Improving protection order enforcement with modern approaches to service

The problem

Civil protection orders enhance safety and provide legal protections for petitioners. However, protections only take effect after the respondent has been served. Orders cannot be enforced, and cases cannot proceed before service is completed. Effective personal service is critical to ensuring a petitioner's safety and moving the case toward a hearing or final order.

Delayed or failed service results in poor outcomes for petitioners and courts alike. A systematic review of studies worldwide recently reported that 23 to 50% of civil protection order cases were initiated but concluded before a final order. While petitioners reported many relational reasons for not moving forward with a civil protection order, they also commonly reported challenges in court processes, and specifically default judgments.¹ Case attrition also expends court and law enforcement resources when there are multiple failed service attempts and court hearing continuances.

Exploring innovative solutions

Courts expend significant resources locating individuals, repeating service attempts, and rescheduling hearings. Historically, service relied on procedures designed decades ago that do not reflect how people receive information today.

The goal of modern service is not to create new technology, but to leverage routine communication channels. While traditional methods such as personal service remain important, many jurisdictions are exploring or already using modern approaches that increase the likelihood of completing notice, while also improving efficiency and reducing delays. 

As state courts explore innovative approaches to modernize service, they must ensure fairness and reliability while enhancing due process and public safety. Digital methods enhance tracking and documentation (i.e., delivery confirmations, audit trails, identity verification, and service attempts) in ways not possible with traditional methods. Additionally, modern approaches can satisfactorily meet, and even enhance, a court's ability to monitor whether the legal requirements of service have been met.

How you can help

With support from the State Justice Institute, NCSC and their partner, the Battered Women's Justice Project (BWJP), will be soliciting feedback from courts and stakeholders through surveys and listening sessions to better understand what's working, what isn't working, and what support courts need to complete service. These insights will inform national best practice guidance and future technical assistance. 

Share your insights to ensure your voice is heard. Your participation in our survey will ensure you're included in future opportunities, trainings, and information sharing.

Join our interest list for surveys and/or listening sessions

This content was developed under grant number SJI-26P032 from the State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.

1. Barchi, Francis, Millan A. AbiNader, Ajanee Russell Hopkins, and Tarisai Mchuchu-MacMillan. "Withdrawal From the Civil Court Protection Process by Female Survivors of Domestic Violence: A Scoping Review of the Literature." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (2025): 15248380251395103; Stoever, Jane K. "Access to safety and justice: Service of process in domestic violence cases." Wash. L. Rev. 94 (2019): 333.