Unit 4: Working with People who use Violent and Coercive Behaviors against Partners

One of the most important aspects of working with people who use violence against partners is careful and consistent attention to your own feelings, expectations, and role. Although this is true when working with survivors (and anyone, really), there are many reasons why it is essential when working with people who use violence.

Expectation: A clear dichotomy between "victim" and "perpetrator"

One expectation you might have is that survivors never use violence and that people who use violence are never victimized. This dichotomy is true in some cases, but not always.

First, research and practice wisdom indicates that female survivors use a variety of strategies to protect themselves and their loved ones, and that some of these strategies involve violent behaviors - as is often the case with anyone protecting themselves from an assault (see Hamby, 2014 for a review). As described in Unit 1 of this training, these behaviors typically constitute "violent resistance," one of several types of domestic violence distinguished by who is using coercive controlling tactics (Johnson, 2008).

Second, there are also situations in which survivors use violence toward their abusive partners as an act of retaliation (Hamby, 2014; Swan, 2002; Larance & Miller, 2016) and sometimes toward their children (Peled, 2011). Although these behaviors warrant attention, they do not negate the person's status as a victim.

Finally, many people who use violence and coercive behaviors against partners have been victims themselves at some point, be it by a family member (e.g., child abuse, exposure to domestic violence; Anda et al., 2006), peer (e.g., bullying; Miller et al., 2013), neighbor (e.g., community violence; Powell, 2008), or society (e.g., racism, homophobia; Al’Uqdah, Maxwell, & Hill, 2016; Burnette, 2015; Edward & Sylaska, 2011; Powell, 2008). These experiences do not excuse the perpetration of domestic violence; however, they do make it difficult to maintain that "victims" are totally distinct from "perpetrators" (for more on this topic, please go to Chapter 3 of this unit).

Expectation: A "typical" presentation

You might expect that you can identify the primary aggressor just by certain visible indicators such as their physical size, how they act in front of you, or their level of success and status in other domains (e.g., school, workplace, friend circles).

This, however, is an erroneous assumption. For example, size can be particularly tricky when assessing domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships. There is a tendency to assume that the larger, more “manly” partner is the one being abusive; however, there is no evidence to support that assumption (Baker, Buick, Kim, Moniz, & Nava, 2012).

Similarly, some people are very skilled at targeting their abusive behaviors toward their partners only; and, thus, keep the abuse a secret from friends and colleagues (Jacobsen & Gottman, 1998; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). They often present in public as charming, successful, and – in some cases – more “together” than their partners (whose physical, mental, and economic heath has been eroded by the violence they’ve endured). Such a charming presentation can be particularly effective when the person also has multiple layers of privilege at their disposal (e.g., male, white, educated).

Essentially, avoid jumping to conclusions based solely on initial observations!

Expectation: Change is impossible

A final expectation or assumption you might have is that people who are abusive can’t change. Although having a healthy dose of realism is important – after all, changing any attitude or behavior is difficult and takes time – remember that each person is unique.

There is a robust literature on the factors that influence and indicate an abusive person’s capacity for change. Specifically, several typologies have been developed, with a primary focus on male perpetrators (e.g., Gondolf, 1988, Jacobsen & Gottman, 1998; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). A review of typologies indicated that men who use violence differ according to level of risk (low, moderate, and high) and that - within these three types - there are differences according to severity and frequency of violence, criminal history, and level of psychopathology” (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005, p, 162).

Thus, because men who use violence are a heterogeneous group, it is important to assess these factors before determining treatment options and capacity for change. Please see the next chapter for more information.

As has been mentioned throughout this training, your role will dictate the settings and ways in which you encounter people who use violence, as well as the strategies and content of your work with them.

For instance, you might be in a program specifically for people who use violence and abuse; in this case, you will quickly get a sense of the person’s level of violence and have clear practice guidelines from your agency. You might be in a mental health, healthcare, or substance abuse program, where the person has sought treatment for a concern other than violence. In these cases, you probably will not know about the person’s use of violence as you begin your work together.

