The Economic Costs of Partner Violence and the Cost-Benefit of Civil Protective Orders

Abstract

Partner violence affects a significant number of women and their children each year. Estimates of the economic costs of partner violence are substantial. However, most estimates of the costs of partner violence are made at the aggregate level rather than the individual level. Estimating costs at the individual level allows for a wider range of costs of partner violence to be considered. This study is one of the first to examine a wide range of economic costs of partner violence and to examine the economic costs and cost-benefits of civil protective orders. Overall, including changes in quality of life, protective orders were estimated to have saved taxpayers in one small state US$85 million in a 1-year period. More generally, this study provides a framework to address more specific complexities associated with cost-benefit analyses of partner violence and the impact of justice system interventions.

Keywords

The individual and social consequences of partner violence are widespread and have significant implications for social and public policy (Logan, Walker, Jordan, & Leukefeld, 2006). Several interventions to address partner violence have been implemented through the criminal justice system including specialized domestic violence courts, coordinated community responses, mandatory arrest and prosecution policies, and court-ordered batterer treatment (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). Civil protective orders (POs) have also been used as a court intervention to address partner violence; however, unlike criminal processes, civil POs are more of a preventive measure—the goal being to prevent future violence rather than punish for past acts of violence or to intervene where violence may not have yet occurred but may be eminent (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). It is only after the civil injunction has been violated that the criminal justice system becomes involved. Having a civil PO may facilitate a more positive response from the criminal justice system, as the violent acts constitute a violation of the court’s order.

Research on PO effectiveness, typically defined by a violation of a PO, suggests that for the vast majority of women POs either stop or reduce violence. Specifically, previous studies report, between 30% and 77% of POs issued for partner violence are not violated (Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999; Harrell & Smith, 1996; Keilitz, Efkeman, & Hannaford, 1997; Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006; Logan & Walker 2009a, 2009b; McFarlane et al., 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Furthermore, two recent studies found that even among those women who experienced PO violations, there was a significant reduction in incidence of abuse and violence (Logan & Walker, 2009a, 2009b). Thus, POs appear to significantly reduce violence and abuse for the majority of women who obtained them. Also, the vast majority of women with POs had significantly reduced fear and indicated that they believed the PO was effective for them. One gap in the research on POs is the trade-off of the cost of interventions versus costs associated with changes in harm from violence and abuse before and after the intervention is implemented. This article adds to the literature on PO effectiveness by examining cost of partner violence and economic benefits of POs to both the individual victims and the society at large. Thus, this article also expands the framework and justification for social investment in enhanced protective services for partner violence victims by showing not only gains to the individual victims but also to society from civil POs.

In general, very few evaluations of partner violence interventions examine economic impact. More specifically, there has been limited examination of the costs of partner violence before and after a PO has been obtained. Current governmental policy considerations make it increasingly important to understand costs and benefits of POs, because law enforcement and court resources are limited and allocating resources to one crime type may limit resources for another (Logan, Walker, Hoyt, & Faragher, 2009). In other words, not only should programs be assessed as to what works, but should also be assessed for what works at what cost. Determining the economic impact of policies and programs is important in making decisions about the overall effectiveness and efficiency of policies.

Because partner violence affects so many different areas of life, costs of partner violence to the individual victim and to society must be assessed comprehensively. For example, partner violence has a significant impact on physical and mental health, so costs of health service utilization are important to consider. Several studies suggest that women exposed to partner violence use physical and mental health care at higher rates than those not exposed to partner violence (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2009; Coker, Reeder, Fadden, & Smith, 2004; Jones et al., 2006; Rivara et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 2003; Wisner, Gilmer, Saltzman, & Zink, 1999). Lost earnings from employment have also been identified as a significant cost of partner violence victimization (Arias & Corso, 2005; Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004; Miller, Cohen & Wiersema, 1996). However, there are a number of other costs associated with partner violence, although they are more difficult to assess, including victim services use, property damage or loss, and criminal justice system costs.

