The
price of protection
University of Pittsburgh, Science
Daily
"Why doesn't she just leave?" is a timeworn question
about women trapped in relationships that are physically and/or emotionally
abusive to them.
Economic dependence is clearly part of the story--many women
lack the financial means to leave and find themselves trapped by both poverty
and abuse.
Of the women who do attempt to escape the abuse, some opt to
petition a judge for a civil restraining order, also called a Protection From
Abuse (PFA) order, for protection from abuse, harassment, threats, or
intimidation. Research shows that PFAs can promote women's safety and help
women manage the threat of abuse.
However, a new study by two University of Pittsburgh
sociologists shows that turning to the courts may not be effective at helping
these women earn more money or even return to their prior level of earnings
growth.
The paper investigates changes in women's earnings before and
after they petition the courts for a restraining order against an abuser.
Although one might theorize that such an order would clear the way for the
woman to return to work and increase her earnings, Brush and Hughes found
overwhelming evidence that this period of petitioning is accompanied by serious
financial instability, vulnerability, and hardship for women.
In fact, the
researchers estimate that women lose anywhere between $312 and $1,018 dollars
in the year after petitioning and further analysis indicates the women are not
recouping these losses later.
The study is the first to assess what happens to women's
earnings before, during, and after petitioning for a restraining order.
The researchers studied records of 3,923 women in Allegheny
County who had reported any earnings between January 1995 and December 2000 and
who had petitioned for a PFA order between January 1996 and December 1999.
They
looked for changes in earnings growth before and after petitioning. They also
took into account whether the women were on welfare prior to or after
petitioning, and whether they secured just the initial PFA of usually 10 days
or followed through and requested a hearing, a necessary step for a long-term
restraining order. (In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, judges can grant
petitioners a temporary 10-day restraining order and then a longer
12-to-18-month renewable order.)
"Our study convincingly shows that women's petitioning for
a PFA does not come with either short- or long-term increases in earnings
growth," said Hughes. "We cannot offer women a restraining order as a
tool to stop abuse and then walk away. We need to offer women other forms of
support, especially economic ones, during this unstable time."
"The study is significant," adds Brush, "because
it definitively demonstrates the inadequacy of the two mechanisms--welfare and
protective orders--that we expect women to use to escape from abusive
relationships. Sometimes, a woman can't afford to 'just leave.' Sometimes, a
protective order is just a piece of paper. And sometimes, the turmoil of abuse
and the petitioning process causes not just a short-term shock but a decline in
earnings that takes years to make up."
The researchers say their study is just a first step toward
unpacking the costs of women's efforts to end abuse. They say the economic
losses women experience when petitioning for a PFA is a call out to researchers,
advocates, and policymakers to develop strategies to enhance women's safety,
solvency, and economic stability.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided
by University of Pittsburgh. Note:
Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
M. M. Hughes, L. D. Brush. The Price of Protection: A
Trajectory Analysis of Civil Remedies for Abuse and Women's Earnings. American
Sociological Review, 2015; 80 (1): 140 DOI: 10.1177/0003122414561117
Cite This Page:
University of Pittsburgh. "The price of protection: Abused
women and earnings." Science Daily, 6 March 2015.
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306102724.htm>.
