Orders can be tailored to the specific needs of the victim. OFPs can, for example, allow the abuser to remain in the home but prohibit him from harming his wife and children, or require him to surrender any weapons he may have in his possession. OFPs can also order that a police escort be present when a batterer returns home to retrieve his possessions. Permanent OFPs may also cover custody of children, child support, and maintenance. Orders can protect not only the victim and her children but also friends and family members; an abuser may seek to harm people who helped the victim protect herself from the abuse.

Some jurisdictions allow judges to issue "ex parte orders." These are temporary orders issued without notice to the batterer. Allowing women to obtain an OFP without having to first notify her husband that she is seeking such an order is important because if the abuser is notified, he may retaliate against her before the judge can issue the order. If a woman can show that she is in imminent danger of being harmed, the judge can issue an immediate ex parte order and set a hearing date, usually a week or two later, for a permanent order. The batterer will be notified of the OFP and the date of the hearing. At that hearing, he will be able to admit or contest the charges, and can present evidence on his behalf.

The goal of OFPs is to ensure that the person who experienced the abuse is not the person who is forced to leave the home. By being violent, the batterer has forced his partner to choose between leaving her home or enduring the abuse. OFPs place the burden of leaving the home on the person who was responsible for making that step necessary.

OFPs have advantages over criminal proceedings. Criminal cases can be long and complex. Ideally, an OFP proceeding is quick and relatively straightforward. In some jurisdictions, the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction in higher than that required for issuance of an OFP. If only criminal penalties are sought, the victim will have no legal protections from abuse during the proceeding unless the perpetrator is imprisoned during that time. OFPs are also more flexible than criminal penalties and can be tailored to the needs of the victim. Finally, civil proceedings such as OFPs offer victims the opportunity to participate in the proceeding and to choose her remedy; criminal proceedings are more often conducted without the victim's participation and criminal sanctions do not account for many of the needs of battered women, such as economic support.

OFPs do not, however, guarantee protection. Batterers can—and unfortunately often do—violate these orders and attack and even kill their former partners. Often, police and prosecutors do not enforce these orders. Simply put, OFPs are ineffective if they are not enforced. If they are not enforced, batterers learn that they will not be punished for violations. OFPs are sometimes difficult to obtain; women may not be able to pay court fees or travel to the nearest city to file for an order.

On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales finding that mandatory arrest language is not enough to hold police officers liable in federal court for negligent enforcement of Orders for Protection.  However, State legislatures can pass laws creating a special duty of enforcement for police officers to protect victims of domestic violence.  Two U.S. States, Montana and Tennessee, currently hold police officers liable for proper enforcement of protection orders.

In addition, some advocates have argued that criminal penalties are more effective because they recognize domestic violence as a crime and embody a statement by society that this abuse will not be tolerated. While an abuser is held "accountable" in both an OFP and a criminal proceeding, the sanctions available in criminal proceedings are considerably more severe. OFPs simply limit the defendant's conduct; criminal sanctions label that conduct as wrong.

In addition, the implementation of OFP laws can have unintended negative consequences for battered women. Advocates in the United States, for example, found that in some cases, orders were being issued against both batterer and victim (mutual OFPs). A mutual OFP has the effect of making both parties liable for violations of the order. Advocates found that batterers would manipulate women into violating the order and then threaten to report them. In addition, police faced with a mutual order often did not determine who was the primary aggressor and consequently either failed to enforce the order or arrested both parties. The Toolkit to End Violence Against Women, created by the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women and the United States Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Office, available in PDF and text formats, explains that the "consequences of arrest for victims who have committed no violent or criminal act but who are bound by a mutual order are profound. Victims may lose their good reputation, may lose custody of children or employment, may be evicted by landlords, or may be unable to post bail."

Whether an OFP is the best option for a woman depends on the circumstances of her particular situation. Where OFPs are available, an advocate can discuss with a battered woman the advantages and disadvantages of OFPs, provide her with information about obtaining an order, and assist her in evaluating the usefulness of an OFP in her situation.