Another significant cost incurred for all crime victims, and particularly victims of partner violence, is the impact on victim quality of life. The impact of partner violence on quality of life translates into significant financial costs but in more complex and often long-term ways. What is difficult is the assignment of monetary values to these effects of violence; however, a failure to do so means that the impact of partner violence on quality of life are not considered as a salient factor in global social policy. Thus, it is critical to account in some way for the impact on an individual’s quality of life, and for the purposes of this study an economic approach was used (Cohen & Miller, 1998; Dolan, Loomes, Peasgood, & Tsuchiya, 2005; Max et al., 2004; Miller et al., 1996).

The overall goal of this article was to examine the economic impact of POs after accounting for the costs associated with POs. Specifically, this article describes, (a) a wide range of costs associated with partner violence 6 months before and 6 months after the PO was obtained; (b) the average differences in costs associated with partner violence before and after the PO; (c) avoided costs of partner violence relative to PO intervention costs (i.e., benefits or cost savings of POs); and, (d) estimates of the statewide impact of avoided costs relative to the costs of a PO.

Method

Sample

Data used for this article were collected as part of a larger study examining civil PO effectiveness (Logan et al., 2009). Overall, 213 women were recruited out of court from five jurisdictions (one urban and four rural) when they obtained a PO against a male intimate partner (PO partner) between June 2006 and August 2007. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be (a) female, (b) 18 years and older, (c) planning on staying in or close to the recruitment jurisdiction for the next 6 months, and (d) without a PO against that same male intimate partner for at least 6 months prior to the new PO. Women also completed the baseline interview within 6 weeks of obtaining their PO (baseline data were obtained an average of 3 weeks after obtaining the PO). Women were followed-up at 3 and 6 months after receiving the PO (99% follow-up rate), for a final sample of 210 women.

For the state in which the study was conducted, the PO process is typically two-fold. First, victims petition the court for an emergency PO (EPO) that must be signed by the judge and served to both the petitioner and the respondent before the order is in effect. Each individual EPO cannot exceed 14 days; however, a new EPO can be reissued to the same parties indefinitely. Getting the order served is often problematic, because the EPO and the next phase of the PO cannot be completed until both parties are served. The next step involves a hearing, where a judge hears both parties to the petition and then issues a domestic violence order (DVO) if there is a finding of partner violence and justification for the order. The DVO can be issued for up to 3 years. Throughout the report, PO is used to refer to the civil PO when referring to the general process of POs (EPOs and DVOs). The DVO term will be used to refer to the longer term or full order, and EPO will be used to refer to the temporary order.

Estimates of Costs Incurred

Procedure

A life history calendar was used in the victim interviews to anchor important events over the course of the 12 months of the study (6 months before the DVO and the 6 months after the DVO). Women were asked direct questions about each cost category (e.g., services used to cope with the abuse for each month). Monthly assessments and anchoring time with key life events were done to facilitate recall as well as to help women try to identify specific service use (e.g., health, mental health) that was directly associated with the abuse and distinct from service use that was unrelated to the abuse.

Specific cost categories

Participants reported health service utilization for doctor visits, dental visits, emergency room visits, urgent treatment care, hospital use, ambulance, and physical therapy visits each month. Participants were also asked about use of mental health services during each month by asking about visits to mental health counselors, psychiatrists, marriage counselors, ministerial counselors, and participation in group therapy for mental health or substance abuse and residential substance-abuse treatment. Costs were developed for each type of health or mental health visit. The costs associated with victim services were assessed for use of victim advocate, crisis line, in-person crisis counselor, and nights in a domestic violence shelter or a homeless shelter. Use of legal services including private attorneys and legal aid attorneys was assessed.

The number of times that women reported talking to the police and the number of nights victims reported the perpetrator was in jail before and after the DVO was used along with information from court records. Charges and convictions were extracted from official court records for the time period of study. Jail time was extracted from jail records for four of the five counties. Similar estimates were obtained when victim reported offender jail time was compared with official records, thus, the victim reported estimates were used, as official jail data were not available for one county.

Women were asked a series of questions about time missed from work as well as time away from other family and civic responsibilities including household chores, childcare, other family care, school, and volunteer activities due to the abuse. The value of lost or damaged property for each month was reported. Transportation costs directly related to court, prosecution, or other justice system activities were assessed.

Women were also asked to describe the number of days that they experienced serious stress, depression, or anxiety due to the abuse for the 6 months prior to and 6 months after the PO was issued. The maximum number of days for any one of the three conditions was used as an index of the negative impact on quality of life.

