this research, IPV is defined as a verbal threat, physical or sexual abuse
that is inflicted on one person with whom he or she is dating or used to date, is married to
or was married to, or is having or used to have a sexual relationship with. This study will
only look at these specific relationship statuses in heterosexual couples because the
sample was originally collected as a replication study of previous research that also, only
looked at heterosexual couples. The replication study, Kingsnorth, Wolcott, Lonnquist
(2013), looks at gender discrimination in the civil court process while this study examines
racial discrimination.
13
This study looks at three racial groups, African American, Hispanic and White.
There was a fourth category called ‘other’ that included the following groups: West
Asian, East Asian, South Asian, Native American, and Multi-Ethnic. There were no
known cultural commonalities which justify combining these groups and for this reason
they are excluded from the analysis.
When selecting the sample records, a stratified random sample was taken. A court
worker would provide the researchers with the first 100 to 150 cases filed in each month
beginning with April 2009 and ending in March 2010. The precise number of cases
requested from staff varied according to the increasing experience of coders and therefore
speed of coding. The first 100 to 150 cases usually came from the first week or two of
each month being studied. The sample time frame totaled a range of 12 months. Cases
were selected that met the criteria requirements i.e. intimate partner violence (IPV) cases
that involved heterosexual couples. There were no issues of confidentiality with this
research because temporary restraining orders are public record in Sacramento County.
Even though they are public record, no personal identifying information was coded for
this research. There is no way to determine who the plaintiffs and perpetrators are with
the information included in this study nor the county from which the records are drawn.
Due to the fact that there were significantly fewer cases involving female
perpetrators than male perpetrators, the researchers first began choosing the random
sample by going through the 100 to 150 cases the court worker brought them. The
researchers would first select all the cases that involved female perpetrators (i.e. male
plaintiffs) that also met the IPV and heterosexual couple requirements. The researchers
14
found approximately 13 female perpetrator cases per month, and after all the cases with
female perpetrators were selected, an equal number of male perpetrator (i.e. female
plaintiffs) cases were selected. This means that there were approximately 26 cases from
each month (April 2009 through March 2010) included in the final sample of 310 cases.
The male perpetrator cases were selected by dividing by filing date the cases that were
given to the researchers in that research session into three separate, equal sections
(section 1, section 2, and section 3). The male perpetrator cases were selected from each
of these groups sequentially. For example, the first research session we randomly selected
male cases from the first section of cases, the next research session, we selected male
cases from the middle section of the cases given to us for that day and so forth. This
selection method though less than ideal was a compromise chosen to maximize the
limited resources in order to code as large a sample as possible within those limits and to
avoid any possible bias caused by when, during the month, a case was filed.
After the cases were selected, the temporary restraining order requests were then
coded for information to include in our study, such as perpetrator race, plaintiff and
perpetrator gender, relationship status, age, violence level and information on the TRO
(e.g. if children were involved, what type of request the plaintiff was asking for and if the
police came to an incident of abuse). This research also includes the level of violence as
a variable. The first level of violence (low) was verbal threats only. The second level
(moderate) included lesser forms of physical conduct such as pushing, slapping, shoving
etc., and the third level (high) included forms of physical violence that can result in the
risk of serious injury. When there was a questionable level of violence mentioned in court
15
documents, the research team would discuss and unanimously decide the appropriate
level (see Appendix A for all categories and codes). If temporary restraining order
requests were denied, the research team would document the reason why the judge denied
the order in a qualitative format.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data will be analyzed using the computer program SPSS. Chisquare tests and a logistic regression analysis will be conducted in the process of
analyzing the information. A logistic regression model will show if any relationships
exist between the variables (independent, dependent and control). Dependent variables
include whether or not the TRO was issued, if there was a hearing granted, if the plaintiff
made an appearance at the hearing, and if a permanent restraining order was issued. The
qualitative data (judicial reasons for denial and victim descriptions of abuse) will also be
included in the analysis in order to provide clarification as to why some TROs were
denied (e.g. insufficient facts or a family court case already existed).