Your task is to establish an empathetic and trusting relationship while evaluating the current risk for serious violence and maintaining a standpoint for non-violence. This is much simpler if the person is distressed about his or her violence and seeking help to become non-violent. It is more difficult if the person is charismatic, manipulative, and/or actively working to get you to join in on blaming the person's partner for the violence.

In settings where violence is not the presenting reason for treatment, it is important to maintain your role, but do not put on blinders or avoid assessing for violence and coercive behaviors. To do so not only overlooks important information that can aid in treatment, but also can be a safety risk to the person’s partner.

As we have mentioned, it is also important to think about your own safety when engaging with people who use violence and coercive behaviors. (This is particularly true for law enforcement when they are responding to incidents of domestic violence. Please see this helpful resource on effective and safe police response strategies.)

Be sure to take all threats, intimidation, and manipulating behaviors seriously. In some circumstances, people who use abusive behaviors extend their violence beyond partners to anyone they see as a threat to their power and control. It is important to think about this and put in place some measures for your own personal safety. Speaking with the survivor about safety planning can be helpful in understanding the capability and behaviors of the abusive partner.

As is good practice for anyone in a helping profession, be aware of how accessible your personal information is. For example, is your home address listed? Are your social media accounts publicly available? Also, depending on agency policy, you might be allowed to use your personal cell phone to call or text with clients. Before doing so, consider whether that will allow you to maintain appropriate and safe boundaries – advice that applies to working with survivors too.

Finally, educate yourself about the protections that are in place at your workplace. Discuss concerns with your supervisor and co-workers to develop additional safety strategies that can be implemented.

One of the most difficult aspects of working with cases involving domestic violence is assessing risk and living with the uncertainty that is part of this process. Remember that risk assessment is not an exact science!

The risk assessment process should focus on the physical and emotional safety of the person’s partner (former or current), children, and the person you're working with. It is also important to think about your own safety, as we have mentioned.

As discussed in Unit 2, asking questions sensitively and listening with an open mind are essential aspects of successful communication regardless of the person you are working with. Additionally, people who have been abusive are likely to come into the conversation feeling defensive and judged, which can hinder communication and relationship building. 

In order to make an accurate assessment, it is important to gather information from a variety of sources, such as:

• The person using violence

• The survivor 

• Children (biological, adopted, and stepchildren) 

• Family and community members 

• Other professionals who are involved (e.g., police, probation officers)

• Existing documentation (e.g., criminal records, medical reports, child welfare reports)

As mentioned, risk assessment is not an exact science, nor is there a definitive list of risks that predict whether someone will use violence and controlling behaviors against a partner. Below are several common indicators of perpetration, though please note that they are by no means a guarantee. (For more information and the sources from where these were taken, see Farrell, 2011 and Ganley, 1998).

If the person is your client, and you have reason to believe that he or she poses risk of serious harm to a current or former partner, you might be legally obliged to take action. In such a case, it is important that you seek consultation. See Unit 6 for more information on legal reporting requirements. 

Finally, because this is an introductory training, we highly encourage you to receive additional training on risk assessment. The Mederos (2004) resource we've cited throughout this unit is an excellent resource with abundant practical tips and strategies. 

Sensitivity to historical and societal oppression is essential for effective work with people who use violence.

People from marginalized groups who are abusive often have experienced some form of trauma themselves (Mederos, 2004). As mentioned, such traumatic experiences can include, but are not limited to, traumatic family events, exposure to and involvement in community violence, poverty, homelessness, and discrimination due to race, class or sexual orientation.

Although a history of trauma or oppression does not excuse or justify the person's behaviors, it plays an important role in the healing and change process.

For example, it might take longer for people who have endured tremendous violence to stop being violent. Or, it might be that efforts to change are hindered by factors such as a lack of culturally sensitive resources, disbelief by systems that change is possible, continued exposure to trauma, and resistance to engage in services and systems that have harmed them. Again, these factors are not justifications for violence, but should be considered when working with people who use violence.

Understand and recognize implicit bias when working with people who use violence.