Cost sources

The next step of the economic evaluation was to attach specific dollar values for each reported incurred cost associated with partner violence. Local and state data were used wherever possible. Specific details of the cost sources and actual costs attached to each service are described elsewhere (Logan et al., 2009). To create an estimated value for the cost of a day of stress, anxiety, or depression due to the abuse (Quality of Life Index), the cost of an outpatient visit to a mental health professional was used (average of US$106.60). Although this proxy may be questioned, in the absence of an established quality of life cost barometer, this proxy provides one way to economically quantify the impact of abuse on quality of life. This cost estimate is assumed to be a conservative estimate and does not account for any prescription medication that women may have been taking to reduce stress, anxiety, or depression due to the abuse. Furthermore, it is well documented that sustained periods of stress, anxiety, or depression have a significant impact on health and other areas of life (Logan, Walker, et al., 2006).

Analysis of the cost of partner violence

Prior to the analysis, costs were adjusted for inflation and standardized, so they are consistent with prices in 2007. The Consumer Price Index for all goods produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) was used to make inflation adjustments (http://www.bls.gov/cpi). To reduce the number of different cost categories used in the analysis, costs were aggregated by related services or other functions. Specifically, nine cost categories were used: health service costs; mental health service costs; victim service costs; legal fees; police and justice system costs; employment and lost earnings; family and civic responsibilities; transportation and lost property; and, Quality of Life Index.

The means of several cost categories were skewed by extreme outliers. In these cases, the means were adjusted so that for any individual whose cost was above the 95%, the outlier value of their reported cost was replaced with the cost at the 95% level. These adjustments were made for health and mental health service use, family and civic responsibility loss, and the Quality of Life Index. Although this adjustment reduced costs, it was done for both costs before and after the issuance of the PO and did not have any significant impact on the difference in total costs. The total sample used in the analysis was 209. One participant was excluded from the analysis because she had very high costs due to longer term care from a psychiatric inpatient facility before and after the PO was obtained and was an outlier from the rest of the sample.

Cost of a PO

The costs of an EPO and a DVO in the state the study was done were estimated and reported previously (Logan et al., 2004; Logan, Hoyt, & Leukefeld, 2001). These estimates were revised and updated with the help of key-court personnel including the urban family court administrator, supervisor for the district court clerks, chief family court judge, the sheriffs office, and the assistant director for the domestic violence shelter who also worked in the County Sherriff’s office with domestic violence cases for over 9 years. Once the estimates were developed, they were reviewed by the Family Court Administrator and three family court judges. Changes were made accordingly. Overall, on average, the PO cost was US$354.37. Because the police as well as charges and convictions can be and are incurred with or without a PO, these costs were included as separate cost categories rather than as part of the PO cost.

Results

Average Utilization and Losses

Table 1 shows the proportion of the sample that reported any use of physical and mental health services, and for those who used a service, the average number of times the service was used. Overall, the number of women using health and mental health services actually increased slightly after the PO. Even though there were some slight increases in utilization, it is important to note that only about one third of the participants used any kind of mental health services before or after the DVO was issued.

Table 1.

Victim and Social Costs^a

	Use 6 Months Before (n = 209)	Use 6 Months After (n = 209)
Health service use	66%	76.1%
Average visits or use of all services	4	4.8
Mental health service use	30.6%	33%
Average visits or use of all services	14.6	15.9
Victim service use	36.8%	33%
Average visits or use of all services	5.6	9.5
Any lost time from work	37.3%	12%
Total number of hours	15.6	36.2
Any lost time from family or civic responsibilities	15.8%	34.9%
Total number of hours	126	55
Lost property	45.9%	11.4%
Average value of that property	US$1,114.05	US$1,568.35
Transportation costs	99%	14.4%
Average number of costs	US$31.78	US$59.05
Health related quality of life	98.6%	93.3%
Average days of distress	129.59	85.58

Average visits/days/hours/values are only reported for those with any use and are adjusted at the 95th percentile for outliers.

Victim support or advocacy service use decreased slightly, but again, only about one third of the sample reported using any advocacy or other victim services before or after the DVO. However, the number of times victims services was higher during the 6 months after the DVO was obtained compared with the 6 months before.

