IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v118y2020ics0190740919312642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring subtypes of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence

Author

Listed:
  • Black, Tara
  • Fallon, Barbara
  • Nikolova, Kristina
  • Tarshis, Sarah
  • Baird, Stephanie
  • Carradine, Jessica

Abstract

Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most investigated form of maltreatment in Ontario, Canada. Given the potential for negative outcomes for children exposed to IPV, a better understanding of these cases is needed to provide the most optimal service response. The purpose of this paper is to examine the the increase in exposure investigations between 2008 and 2013. 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 Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS) data from 2008 and 2013. The OIS is a cyclical, cross sectional provincial child welfare study conducted every five years. Changes in the characteristics of IPV were examined by exploring key variables including the incidence of the specific form of IPV, referral source, and decisions made by child protection workers. Results: There were an estimated 22,347 investigations for exposure to IPV in 2008 and an estimated 31,300 investigations 2013. The overall substantiation rate for this type of investigation also increased with some important variations between subtypes. The number of substantiated investigations for exposure to emotional violence increased significantly between 2008 and 2013, from a rate of 4.21 investigations per 1000 children to 7.16 investigations per 1000 children. There was also a slight increase in the rate of investigations for direct witness to physical violence, but this increase was not statistically significant. In 2013, cases for exposure to emotional violence were 1.6 times more likely to be opened for ongoing child protection services than in 2008, while the rate of transfer to ongoing child welfare services for other exposure subtypes remained unchanged. The main sources of referral for IPV exposure investigations were police (59%), custodial parents (12%), and schools (9%). The proportion of police referrals has remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2013, but referrals by schools and custodial parents have changed within subtypes. Referrals by custodial parents for exposure to emotional violence investigations have doubled. Referrals by schools for direct witness to physical violence investigations have grown by a factor of 2.2. Conclusions and Implications: The continued increase in investigations referred for children’s exposure to IPV is concerning given that the service response remains unchanged. Custodial parents appear to be one of the primary sources of this increase. These results have important policy and practice implications and suggest that a true differential service response is needed for child protection cases referred for exposure to IPV, particularly exposure to emotional violence. These cases would benefit from a more comprehensive response by professionals, including police, shelter and support services, child protection, and schools. Better service coordination and inter-agency collaboration may also prevent families from being re-referred to child protection services.

Suggested Citation

  • Black, Tara & Fallon, Barbara & Nikolova, Kristina & Tarshis, Sarah & Baird, Stephanie & Carradine, Jessica, 2020. "Exploring subtypes of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s0190740919312642
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740919312642
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105375?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s0190740919312642. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.