16
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the sample variables. Table 1 reveals
that there are significant racial/ethnic differences when the plaintiff and the perpetrator
are co-parents (p<.01). In this category, 32.2% of white perpetrators are co-parents
whereas 35.0% of black perpetrators, 57.9% of Hispanic perpetrators, and 53.6% of other
race/ethnicity perpetrators are co-parents. There is no major difference between white
perpetrators and black perpetrators who are co-parents. The significance in this finding
emerges when the high rate of Hispanic and other category co-parents are included.
The results indicate that there is a significant difference between racial/ethnic
groups who lived together at the time of the filing. 22.4% white, 17.5% black, 33.3%
Hispanic, and 39.3% other race/ethnicity. This category is significant because of the high
level of other race/ethnicity persons who lived together at the time of filing.
The category of married/ domestic partners (present) also yields significance in
Table 1. When the case was filed, 27.3% of white perpetrators were married/ domestic
partners, 21.3% of black perpetrators, 43.9% of Hispanic perpetrators and 35.7% of other
race/ethnicity perpetrators. This category yields significance because of the high rate of
Hispanics (compared to whites, blacks and others) who were presently married/ domestic
partners.
A notable, significant finding was between racial/ ethnic groups and perpetrator
sex. The racial distribution for this category varies largely. Table 1 reveals that males
17
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
N= 308
Perpetrator Race/ Ethnicity
Independent Variables
Abuse (Second)
Abuse (Other)
Co-Parent
Delay in filing (>3 Days)
Living Together (Present)
Living Together (Previously)
Married/ RDP1 (Present)
Married/ RDP (Previously)
Other Case
Other Restraining Order
Perpetrator Age (Mean)
Perpetrator Sex (Male)
Police Responded
Protect Child
Protect Other
Violence Level (Less Severe)
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic
%
80.4
59.4
32.2
54.3
22.4
42.0
27.3
4.2
32.2
9.8
35.5
41.3
51.7
44.1
61.5
90.2
77.5
50.0
35.0
46.2
17.5
32.5
21.3
5.0
23.8
2.5
36.0
57.5
65.0
47.5
63.7
86.3
82.5
50.9
57.9
40.4
33.3
40.4
43.9
3.5
28.1
8.8
33.0
68.4
66.7
68.4
73.7
86.0
Other
%
Total
%
85.7
46.4
53.6**
44.4
39.3*
39.3
35.7*
0.0
28.6
3.6
33.3
39.3**
60.7
60.7*
78.6
85.7
80.5
54.2
39.6
48.7
24.7
39.0
29.5
3.9
28.9
7.1
35.0
50.3
58.8
51.0
65.9
88.0
*P <.05, **p <.01, *** <.001
1
RDP = (Registered Domestic Partners)
account for 41.3% of white perpetrators in the sample, 57.5% of black perpetrators,
68.4% of Hispanic perpetrators, and 39.3% of other race/ethnicity perpetrators. In this
finding, the differences are large between the four race/ ethnicity categories.
Another significant finding from Table 1 is the plaintiff’s request for the
restraining order to protect one or more children. Those cases with a white perpetrator
requested child protection 44.1% of the time whereas cases with a black perpetrator
requested child protection 47.5% of the time. When there was a Hispanic perpetrator,
child protection was requested in 68.4% of the cases. Lastly, when there was a
perpetrator who was from other race/ethnicity, child protection was requested in 60.7% of
the cases. As can be seen in this finding, the difference between white and black is
18
minimal, but the overall significance is driven by the high rate among cases with a
Hispanic or other race/ ethnicity perpetrator who request an order to protect one or more
children.
Race/ Ethnic Distribution
Table 2 shows the difference between the race/ ethnic population of the study
sample and that of Sacramento County, where the filings took place. The table reveals
that whites are somewhat underrepresented, and the race/ethnic category of “other” is
substantially underrepresented. Conversely, blacks are overrepresented by a factor of
three and Hispanics are approximately equal between the two populations.
Bivariate Analysis
Table 3 is a bivariate analysis of the independent and dependent variables. This table
helps determine which variables in the research are significant. Table 3 reveals that when
looking at the dependent variable of TRO granted, independent variables that yield
significance include Delay in filing (over three days from the last incident of abuse), if
the plaintiff and the perpetrator were married or registered domestic partners prior to
filing, perpetrator sex (male), if the police responded to the incident of abuse mentioned
on the temporary restraining order petition, and violence level (less severe).