Table 1 also shows time lost from work and other responsibilities. Overall, there was a decline in the number of women reporting missing time from work, but a rise in the number of women reporting lost time from other family and civic duties. Those who reported lost time from work after the DVO, reported more hrs of time lost. This trend holds for transportation and property losses as well. However, those who reported lost time from other family and civic duties, reported a fewer number of hrs, on average, than those who lost time 6 months before the DVO.

For quality of life, there is a slight decrease in the number of women reporting any stress, depression, or anxiety from the abuse from the 6 months before to the 6-months after the DVO. Of those who reported any days of distress, there is a decline in the average number of days distress was experienced due to the abuse after the DVO was issued.

As Table 2 indicates, legal services increased from the 6 months before to the 6 months after the PO issuance. Victims’ use of the police declined greatly for the 6 months after the DVO was issued. There were also fewer misdemeanor arrests during the follow-up period than for the 6 months before the DVO was issued, but misdemeanor convictions were higher during the follow-up period.

Table 2.

Legal and Justice System Costs

	Use 6 Months Before(n = 209)	Use 6 Months After (n = 209)
Legal	25.4%	40.7%
Average visits with legal aid or private attorney	3.3	6.9
Justice system costs
Police	81.3%	35.4%
Average number of times	2.31	3.28
Jail	44.5%	40.7%
Average number of nights	18.54	54.31
Contempt of court DVO violations	0%	9.6%
Average number of times	0	1
Felony charges/arrest	11%	10.5%
Average number of charges	1.57	1.91
Misdemeanor charges/arrests	41.6%	27.8%
Average number of charges	2	2.53
Felony conviction	1.4%	3.3%
Average number of convictions	1	1.57
Misdemeanor conviction	19.1%	33%
Average number of convictions	1.78	1.94

Costs Before and After the DVO and Differences in Costs

Table 3 shows the overall average costs for each of the nine cost categories for the 6 months before and the 6 months after the DVO was issued along with the average difference. Total costs before the DVO were, on average, almost US$17,500 and approximately US$12,800 after the DVO for each participant. By far, the largest costs are associated with quality of life with these averaging approximately US$13,400 before the DVO and US$8,500 after the DVO.

Table 3.

Average 6-Month Before and After Costs by Cost Category

				90% CI for Differences
	Average Costs 6 Months Before	Average Costs 6 Months After	Difference Between Costs Before and After	LL	UL
Health services	1,613.16	1,889.71	276.53	−93.15	646.21
Mental health services	309.55	234.89	−74.65	−133.44	−15.86
Victim services	17.07	20.37	3.30	−2.90	9.49
Lost time from work	53.57	34.15	−19.42	−45.77	6.93
Lost time from family or civic responsibilities	102.23	70.06	−32.17	−59.80	−4.53
Lost property and transportation costs	493.20	193.52	−299.67	−504.39	−94.96
Health related quality of life costs	13,428.05	8,537.56	−4,890.49	−5,819.61	−3,961.37
Legal costs	30.05	70.52	40.48	26.78	54.17
Criminal justice system costs	1,432.22	1,762.78	330.57	−15.09	676.22

Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Overall, there was a reduction in individual victim costs with an average of US$4,665 per victim. When looking at the cost category differences, there was a dramatic reduction in the costs associated with the quality of life. Smaller reductions in costs were associated with lost property and transportation, mental health services, and family and civic responsibilities. Categories in which costs increased after the DVO include health services, criminal justice system costs, victim services, and legal fees.

Avoided Costs Relative to PO Costs

To estimate the avoided costs relative to PO costs, the costs of partner violence were estimated for a 1-year period assuming the same rate of costs incurred, both before and after the issue of the DVO. Specifically, the costs for a year before the DVO was issued and a year after the DVO was issued were assumed to be twice the costs for 6 months before and 6 months after for each of the cost categories. Relative costs can be expressed as the ratio of avoided costs to PO costs or reduction in costs per US$1.00 of PO costs. This is essentially producing a benefit-cost ratio, in which, the benefits are the reductions in costs from before to after the issuance of the DVO, and the cost is the PO cost. A ratio exceeding one would indicate benefits (avoided costs) exceeding PO costs. For the entire sample, this measure is quite large—US$30.75 of avoided costs per US$1.00 of PO costs. Thus, for every US$1 spent on the PO intervention there is US$30.75 in avoided costs or costs that would have been expected based on the estimated costs of partner violence 6 months before the PO, if there had been no PO intervention.

