A Two-Phase Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study of the Effectiveness of Protection Intervention Orders at Reducing Child Protection Re-Referrals in British Columbia's Ministry of Children & Family Development

Background: Until recently, domestic violence (DV) was characterized as an individual or family problem. However, a cultural shift in how DV’s conceptualization has increased awareness about the harm to children who witness or experience DV. In British Columbia, Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) standards now call for child protection workers to engage in collaborative practice with the protective parent, often the mother, through use of Protective Intervention Orders (PIOs). Similar to a restraining order, PIOs are court ordered and contain conditions on the non-protective parent (e.g., no contact, limited contact). Their intent is to promote safety and security to children and non-offending/protective parents. This legal mechanism is available to child protection workers and are viewed as least intrusive means to keep children safe. They are believed to reduce child removals from the home. Unknown, however, is whether PIOs are properly enforced or prosecuted in court. In response to this gap in knowledge, this mixed methods study investigated perceived effectiveness of PIOs in two geographic areas in BC.

Methods: The study employed a two-phase exploratory sequential mixed methods research design. In Phase I, perceptions about the use and effectiveness of PIOs were gathered through a cross-sectional survey of child protection workers (n=69). After weighting responses, loglinear analysis evaluated the presence of statistically significant relationships between: service delivery area (SDA) and worker training, tenure, and job role. Service delivery areas produced the greatest effect. Based on these results, chi-square analyses were conducted to test the relationship between two SDAs and survey responses indicating that recent legislation increased respondent use of protective orders. In Phase II, a focus group and six individual interviews were conducted with child protection workers from two SDAs with disparate beliefs about the efficacy of PIOs.  

Results: Almost sixty-five percent (64.7%) of respondents from South Vancouver Island reported increased/significant PIO use, whereas only 12.5% of respondents from Richmond/Vancouver reported the same. The odds that a respondent from South Vancouver Island applied for a PIO 6-10 times in past year was 2.15 times greater than for respondents from Vancouver/Richmond. Analysis of qualitative findings suggests that two distinct theoretical approaches underlie the use of PIOs: 1) a social learning approach and 2) a conflict theory approach. In the former, protective orders are viewed as a tool with which to shape the behavior of the offending/non-protective parent; in the latter, PIOs are regarded as punitive measures because they so restrict contact between non-protective and protective parent/children.

Implications: South Vancouver Island uses protective orders with a supervised access order clause whereas Vancouver/Richmond SDA implements PIOs as a “no access” order. PIOs used to prohibit contact between the child and the non-protective parent render PIOS strictly punitive. By incorporating contingencies that permit varying degrees of contact, workers in South Vancouver Island are able to adapt orders based on the details of a specific situation. Having a range of applications may promote investment and cooperation from protective and non-protective parents and support the growing social response to domestic violence.