The dependent variable of Hearing granted yields significance with more
independent variables such as if the plaintiff and perpetrator are co parents, a delay in
filing over three days, if the plaintiff and perpetrator were married at the time of filing, or
previously married before filing, if the race of the perpetrator was other, and if the police
responded to the incident of abuse mentioned in the temporary restraining order petition.
19
Table 2. Race/ Ethnic Distribution of Sample and Sacramento County Population
Race/ Ethnicity
Sample
%
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
46.4
26.0
18.5
9.1
Sacramento County
%
51.4
9.8
18.0
20.8
Table 3 also includes the bivariate analysis of the dependent variable of attending
the PRO hearing. The independent variables that are significant are a delay in filing more
than three days from the last incident of abuse, if the perpetrator is black, and if the
perpetrator is Hispanic. From this it can be concluded that blacks are significantly less
likely to appear than non-blacks, and Hispanics are slightly more likely to appear than
non-Hispanics.
The last dependent variable on Table 3 does not yield significance with many
independent variables. The dependent variable of PRO granted yields significance with
the independent variable protect child. This variable is when the plaintiff wants to protect
a child with the restraining order as well and indicates that a PRO is less likely to be
granted when the restraining order request includes protection of a child. .
Temporary Restraining Orders
Table 4 displays the logistic regression analysis of the likelihood of receiving a
temporary restraining order. The first variable found to be significant measures the effect
of delay in filing of more than three days since the most recent abuse occurrence
describes in the temporary restraining order petition. The logistic regression analysis
20
Table 3. Bivariate Analysis of Relationship Between Independent and Dependent
Variable
TRO
Granted
%
Independent Variables
Abuse (Second) (Y/N)
Abuse (Other) (Y/N)
Co-Parent (Y/N)
Delay in filing (>3 Days) (Y/N)
Living Together (Present) (Y/N)
Living Together (Previously) (Y/N)
Married/ RDP1 (Present) (Y/N)
Married/ RDP (Previously) (Y/N)
Other Case (Y/N)
Other Restraining Order (Y/N)
Perpetrator Age (Med > 33) (Y/N)
Perpetrator Race/Ethnicity
Black (Y/N)
Hispanic (Y/N)
Other (Y/N)
White (Y/N)
Perpetrator Sex (Male) (Y/N)
Police Responded (Y/N)
Protect Child (Y/N)
Protect Other (Y/N)
Violence Level (Less Severe) (Y/N)
Hearing
Granted
%
PRO Hearing
Appearance
%
PRO
Granted
%
84.7/80.0
85.1/82.3
81.1/85.6
78.2/89.7**
88.2/82.4
80.8/85.7
76.9/86.7
66.7/84.5*
78.7/85.9
77.3/84.3
85.4/82.1
90.4/90.0
91.1/89.4
84.4/94.1**
86.4/94.9*
90.8/90.1
90.0/90.5
83.5/93.1**
66.7/91.2**
88.8/90.9
95.5/89.9
93.0/87.4
53.7/44.0
53.4/50.0
59.8/47.3
58.7/45.4*
47.8/53.3
53.4/50.9
56.3/50.3
57.1/51.7
60.8/48.4
61.1/51.2
51.1/52.8
35.3/30.0
37.5/30.5
31.3/36.4
34.0/35.3
28.9/36.1
34.2/34.4
28.6/36.7
25.0/34.7
37.1/33.2
36.4/34.1
36.1/32.5
86.3/83.0
91.2/82.1
71.4/85.1
81.8/85.5
90.3/76.8**
87.8/78.1*
83.4/84.2
85.2/81.1
82.0/97.3*
91.3/90.0
93.0/89.7
75.0/91.8**
91.6/89.1
92.3/87.7
93.4/85.9**
87.3/93.4
89.2/92.5
89.3/97.3
37.1/57.1**
66.0/48.6*
65.0/50.8
52.8/51.4
50.7/53.1
49.4/55.7
49.6/54.0
49.7/55.8
51.3/55.6
30.0/35.8
40.4/32.9
35.7/34.2
34.3/34.5
37.4/31.0
34.3/34.4
28.7/40.1*
32.0/38.7
33.8/37.8
*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
1
RDP = (Registered Domestic Partners)
reveals that when there is a delay in filing, the plaintiff’s odds of being granted a
temporary restraining order are reduced by 55.7%.
