(PS5-C51) Implementation of IPV Screening and Related Specialized Family Mediation: Family Court Staff Perceptions

Divorcing/separating parents use family court to resolve child related issues (e.g., parenting time). Courts often refer families to mediation, traditionally in-person with parties and mediator in the same room. While >50% of parties in mediation report physical intimate partner violence (IPV), many courts do not screen for IPV. Experts raise safety concerns for IPV survivors in mediation. To increase safety, it is recommended that mediators adopt IPV screening and offer cases reporting concerning IPV mediation modified to be safer by keeping parties physically separated.

While courts face challenges to using such practices, successful implementation of IPV screening and modified mediation for cases with IPV is important for sustained use and public health impact. Implementation success can be determined by those using new practices. Thus, across a 1-year implementation period in Baltimore County, Maryland courts, we examined court staff perceptions of an IPV screening tool (MASIC-S w/DA; Rossi et al., 2022) and 2 modified forms of mediation for parties reporting IPV in screening (i.e., shuttle: parties did not directly interact; video: parties directly interacted via Zoom). Baltimore County is 31% Black. Staff are trained to consider issues of diversity and bilingual services are offered (Spanish; French). 

To gather perceptions of the screening tool, staff (13 screeners and/or mediators) completed the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1996) survey questions about clinical utility, questions from the Acceptability of Intervention (AIM) and Intervention Appropriateness (IAM) Measures (Weiner et al., 2017), and provided written comments about the tool weekly for 8 weeks. Participants answered survey questions on the helpfulness of the tool for the modified mediation process after the conclusion of each mediation. To gather perceptions of the modified forms of mediation, staff completed survey questions on safety, comfort, and satisfaction after the conclusion of each mediation, and completed the AIM, IAM, and Intervention Feasibility Measure (IFM; Weiner et al., 2017) every 3 months.

The SUS score for the IPV screen is at a level suggesting it is acceptable to staff (M = 68; Lewis & Sauro, 2018). On 1-5 scales, the IPV screen was viewed as appropriate/acceptable (M = 4.01, SD = .85 on average of AIM and IAM), and more effective (M = 4.42, SD = .74) than efficient (M = 4.06, SD = .75; p < .0001). Using matrix analysis (Averill, 2002) for written comments about the tool, we found staff identified barriers to completing screening comfortably and confidently, including question phrasing and technology challenges. On 1-5 scales, and on an average of the AIM, IAM, and IFM, shuttle mediation was viewed as more appropriate, acceptable, and feasible (M = 3.82, SD = .53) than video mediation (M = 3.67, SD = .81; p = .002). Additional results will be presented.

IPV screening and modified forms of mediation for those reporting IPV may improve the safety of family law dispute resolution processes. Key to sustained implementation success, the current study provides insight into court staff perceptions of new practices. Findings highlight implementation barriers that can be planned for courts to facilitate successful implementation in the future.