Estimating the Statewide Impact

As a final measure of the impacts of DVOs on costs to victims of partner violence, the estimates of the differences in costs before and after the issuance of a DVO were extrapolated from the sample to the state population of victims with DVOs issued in a 1-year period. For this estimate, it is assumed that the same pattern of pre- and postorder characteristics would hold true throughout the state. Of course, this assumes a similar population of victims and perpetrators in addition to similar enforcement of DVO and costs. Thus, these estimates should be interpreted with caution; however, the study design including small rural as well as urban populations mitigates this generalizability concern.

In FY 2007, there were 11,212 DVOs issued (Kentucky State Police, 2008). Although there is no way to know what proportion of these were female victims of male perpetrators, the number was adjusted by taking 15% of that population for male victims consistent with what U.S. Department of Justice estimated (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). This leaves an estimated 9,531 DVOs that were issued in 2007. When cost estimates are applied to the entire population of victims, the reduction in costs after the issuance of the DVO is extremely large—US$85.5 million.

Discussion

There are three major themes that emerged from these findings. First, consistent with prior research, violence and abuse takes a significant economic toll on a victim’s life, even within a very short time period as this study used. Second, relative to the toll that partner abuse takes on a victim’s life, the cost of a PO to the justice system and to taxpayers is small. Third, there are significant savings to society from civil POs in the form of avoided costs of partner violence to victims and to taxpayers in one small state.

Study results are consistent with other literature suggesting that partner violence exacts a significant toll on victims, and the harm from partner violence can be quantified in economic terms (Max et al., 2004; Miller et al., 1996). However, this study also suggests the cost of a PO to the justice system and to taxpayers, especially compared with the cost of partner violence, is relatively low. So, POs are not only effective in stopping or reducing violence for many women who have obtained one (Logan & Walker, 2009a, 2009b; Logan et al., 2009) but also cost-efficient. In fact, when the study estimates were extrapolated from the sample to the population of victims with POs, DVOs issued in 2007 saved taxpayers in one small state just more than US$85 million for a 1-year period. This is expected to be a conservative estimate of cost savings. The combined effect of positive improvements in terms of less violence after the order, coupled with the avoided costs suggest that POs are both effective and efficient—a positive factor to consider during periods of strapped public financial resources.

When examining individual costs, it is important to note that there were a few costs that increased overtime including health care and overall criminal justice system costs. Health care costs may have increased, because women may have had more time or freedom to go to the doctor or to the dentist after the DVO was issued. However, there may have been injuries from the EPO incident that required ongoing treatment which would have increased costs. For criminal justice system costs, it is likely that some of the charges that were made in the 6-months before the DVO was issued including those associated with the EPO were turned into convictions in the follow-up period which may have slightly inflated costs in this category for the follow-up. At the same time, the number of victims talking to police and the number of misdemeanor charges dropped during the 6-month period after the PO was obtained. These particular cost categories need more investigation to better understand the patterns of criminal justice system use overtime.

Furthermore, it is clear that the Quality of Life Index was the largest cost and showed the largest reductions after the DVO was issued. This finding is of great importance to policy development, because many social and justice interventions may be costly with little net gain to society, but they are often done because they are seen as necessary or morally justifiable. In the case of POs, when quality of life costs are factored in, the net savings to victims and society go up substantially.

This study presents an opportunity to examine economic costs and benefits associated with partner violence and civil POs. However, this study also has a number of limitations. One was that the estimates of costs were primarily based on self-reported measures of service utilization and may represent overestimates or underestimates. It is also sometimes difficult for victims to attribute services or losses specifically to the violence and abuse. Although every attempt was made methodologically and by interviewers to focus participants on the most relevant costs, it is difficult to know whether some costs related to the abuse were forgotten whereas others that were reported as related to the abuse may have been incurred regardless of the abuse such as a preventive doctor visit.

It is also challenging to assign an accurate and justifiable cost to each service type, and the cost sources used may have under- or overestimated specific costs. Also, the cost of an arrest/charge and conviction is extremely problematic. Unfortunately, there has been no careful cost study done of arrests, charges, and convictions, so estimates of these costs were used from Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006), one of the more valid studies of these estimates.