Another variable that significantly affects the likelihood to be granted a temporary
restraining order is if the perpetrator and plaintiff were married or registered domestic
partners at the time of the filing. Being married or registered domestic partners reduces
one’s odds by 52.1%.
21
Table 4. Logistic Regression Analysis of Likelihood of Receiving a Temporary Restraining Order
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Delay in filing
Black
Hispanic
Other
Married/ RDP1 (Present)
Perpetrator Sex
Police Responded
Violence Level
-2 Log Likelihood = 230.843
Model Chi-Square = 33.999
Df = 8
Sig = .00
-.814*b
.019
.484
-.807
-.737*b
-.831*b
.544
1.986*a
.348
.431
.549
.523
.353
.361
.339
1.049
.443
1.019
1.622
.446
.479
.436
1.722
7.286
*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
a = one tail
b =two tail
N = 303
1
RDP = (Registered Domestic Partners)
Table 4 also shows a significant variable that reduces one’s odds of being granted
a temporary restraining order is the perpetrator’s sex. If the perpetrator is female, the
plaintiff is 56.4% less likely to be granted a temporary restraining order.
Lastly, the variable of violence level significantly affects the likelihood of being
granted a temporary restraining order. The variable representing “more severe” violence
level is very significant. In comparison to “less severe”, the odds of receiving a
temporary restraining order are 7 times greater when the violence level is “more severe”.
Hearing Appearance
Table 5 displays the logistic regression analysis of the likelihood of appearance at
a permanent restraining order hearing. In this table, the only variable to yield significance
is if the perpetrator is Hispanic in race/ ethnicity. If a perpetrator is Hispanic, the odds are
22
Table 5. Logistic Regression Analysis of Likelihood of Appearance at PRO Hearing
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Delay in filing
Black
Hispanic
Other
Married/ RDP1 (Present)
Perpetrator Sex
Police Responded
Violence Level
-2 Log Likelihood = 349.439
Model Chi-Square = 9.852
Df = 8
Sig = .276
.414
-.262
.704*b
.524
.003
.023
-.041
.039
.257
.321
.356
.502
.292
.264
.264
.381
1.514
.770
2.022
1.689
1.003
1.023
.960
1.040
*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
a = one tail
b =two tail
N = 262
1
RDP = (Registered Domestic Partners)
twice as great that the plaintiff will appear compared to victims of white perpetrators (the
reference group in this analysis).
Permanent Restraining Orders
Table 6 displays the logistic regression analysis of the likelihood of receiving a
permanent restraining order. In this table, there are no variables that yield significance. In
this analysis the number of cases (n = 105) has been greatly reduced due to multiple
factors such as the high level of non-appearance at a hearing (only 37.1% of black
plaintiffs, 66.0% Hispanic, 65.0% other, and 52.8% white attended) and the high rates of
granting the PRO to only those who appear and request the order (88.7%). It is the
combination of the high non-appearance and limited distribution on the dependent
variable that makes it difficult to attain significance in this logistic regression model.
23
Table 6. Logistic Regression Analysis of Likelihood of PRO Granted
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Delay in filing
Black
Hispanic
Other
Married/ RDP1 (Present)
Perpetrator Sex
Police Responded
-2 Log Likelihood = 66.254
Model Chi-Square = 8.377
Df = 7
Sig = .301
*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
a = one tail
b =two tail
N = 105
1
RDP = (Registered Domestic Partners)
.022
-.414
1.182
-.803
-1.438
-1.249
-.416
.686
.825
1.153
.976
.740
.724
.687
1.022
.661
3.261
.448
.237
.287
.659
24
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION 1, 2
Sacramento County
The race/ethnic distribution of Sacramento County population and the sample
vary. According to the data in table 2, African American perpetrators of intimate abuse
are severely overrepresented in the requests for civil restraining orders, whereas whites
are slightly underrepresented. Hispanics are approximately equal between the sample and
Sacramento County population. Whites in Sacramento County represent 51.4% of the
population, while in the sample, they represent 46.4%. On the other hand, African
Americans are overrepresented by a factor of 3, because in Sacramento County they
represent 9.8% of the population and 26% of the sample. The trend of overrepresentation
in the African American community is consistent with the literature. For example, when
comparing the victimization rates of different racial and ethnic groups, Buzawa et al.
