Protect Protection: Official Research Protocol
1. Research Mission and Purpose
The primary objective of Protect Protection’s research is to perform a Root Cause Analysis of the Oregon protective order system. The goal is to identify Systemic Gaps where current legal procedures result in Adverse Outcomes, specifically focusing on the correlation between legal proceedings and housing instability, employment loss, and mental health crises.
2. Methodology: The Triangulation Model
To ensure the highest level of data integrity, Protect Protection utilizes a Triangulation Model to validate findings by cross-referencing three distinct data streams:
Quantitative Court Data: Aggregated statistics from the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) regarding filing volumes, dismissal rates, and default judgments.
Qualitative Participant Data: Lived-experience testimony gathered through the anonymous Respondent Impact Questionnaire (RIQ).
Observational Data: Objective reports generated through a standardized Court Watching Protocol.
Core Research Terms
Phenomenological Study: Researching the "lived experience" of individuals to understand human impact beyond the case file.
Socio-Economic Determinants: Real-world factors measured to determine harm, including housing status, financial stability, and healthcare access.
Procedural Due Process: The standard for evaluating courtroom observations, focusing on fairness, transparency, and the right to be heard.
3. Ethical Standards and Neutrality
The Neutrality Mandate: Research focuses on procedural efficiency and systemic accuracy. We investigate the performance of the system, not the character of litigants.
Anonymity Pledge: All qualitative data is stripped of identifying markers (names, case numbers, addresses) to protect safety and prevent bias.
Evidence-Based Advocacy: All policy recommendations sent to the Oregon Legislative Assembly must be directly supported by triangulated data.
4. Court Observer Protocol & Scope
The mission is to inform stakeholders about the effectiveness and gaps within Oregon’s protective order system to strengthen safety and accessibility.
Scope: Research spans the protective order lifecycle: initiation, adjudication, enforcement, support services, and outcome monitoring.
Approach: Neutral, evidence-based assessment intended to identify successes and shortcomings without attributing blame.
High-Level Research Questions
How timely are orders issued and what factors influence processing times?
What are the rates and patterns of renewals, modifications, or terminations?
How do outcomes correlate with safety indicators like re-victimization and compliance?
How does representation (self-represented vs. legal) affect timelines and outcomes?
What are the barriers to access (language, transportation, digital) across demographics and geography?
How effective are enforcement mechanisms and the quality of support services?
5. Data Domains and Sources
We collect data across several domains:
Petition Metadata: Filing dates, jurisdiction, demographics, and attorney involvement.
Timeliness: Time to first hearing, final disposition, and reason codes for delays.
Enforcement: Service of process, reported violations, and arrest/enforcement actions.
Support Services: Availability of safety planning, advocacy services, and referral sources.
Data Quality: Completeness, consistency, and standardization of records.
Data Sources: Public court records, administrative data from the judiciary and law enforcement, service provider records (shelters/legal aid), and community input (interviews/focus groups).
6. Methodology and Analytics
Data Governance: Strict adherence to privacy laws, IRB/ethics review where applicable, and role-based access controls.
Descriptive Analytics: Summary statistics by county and demographic; adherence to timelines.
Inferential Analytics: Regression analyses for processing times and survival analysis for order durations.
Qualitative Research: Thematic analyses of stakeholder insights and case studies.
7. Governance and Outputs
A nonpartisan advisory panel—including survivors, practitioners, and researchers—regularly reviews methods and findings.
Deliverables: Periodic evidence-based briefs, restricted-access data dashboards, and plain-language executive summaries.
Transparency: Public statements regarding methodology, data limitations, and neutral findings.
8. Operational Timeline
Phase 1 (Months 1–3): Planning, partnerships, governance, and ethical safeguards.
Phase 2 (Months 4–9): Data infrastructure, baseline analyses, and dashboard development.
Phase 3 (Months 10–18): In-depth inferential and qualitative analysis; stakeholder validation.
Phase 4 (Months 19–24): Dissemination of reports and drafting policy recommendations.
9. Risk Management
Protect Protection actively monitors for data access delays and privacy concerns. The organization maintains a neutral stance by framing conclusions as evidence-informed insights rather than prescriptive blame.