Clearly, enforcement of the PO is a critical piece of the PO intervention—it is assumed that with a PO comes a stronger response from the criminal justice system to ongoing partner violence and abuse. However, there are problems linking charges and convictions specifically related to the PO. First, police and justice system costs were incurred before the DVO was issued and may have been incurred in the absence of a DVO. So, the police and justice system cost were included as costs before and after the DVO was issued rather than as a part of the PO intervention. Second, specific charges and convictions related to a DVO violation can vary widely, and the court data do not always provide careful linking of the two events. Thus, the official data may or may not be specifically noted as a domestic violence related charge (e.g., terroristic threatening, trespassing, harassing communications are common domestic violence related charges but can also be charged in other situations).

Another limitation is related to the estimate and value of the Quality of Life Index. Quantifying the impact of abuse and violence on the quality of life is very difficult, especially at the individual level. Some studies have used “willingness-to-pay” methodologies and others have used jury awards (Cohen, 2001) to estimate pain and suffering from crime. The estimate of quality of life in this study struck a balance between methods that yield a very high cost (jury awards) and methods that might yield lower costs. It is important to remember that individual variations in health and mental health consequences to violence are very great. Although this study accounted for individual variations, this method was not without limitations. The second step in the process, assigning a value to the Quality of Life Index, is also limited. The cost of a mental health visit was used which was basically about US$100 per day of distress. It is difficult to know whether this is a fair or accurate estimate of the impact on a women’s quality of life due to constant abuse, harassment, and violence. This is another area that needs more research.

As mentioned previously, results of the generalization of costs from this sample to the population of victims with DVOs in the whole state should be interpreted with some caution. This estimate was only for those who were issued a DVO in a 1-year period and does not consider savings or reduced costs for a longer follow-up period, or for those who had POs issued previously but that were in effect during that year.

There are several arguments that are often brought up to diminish the importance of the findings in this study. One argument often mentioned is that there was no control group, thus, assessing causal attribution is difficult. In evaluating POs, it is obviously not ethical to randomly assign or ask women to wait for a PO. Even if a study like that were to take place, fidelity to the group of assignment would likely be a problem. POs are also requested by victims who are ready to obtain them, so finding a group who do not request them for comparison purposes would also have limitations. A second argument is that it is difficult to only attribute change to the PO when victims access a variety of services to cope with the abuse. This is clearly true as indicated by the variety of services victims accessed the year prior to obtaining the PO. Also, it must be noted and considered in the cost estimates that victims use services both before and after the PO was obtained. However, in response to both arguments, it should be noted that there was a relatively drastic reduction of abuse and subsequent costs in a relatively short period of time. Thus, it is reasonable to attribute the drastic change, in large part, to the PO intervention. Furthermore, although not discussed in this article, other analysis of costs from this data show that costs reductions are relative to the level of ongoing violence. More specifically, there is a linear relationship of ongoing violence and costs. Half of the sample experienced no violations, and this group had the greatest reduction in costs associated with partner violence overtime. Those who experienced ongoing violations (an average of 7) also had a substantial reduction in costs although not as much as the no-violation group. However, those who experienced ongoing violations and stalking (an average of 18 violations) had almost no reduction in costs (Logan et al., 2009; Logan, Walker, & Hoyt, 2011). This is due, in large part, to the limited change (or increase in use) before and after the PO in use of physical and mental health services and the use of justice system services for stalking victims.

This study advances knowledge about how POs serve victim interests for improved safety, and at the same time, serves society’s interests in cost efficient and effective interventions. For many, the fact that civil POs do provide relief from violence and abuse for many women is a welcome message, and one that has been noted in the research literature for several years (Logan, Shannon, et al., 2006). Within the described limitations, this study also provides a roadmap for examining avoided costs for other victim-safety policies. This study examined costs of partner violence and benefits associated with a justice system intervention at the individual level. This is an important distinction as many cost estimates are done at the aggregate level (Cohen, 1999, 2005). Furthermore, the inclusion of an index to examine changes to the quality of life adds a critical element to the understanding of how violence affects victims and society at large. Thus, one additional contribution of this study is that it provides a framework or foundation to begin to address more specific complexities associated with cost-benefit analyses of partner violence and the justice system interventions.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The research in this article was supported by the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 2005WGBX0008). The statements expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the National Institute of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice.