(2012:43) found that African Americans had four times the rate of IPV compared to
Whites and intimate partner violence victimizes African Americans at rates significantly
higher than most other groups. Since we do not have social economic status data, we
cannot conclude that the overrepresentation of African Americans is solely based upon
1
The category of race/ethnicity called “other” will not be included in the discussion portion of this study.
The analysis of the group “other” race/ ethnicity is not possible due to the diverse characteristics of the
group. If analysis was done on this group, it would render substantively meaningless.
2
Discussion of bivariate analysis is also not included because it has been deemed unnecessary. The purpose
and crucial issue regarding the bivariate analysis was to determine if the variables hold up in the
multivariate analysis.
25
their race/ ethnicity. The overrepresentation could be due to a class issue caused by the
overrepresentation of African Americans among the poor population. As Buzawa,
Buzawa and Stark (2012) state “many minority groups, including African Americans,
seem to be at an increased risk for abuse… the higher observed rates of domestic
violence between some ethnic and racial minority groups is simply attributable to higher
rates of poverty (110).” Lastly, Hispanics represent 18.0% of the Sacramento County
population and 18.5% of the sample. This data is not consistent with the literature.
Buzawa et al. (2012:43) states that Mexican-born women reported rates similar to
African American women when it comes to IPV victimization. Hypothesis 1, Victims of
African Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented in the requests for civil restraining
orders whereas Whites are underrepresented, based on Sacramento County
demographics, is largely but not wholly supported in this study. There could be various
reasons for the comparative underrepresentation of Hispanic plaintiffs. Kingsnorth and
MacIntosh (2004) suggest that if the victim is an immigrant, either undocumented or
whose immigrant status depends on their spouse, fear of deportation adds weight to the
decision not to come forward. Thus, underreporting by undocumented Hispanics could
be the reason for this finding.
Temporary Restraining Orders
For the analysis of the likelihood of receiving a temporary restraining order, many
variables were significant, but race/ethnicity failed to attain this standard. When
conducting a two tailed test, the delay in filing, perpetrator sex, and currently married/
registered domestic partners achieved significance. When conducting a one tailed test, the
26
variable of violence achieved significance. The variable of police responding to an
incident of abuse and its effect on the likelihood of receiving a temporary restraining
order approaches significance in a one tailed test.
The most significant variable in this analysis is violence level. It was found that if
the case had a violence level of “more severe” the odds of being granted a temporary
restraining order is 7 times greater than a case with “less severe” violence. This is
consistent with the social science literature which underscores the importance of offense
severity in accounting for case outcomes. As Walker (2010) found in his study, case
outcomes were affected primarily by offense severity and offenders’ prior records.
It was also found that if the plaintiff and perpetrator were married at the time of
filing, their odds of receiving a temporary restraining order were reduced by 52.1%. This
outcome could be because the judge saw the case as a family issue and referred it to
family court. If there were children involved in the marriage, this could especially be the
case since custody issues could be implicated. The judge could feel it would be best
resolved in a separate hearing in family court.
If there was a delay in filing, more than three days from the last incident of abuse,
the odds of receiving a temporary restraining order were reduced by 55.7%. This could be
because the judge saw the issue as not an immediate threat, or not a threat at all since the
plaintiff waited longer to file.
In the analysis of the likelihood of receiving a temporary restraining order, race/
ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator did not prove to be significant. Therefore, there are no
27
racial/ethnic differences in the judicial decision to grant temporary restraining orders and
Hypothesis 2 is supported.
Hearings
While a logistic regression was not specifically included in this study for the
likelihood of receiving a permanent restraining order hearing, it was determined that the
outcome is very similar to the likelihood of receiving a temporary restraining order
because a person receives a hearing when they receive a temporary restraining order. If
the table was included it would be virtually identical to the table for the logistic
regression for temporary restraining orders. In this study a total of 258 temporary
restraining orders were granted and 278 hearing dates were given (including the 258 who
received a TRO). Due to the fact there is little difference between the two groups, there is
also little difference statistically. Since it was found with temporary restraining orders, it
is also found that there are no perpetrator racial/ethnic differences in the judicial decision
to grant permanent restraining order hearings and Hypothesis 3 is supported.
