About the Author
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
About the Author Dr. Stephen J. Morewitz is President of the consulting firm, STEPHEN J. MOREWITZ, Ph.D., & ASSOCIATES, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, and San Francisco and Tarzana, California, which was founded in 1988. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, San Jose State University, and is a Lecturer in the Graduate Health Care Administration Program, Department of Public Affairs and Administration and the Department of Sociology, California State University, East Bay. Dr. Morewitz has been on the faculty or staffs of Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Medicine and School of Public Health, DePaul University, and Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Biological and Medical Research, and the California School of Podiatric Medicine. Dr. Morewitz is the author of 100 publications, including the award-winning book Domestic Violence and Maternal and Child Health (New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers/Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2004), the award- winning book Stalking and Violence: New Patterns of Trauma and Obsession (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers/Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2003), and Sexual Harassment and Social Change in American Society (Bethesda, MD: Austin & Winfield, Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, 1996). He is past Chair of the Crime and Delinquency Division of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. He was elected to Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, and to Pi Gamma Mu, the International Honor Society in Social Sciences. Dr. Morewitz earned his A.B. and M.A. from The College of William & Mary in Virginia and his Ph.D. from The University of Chicago. 147 Appendix A Research Methods Domestic violence victims in some domestic courts are now given an opportunity to formally complain about different types of partner abuse and request court protection against these forms of abuse. As part of the Stalking and Violence Project (SVP), a new interpersonal domestic violence and stalking protocol was constructed to code self-report data on different forms of domestic violence based on newly filed domestic orders of protection. Sample A random sample of 519 newly filed orders of protection (also known as restraining orders or protective orders) was drawn from new domestic court case listings that were published in legal newspapers in two cities (Midwest and West regions) between 1997 and 1999. The sample of orders of protection consisted of 519 self- reported victims and 519 accused persons. Measures An interpersonal stalking and domestic violence protocol was constructed to code self-report data obtained from a content analysis of the newly filed domestic orders of protection. The protocol was pretested using 25 randomly selected new domestic orders of protection. The final protocol consisted of 154 variables. One section of the protocol consisted of 29 residential, demographic, and family variables and 20 census tract measures of socioeconomic status for both the self- reported victims and accused individuals. The self-reported victims are the persons who are filing orders of protection to bar the accused persons from contacting them. Socioeconomic status variables for both victims and accused persons could be coded directly from the orders of protection. Therefore, 20 census tract measures of socioeconomic status for both victims and accused individuals were obtained by 149 150 Appendix A matching known residential addresses of victims and accused persons with the 1990 U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract database. Information about the incidents or problems that led the alleged victims to file orders of protection against the accused persons is contained in the second part of the protocol. This section contains 89 variables concerning the type of relationship between the victims and the accused individuals, the victims’ self-report narrative of what reportedly transpired, and the victims’ reasons for filing the orders of protection. Three to four research assistants coded the self-report narratives independently, and their findings were compared to each other in order to maximize inter-rater reliability. One dichotomous death threat variable (Yes/No) was constructed from the victims’ self-report narratives. If the victims reported that the respondents had threatened them with death, e.g., “I am going to kill you,” the responses were coded: Yes. Three stalking variables were constructed from the victims’ self-report narratives. If the victims’ narratives contained allegations that the accused individuals followed or stalked them, kept them under surveillance, or lay in wait for them, then these behaviors were coded as positive for the first stalking variable, “stalking.” Before filing the orders of protection, victims were notified that stalk- ing is