References

Aos

Miller

Drake

(2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Arias

Corso

(2005). Average cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of the opposite gender: A comparison of men and women. Violence and Victims, 20, 379-391.

Bonomi

Anderson

Rivara

Thompson

(2009). Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Services Research, 44, 1052-1067.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007, July). May 2007 state occupational employment and wage estimates: Kentucky. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ky.htm#b21-0000

Buzawa

(2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Carlson

Harris

Holden

(1999). Protective orders and domestic violence: Risk factors for re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 205-226.

Cohen

Miller

(1998). The cost of mental health care for victims of crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 93-110.

Cohen

(1999). The crime victim’s perspective in cost-benefit analysis: The importance of monetizing tangible and intangible crime costs. In Welsh

Farrington

Sherman

(Eds.), Costs and benefits of preventing crime (pp. 23-50). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Cohen

(2001). Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice. Criminal Justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 263-315). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

10.

Cohen

(2005). The costs of crime and justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Coker

Reeder

Fadden

Smith

(2004). Physical partner violence and Medicaid utilization and expenditures. Public Health Reports, 119, 557-567.

12.

DeJong

Burgess-Proctor

(2006). A summary of personal protection order statutes in the United States. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 68-88.

13.

Dolan

Loomes

Peasgood

Tsuchiya

(2005). Estimating the intangible victim costs of violent crime. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 958-956.

14.

Harrell

Smith

(1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In Buzawa

Buzawa

(Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 214-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Jones

Dienemann

Schollenberger

Kub

O’Campo

Gielen

Campbell

(2006). Long-term costs of intimate partner violence in a sample of female HMO enrollees. Women’s Health Issues, 16, 252-261.

16.

Keilitz

Efkeman

Hannaford

(1997). Civil protection orders: The benefits and limitations for victims of domestic violence (Publication No. R-201). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Research.

17.

Kentucky State Police. (2008). [DVOs issued statewide 2007]. Unpublished data.

18.

Logan

Walker

(2009a). Civil protective order effectiveness: Justice or just a piece of paper? Violence and Victims, 25, 332-348.

19.

Logan

Walker

(2009b). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 675-692.

20.

Logan

Hoyt

Leukefeld

(2001, March). Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: Behavior, costs, and avoided costs to society. Retrieved from http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7B303F19-260E-4DA1-BF7B-EA1293601F90/0/KentuckyDrugCourtOutcomeEvaluation2002.pdf

21.

Logan

Hoyt

McCollister

French

Leukefeld

Minton

(2004). Economic evaluation of drug court: Methodology, results, and policy implications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 381-396.

22.

Logan

Shannon

Walker

Faragher

(2006). Protective orders: Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 175-205.

23.

Logan

Walker

Hoyt

(2011). The victim and societal costs of stalking. Unpublished manuscript.

24.

Logan

Walker

Hoyt

Faragher

(2009). The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A rural and urban multiple perspective study of protective order violation consequences, responses, & costs (NCJ Publication No. 228350). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228350.pdf

25.

Logan

Walker

Jordan

Leukefeld

(2006). Women and victimization: Contributing factors, interventions, and implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

26.

Max

Rice

Finkelstein

Bardwell

Leadbetter

(2004). The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19, 259-272.

27.

McFarlane

Malecha

Gist

Watson

Batten

Hall

Smith

(2004). Protection orders and intimate partner violence: An 18-month study of 150 Black, Hispanic, and White women. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 613-618.

28.

Miller

Cohen

Wiersema

(1996). The extent and costs of crime victimization: A new look (NCJ 155281). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

29.

Rennison

Welchans

(2000). Intimate partner violence (NCJ-178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

30.

Rivara

Anderson

Fishman

Bonomi

Reid

Carrell

Thompson

(2007). Healthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 32(2), 89-96.

31.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

32.

Ulrich

Cain

Sugg

Rivara

Rubanowice

Thompson

(2003). Medical care utilization patterns in women with diagnosed domestic violence. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 24(1), 9-15.

33.

Wisner

Gilmer

Saltzman

Zink

(1999). Intimate partner violence against women: Do victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Practice, 48, 439-443.