Appearance at Hearings
In this section we analyze plaintiff appearance rates by race/ethnicity. One
difficulty that cannot be resolved with this sample is that the Sacramento County Court
System does not collect information on the race/ethnicity of the plaintiff, only the
respondent (i.e. alleged perpetrator). This limitation is important and is discussed further
in the concluding section of this study.
The analysis of table 5 only displays one statistically significant finding. The
odds are twice as great that victims of Hispanic perpetrators will appear compared to
28
victims of white perpetrators. Based on other data from this study, plaintiffs in cases
involving Hispanic perpetrators were most likely to be co-parents (57.9%), be
married/registered domestic partners at the time of filing (43.9%), the police responded
most often to incidents of abuse (66.7%) and most often wanted to also protect a child
with the restraining order (68.4%).
From the above statistics we can explore various possibilities of reasoning for the
outcome. The victims of Hispanic abusers can be seen as having more factors at stake
(i.e. marriage and children). They could be seen as more invested in process (i.e. wanting
to protect children and the police responding to an incident of abuse). In other words,
these victims may feel the need to follow through with the process because they were
more embedded in complex family relations reducing their options for terminating the
abuse.
Based on the overall analysis, Hypothesis 4 which states that the rates of
appearance for permanent restraining order hearings (i.e. withdrawal from the CRO
process) are lower for victims of African Americans and Hispanics than for Whites is not
supported.
Permanent Restraining Orders
For the analysis of the likelihood of receiving a permanent restraining order, none
of the variables had predictive value. The variable of married/ registered domestic
partners at the time of filing closely approached significance (.052). With a larger sample
than was available here (n=105), the variable of married/registered domestic partners
(present) may become significant at .05. If it were significant, it would mean being
29
married/registered domestic partners at the time of filing would decrease the likelihood of
a permanent restraining order. This outcome could be because the judge believed the
issues between the married/ registered domestic partners could be better resolved in
family court, especially if children were involved.
In table 6 the variable of violence is not included in the analysis. The violence
variable could not be included in the logistic regression model because all of the “more
severe” violence level cases with the eligibility to be granted a permanent restraining
order were granted an order. Again, if the sample of cases was larger and if one or more
high severity cases were denied a permanent restraining order, results may be different.
Hypothesis 5 which states that there are no perpetrator racial/ethnic differences in the
judicial decision to grant permanent restraining orders is supported in this study based on
the analysis.
30
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The primary goal of this study is to determine if racial discrimination exists in the
intimate partner violence civil restraining order process in Sacramento County. The
secondary goal is to identify any racial/ethnic difference in rates of plaintiff appearance at
permanent restraining order hearings. There is no other research of this kind, and this
study can open many doors for other future work on the topic. There has been
considerable research conducted regarding criminal court proceedings and discrimination
but not about civil court proceedings and discrimination.
With this methodology one possible limitation may include that the sample is
derived from only one court. If the study looked at various courts, the findings could be
more generalized. Another limitation is that this study does not examine same-sex cases;
examining same-sex cases could open up new opportunities for research. Further
research can be done on race/ethnicity and civil courts. The current study only examines
the race/ethnicity of the perpetrator in the CRO cases- not the plaintiff. If plaintiff
race/ethnicity was a variable that was available to examine, it could provide a deeper look
at the topic of race/ ethnicity and the restraining order process. One issue to determine,
for example, is whether judges respond differently to different race/ethnicity couples than
to same race/ethnicity couples.
This random sample in the current research included cases overseen by 8 different
judges in Sacramento County, but a majority of the cases were the workload of one
judge. It is difficult to generalize these findings not only because they are from one court,
31
but because a majority of the cases were decided by one judge (87.7%) and these results
could be a product of an overrepresented judge.