This is particularly true when working with low-income men of color (Mederos, 2016). Implicit bias can cause you to make assumptions based on common stereotypes of narratives (e.g., all low-income men of color are dangerous or are "deadbeat" dads [Mederos, 2004; Mederos, 2016; Edin & Nelson, 2013]); these assumptions then affect your interactions with the person (Brandon et al., 2008). For example, before you even know anything about the person, you automatically assume - based on race and class - that he is violent and poses a danger towards you and others (Maxwell et al., 2012; Brandon et al., 2008).

It is important to be aware of these tendencies, acknowledge when you are acting based on assumptions, and work to see the individual as a whole person (Mederos, 2016).

Practice cultural humility.

Cultural humility is essential when working with anyone, but especially when working with people from cultural groups that differ considerably from your own. Cultural humility involves perpetual self-reflection, education about the norms, values, and beliefs of the people you encounter, and honesty about your own limitations and mistakes (Fisher-Borne, Cain, & Martin, 2015; Tervalon & Murray-Garćia, 1998).

Cultural "values" are not an excuse for perpetrating domestic violence.

Although cultures differ in their values and beliefs about gender roles and roles in intimate relationships, domestic violence does not correspond with the ideals of any culture as a whole; but rather, reflects segments of people within. If the person you're working with argues that their behavior is normal in their culture, most likely they are simply hoping that you don't know it's not true or won't try to find out. Or, maybe such overt justifications are more common among some people in their countries or culture.

In mainstream American culture, there are many justifications for domestic violence (e.g., "she made me do it"); they just happen to be more covert than in some other countries due to increased societal and legal sanctions against domestic violence. The point is that justifications exist in every culture, but they do not excuse domestic violence.

In this section, we present common interventions for people who use violence. Some interventions were developed specifically for this population. Others were not, but can be helpful depending on the nature of the person's abusive violence (i.e., occasional violence vs. a pattern of coercive control).

The criminal justice system can be, to some extent, another intervention for people who use violence. In some cases, fear of involvement – or of re-involvement – with police and the courts can act as a deterrent to future violence, due largely to the range of negative consequences that have been developed to prevent or end the use of domestic violence (Barner & Carney, 2011). Below are some common themes to consider. 

Criminal justice intervention also can be a route to other types of treatment. 

It is common for the court to mandate attendance of a batterer's intervention program or some other type of treatment. Most attendees of batterer intervention programs are court mandated (Barner & Carney, 2011). The combination of criminal justice interventions and community-based interventions seem to work more positively than criminal justice by itself (Barner & Carney, 2011).

The criminal justice system is often more of an intervention for survivors than for those who use violence. 

Arrest and incarceration of an abusive partner can provide some short-term safety for survivors, giving them a chance to think through their next steps, get to shelter, obtain a restraining order, or even just get a good night's sleep. See Unit 6. 

Legal system involvement can have unintended negative consequences for survivors and people who use violence. 

Examples include, but are not limited to, increased risk of harm to survivor’s safety, loss of family income if the abusive partner is sent to jail, deportation, strain on children, child welfare involvement, and the survivor being re-victimized by the criminal legal system (Amanor-Boadu et al., 2012; Calton, Cattaneo, & Gebhard, 2016; Fleury-Steiner, Bybee, Sullivan, Belknap, & Melton, 2006; Rhodes, Cerulli, Dichter, Kothari, & Barg, 2010).

Survivors of color who do not want to engage law enforcement may legitimately fear greater harm for themselves and their families as a result of criminal justice (e.g., police, courts) or child welfare involvement (Richie, 2012). These challenges are just some of the reasons that survivors might not want to call the police or pursue the arrest and prosecution of their partners.

Because legal system involvement can negatively affect marginalized people, some communities have developed alternative procedures for addressing domestic violence. These alternatives are typically rooted in restorative justice principles and include such strategies as mediation and intimate abuse circles (for a review, see Hampton, LaTaillade, Dacey, & Marhi, 2008).

When considering interventions for people who use violence, it is important to be aware of the potential logistical and individual-level barriers that hinder people’s participation. In anticipating these barriers, you can identify creative solutions to circumvent them from derailing progress.