Providing appropriate support and referrals that are specific to LGBTQI and sexual or gender minority populations is crucial to recovery. Self-Assessment Question 2 5. Providers can avoid perpetuating structural violence when working with survivors of IPV by: a. Making sure that they know all of the systems that affect the survivor b. Examining their own internal biases about IPV and/or SA and avoiding allowing these to affect practice c. Instructing the survivor to avoid all places the perpetrator might go d. Reporting all disclosures of IPV or SA to the police immediately
PERPETRATOR INTERVENTIONS
Providers may at times encounter not only the victims of IPV but also the perpetrators, particularly if the patient is one who is known to have a history of IPV and/or SA. It is also possible that a perpetrator will disclose IPV to the provider directly. In some cases, this may indicate that the perpetrator does not consider their behaviors abusive, particularly behaviors that constitute emotional abuse. Speaking to the Perpetrator When speaking to the perpetrator, providers should remain calm, direct, and supportive while also setting boundaries. If a survivor has presented with significant injuries, it may be difficult for the provider to treat the perpetrator with equanimity, but it is crucial to do so in order to avoid escalating the situation (Duchesne et al., 2023) . Some providers find it helpful to remember that many perpetrators were abused or witnessed abuse themselves as children. Most perpetrators are not a danger to anyone other the their partner, and can often be very charming when in public (Pocock et al., 2020) . As previously mentioned, many perpetrators do not know they are perpetrators and may be re-enacting behaviors they learned as children from their parents (Shakoor et al., Successful Intervention and Treatment of Perpetrators The most effective way to end IPV and ensure victim safety is to intervene in ways that change the perpetrator’s violent behavior. In addition to criminal sanctions such as prison time, probation, and mandated community service, intervention programs have been developed for working with individuals, typically men, who perpetrate IPV (Pado & Taku, 2021) . Generally, these interventions are built on the principles of victim safety and offender accountability and employ a cognitive-behavioral framework to address issues such as managing anger and stress, developing conflict resolution skills, considering gender roles, taking responsibility for violent behaviors, and developing empathy for others (Arvidsson & Caman, 2022) . Often, perpetrators participate in rehabilitation programs only when ordered by a court to do so. This fact underscores the need for good documentation and coordination with law enforcement when IPV is encountered in the clinician’s practice. Although some of these programs have demonstrated success at reducing perpetration of violence, it is difficult to determine their effectiveness because many have high dropout and recidivism rates (McEwen, 1998) . One of the most widely adopted models for perpetrator intervention is the “Duluth Model,” which was developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (Butters et al.,
One study of the ways lay persons understand IPV found that non-physically abusive behaviors such as controlling behaviors and shouting were less likely to be identified as abusive than were physically abusive behaviors (Minto et al., 2021) . Inquiring about these behaviors can open a dialogue about IPV and intervention. 2020; Voith et al., 2020) . However, the fact that perpetrators may have been victims as children does not diminish their responsibility for the abuse. The abuse will most likely continue, whether the perpetrator stays with the current partner or finds a new partner. Clinicians who encounter perpetrators should seek assistance and guidance from specialized professionals prior to engaging in treatment with perpetrators. Confronting perpetrators directly is not recommended unless the provider is specifically trained to do so, is assigned this role from their agency or organization, and has addressed their own personal safety issues in advance (e.g., has security officers close by in clinical settings). 2021) . This model emphasizes the need for a coordinated community response to end IPV that is based on the following actions: ● Taking the blame off the victim and placing accountability for the abuse on the offender ● Having shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems, from 911 to the courts ● Prioritizing the voices and experiences of women who encounter battering in the creation of these policies and procedures ● Society believing that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively working to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women ● Offering change opportunities through court-ordered educational groups for batterers ● Having ongoing discussions among criminal and civil justice agencies, community members, and victims to close the gaps in service and improve the community’s response to battering
EliteLearning.com/Social-Work
Book Code: SWFL1825
Page 89
Powered by FlippingBook