32
APPENDICES
33
APPENDIX A
Categories and Codes
Dependent Variables
Temporary Restraining Order Granted
Yes=1
No=0
Hearing Granted
Yes=1
No=0
Plaintiff Appeared at PRO hearing
Yes=1
No=0
Permanent Restraining Order Granted
Yes=1
No=0
Delay in Fling (more than 3 days)
Yes=1
No=0
Other Recent Abuse
Yes=1
No=0
Parents Together of Child
Yes=1
No=0
Perpetrator Age
18-63
Plaintiff Has Other Court Case
Yes=1
No=0
Plaintiff Has Other Restraining Order Case
Yes=1
No=0
Plaintiff Sex
Female=1
Male=0
Police Responded
Yes=1
No=0
Protection for Child
Yes=1
No=0
Protection for Other
Yes=1
No=0
White
Yes=1
No=0
African American
Yes=1
No=0
Hispanic
Yes=1
No=0
Other
Yes=1
No=0
Independent Variables (Alphabetically)
Race/Ethnicity
34
Relationship Status
Married/Domestic Partners
Yes=1
No=0
Was Married/Domestic Partners
Yes=1
No=0
Living Together
Yes=1
No=0
Was Living Together
Yes=1
No=0
Second Recent Abuse
Yes=1
No=0
Violence Level (More Severe)
Yes=1
No=0
35
REFERENCES
Basile, Steve. 2005. “A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection.” Journal
of Family Violence 20(3):171-179
Buzawa, Eve S. and Carl G. Buzawa. 2003. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice
Response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Buzawa, Eve S., Carl G. Buzawa and Evan D. Stark. 2012. Responding to Domestic
Violence: The Integration of Criminal Justice and Human Services. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Catalano, Shannan. 2012. “Intimate Partner Violence 1993-2010.” U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved August 20, 2013
(http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf).
Diviney, Charles L., Asha Parekh, and Lenora M. Olson. 2009. “Outcomes of Civil
Protective Orders Results From One State.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence
24(7):1209-1221
Harrell, Adele, and Barbara E. Smith. 1996. “Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic
Violence Victims.” Pp. 214-242 in Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work?
Edited by E.S. Buzawa and C.G. Buzawa. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Kingsnorth, Rodney F., Randall C. MacIntosh, Terceira Berdahl, Carrie Blades and Steve
Rossi. 2001. “Domestic Violence: The Role of Interracial/Ethnic Dyads in
Criminal Court Processing.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 17(2):
123-141.
36
Kingsnorth, Rodney F. and Randall C. MacIntosh. 2004. “Domestic Violence: Predictors
of Victim Support for Official Action.” Justice Quarterly 21(2):301-328
Kingsnorth, Rodney F., Lynne Wolcott, and Kaitlyn Lonnquist. 2013. “The Influence of
Plaintiff Gender on the Judicial Decision to Grant Civil Restraining Orders: A
Replication and Analysis.” Violence Against Women 19(5):579-601
Klein, Andrew R. 1996 “Re-Abuse in a Population of Court-Restrained Male Batterers:
Why Restraining Orders Don’t Work.” Pp. 192-213 in Do Arrests and
Restraining Orders Work? Edited by E.S. Buzawa and C.G. Buzawa. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Logan, TK, Robert Walker, Lisa Shannon, and Jennifer Cole. 2008. “Factors Associated
with Separation and Ongoing Violence among Women with Civil Protective
Orders.” Journal of Family Violence 23:377–385
Logan, TK, and Robert Walker. 2009. “Civil Protective Order Outcomes: Violations and
Perceptions of Effectiveness.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24(4):675-692
Muller, Henry J., Sarah L. Desmarais, and John M. Hamel. 2009. “Do Judicial Responses
to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic
Violence?” Journal of Family Violence 24:625–637
Neubauer, David W., and Henry F. Fradella. 2011. America’s Courts and the Criminal
Justice System. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Postmus, Judy L. 2007. “Challenging the Negative Assumptions Surrounding Civil
Protection Orders: A Guide for Advocates.” Affilia: Journal of Women and Social
Work 22(4):347-356
37
Roberts, James C., Loreen Wolfer, and Marie Mele. 2008. “Why Victims of Intimate
Partner Violence Withdraw Protection Orders.” Journal of Family Violence
23:369–375
Walker, Samuel. 2011. Sense and Non-sense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.