Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence: The Response from Child Protective Services
Three forms of exposure to IPV are considered in this study: (1) direct witness to physical violence, (2) indirect exposure to physical violence, and (3) exposure to emotional violence.
Methods: The study used the Ontario Incidence Study of Abuse and Neglect (2008) data, a representative sample of child protection investigations in Ontario. All cases where exposure to IPV was the primary form of maltreatment were selected, and the sample was weighted to produce an estimated sample of 22,373 child protection investigations. Characteristics of each investigation were examined using bivariate analyses, in order to assess differences between the three forms of exposure to IPV. A logistic regression was run to determine predictors of ongoing case opening of exposure to IPV investigations.
Results: Of the estimated 22,373 investigations involving exposure to IPV as the primary form of maltreatment: 45% involved exposure to emotional violence, 32% involved direct exposure to physical violence, and 23% involved indirect exposure to physical violence. While the most common form of IPV investigation was child exposure to emotional violence, the most frequently substantiated form was the child being a direct witness of physical violence between caregivers. This latter form was also the most frequently opened for service, as caregiver risk factors differed significantly between the three subtypes of exposure to IPV.
The position of the worker (intake versus generic worker), worker degree, and training also influenced service dispositions. The majority of workers investigating direct exposure to physical violence had a social work degree (66%), however that number dropped to 57% for emotional violence investigations. Additionally, workers investigating exposure to physical violence were the least likely to have domestic violence training (57%), compared to 72% for investigations involving exposure to emotional violence. Caregiver characteristics that differed significantly between types of exposure were cooperativeness, employment, social supports, drug use, and mental health. Household characteristics that differed significantly between types of exposure were home ownership and home overcrowding. Significant predictors of case opening were caregiver drug use, caregiver mental health issues, caregiver few social supports, home overcrowding, and child emotional harm. The type of IPV exposure was not a significant predictor for case opening.
Conclusions and Implications: The type of exposure to IPV impacts the investigation outcome, with exposure to physical violence most frequently substantiated and transferred to ongoing child protective services. These results have important policy and practice implications in that they show that a differential systems response is needed for child protective services, depending on the type of IPV exposure and family and household risk factors present. The results also suggest that some workers may require additional IPV training.