illegal. The first stalking variable under-reports stalking since it may not include other behaviors such as receiving unwanted telephone calls and letters at home and at work that also are considered part of the stalking phenomenon. Thus, this variable only measures the victims’ perception of stalking as a following or surveillance phenomenon. The second stalking variable, “multiple stalking,” was constructed to be as comprehensive as possible. If the victims’ narratives contained allegations about any type of repeated and unwanted communication and intrusion, e.g., threatening the victims in their homes or at work and making threatening calls to the victims at work, then the data were coded on a scale from 1 (one form of stalking) to 7 (seven forms of stalking). The third stalking variable, “stalking distance,” was constructed based on data from the multiple stalking variable. The stalking distance variable measures the proximity of stalkers to the victims. Alleged perpetrators who stalked victims were ranked on a scale from 1 (sending a letter—least close) to 7 (being followed—most close). The stalking distance variable, like the multiple stalking variable, does not rely on the victims’ perception of stalking. The last section of the protocol consists of 16 variables related to the self- reported victims’ request for domestic court protection and the courts’ approval or disapproval of their requests. Victims indicated whether they sought court protection for a variety of complaints, including physical abuse, stalking, and intimidation of dependents. This section also contains information on whether the court approved the victims’ request for court protection in these specific problem areas. Appendix B Study Results Table B.1 Sample characteristics of the victims of domestic violence (N = 519) Variable Classification Percent p value* Gender Female 83 Male 17 0.000 Racial/ethnic White 21 background African-American 56 Hispanic 20 Asian and others 3 0.000 Age (unknown) Relational status Married 67 0.000 Dating/engaged 26 0.000 Parental status Parents of at least one child 53 0.000 Income Percent living in census tracts with a median income: < $20,000 40 $20,000–$39,999 50 $40,000–$59,999 9 $60,000–$79,999 1 0.000 *Pearson chi-square tests of Significance. 151 152 Appendix B Table B.2 Sample characteristics of the individuals accused of domestic violence (N = 519) Variable Classification Percent p value* Gender Female 20 Male 80 0.000 Racial/ethnic background White 22 African-American 54 Hispanic 21 Asian and others 3 N.S. Age (years) 18–25 17 26–40 57 41–60 24 61 and older 2 N.S. Relational status Married 67 0.000 dating/engaged 26 0.000 Income Percent living in census tracts with a median income: < $20,000 40 $20,000–$39,999 52 $40,000–$59,999 7 $60,000–$79,999 1 0.000 *Pearson chi-square tests of significance. Abbreviation: N.S., not statistically significant. Table B.3 Characteristics of the death threat victims (N = 147) and non–death threat victims (N = 296) (includes only current and former partners) Death threat Non–death threat Variable/classification victims (%) victims (%) p value* Gender (female) 86.4 82.8 N.S. Racial/ethnic background White 21.8 18.2 African-American 50.4 59.7 Hispanic 24.8 18.6 Asian and others 3.0 2.3 Age (unknown) N.S Marital/relation status Married 34.0 31.8 N.S. Dating/engaged 28.6 31.8 N.S. Parents of at least 1 child 67.4 62.0 N.S. Percent living in census tracts with a median income: < $20,000 32.4 44.5 $20,000–$39,999 59.0 45.6 $40,000–$59,999 7.9 9.2 $60,000–$79,999 .7 .7 N.S. *Pearson chi-square tests of significance. Abbreviation: N.S., not statistically significant. Appendix B 153 Table B.4 Characteristics of the individuals accused of making death threats (N = 147) and offenders not accused of making death threats (N = 296) (includes only current and former partners) Individuals accused Individuals not of making death accused of making Variable/classification threats (%) death threats (%) p value* Gender (male) 86.4 80.7 N.S. Racial/ethnic background White 20.6 20.5 African-American 51.4 56.6 Hispanic 24.7 20.1 Asian and others 3.4 1.7 Age (years): N.S 18–25 14.0 17.4 26–40 56.6 58.0 41–60 26.5 23.1 61 and older 2.9 1.4 Marital/relation status: N.S Married 34.0 31.8 N.S. Dating/engaged 28.6 31.8 N.S. Parents of at least 1 child 67.4 62.0 N.S. Percent living in census tracts N.S with a median income: < $20,000 34.2 44.4 $20,000–$39,999 57.5 48.0 $40,000–$59,999 8.3 7.3 $60,000–$79,999 .4 0 *Pearson chi-square tests of significance. Abbreviation: N.S., not statistically significant. 154 Appendix B Table B.5 Types of abuse allegedly committed against death threat victims (N = 147) and non–death threat victims (N = 296) (includes only current and former partners) Death threat Non–death threat Variable/classification victims (%) victims (%) p value* Types of abuse: Threatened with physical harm 60.5 42.2 0.000 Threatened with kidnapping 19.7 8.5 0.001 self or victim’s children Accused person came to my job 10.9 11.2 N.S.