Summer 2026 Issue

Interventions for Individuals Who Cause Harm
By Sue Coyle, MSW
Social Work Today
Vol. 26 No. 3 P. 18

Effective prevention and intervention efforts for intimate partner violence must include interventions for those who use violence, as well.

An estimated 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime, as early as or even before the age of 18 according to the CDC. IPV is not one specific act but rather may take the form of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse—often a combination of the three.

“[The Department of Veteran Affairs] defines IPV broadly, acknowledging that it can affect anyone at any point and can manifest in various forms, such as verbal, psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse, with significant variation in severity and frequency,” confirms LeAnn E. Bruce, PhD, LCSW, national program manager of the Intimate Partner Violence Assistance Program at the VA.

Prevention and intervention programs for IPV also vary ranging from youth education about healthy relationships to emergency housing at shelters and crisis counseling for those who have been harmed and/or are unsafe.

While the most well-known interventions are those for victims/survivors, they are not and should not be the only ones offered. In fact, there is a long history of programs aimed at those who use violence, as well. Since the 1970s, these programs, often in the United States called Batterer Intervention Programs or Abusive Partner Intervention Programs, have been an integral part of intervening in and preventing IPV.

Impact
Programs for those who cause harm take many forms with different approaches depending on the organization. For example, some interventions may focus heavily on psychoeducation as the sole means of behavior change while others incorporate trauma-informed modalities first or as well.

The goal of the intervention programs is multifaceted, as intervention programs for those who cause harm are not just about the person using violence, though that is certainly part of it. They are also about the person(s) who is being, has been, or will be harmed, as well as any children who experience and bear witness to the violence.

For example, a person may be arrested for IPV or their partner may leave or flee from them, ending the relationship, but that does not mean the person using violence will suddenly end their harmful behavior. “We’re human. It’s our human nature to be connected. That person is going to go off and be with another partner and repeat the similar behaviors and harmful actions,” explains Maxine Davis, MSW, MBA, PhD, an assistant professor at Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “It is very naïve to think that we can address domestic violence by helping survivors remove themselves from their partner. If we don’t actually address who is causing harm, who is perpetrating abuse, we’re never going to stop the problem.”

Katie VonDeLinde, MSW, LCSW, director of practicum education and senior lecturer at Brown School at Washington University in St Louis in Missouri, agrees, adding, “If we’re actually listening to the survivors who are experiencing harm, what they are asking from us is that we listen to what they want and what they need.” They want the harmful behavior to stop, but they may not always be in a position to leave the relationship. “There [could be] other positive relationship benefits. There are things they are very connected to, and therefore, what they really want and need is for this person to change their behavior. Until we can figure out effective interventions to really reduce that harm, I think we’re really stuck not being able to listen to the needs of the survivor.”

She notes, for example, that many people experiencing IPV are tied economically to their partner. “Even if that person is doing harm to them, they still need that person to maybe keep their house, stay where they are, have the kids in the school where they want them to be,” she describes.

In fact, researchers at Michigan State University found, “In a study we did with the National Domestic Violence Hotline, 73% of survivors said they stayed longer in an abusive relationship than they wanted to because of concerns about supporting themselves or their children financially.”1

Ignoring the complexities of a relationship or even the reality that many who do leave return, both temporarily and long-term, results in a less effective intervention structure. The safety and well-being of a survivor cannot rely solely on the idea of separation.

Added to that are the children. Individuals who cause harm may, even after a relationship has ended, still have custody of their children. After all, most IPV does not result in criminal charges. A literature review of cases between 1980 and 2023 found that between 63% and 92.7% of reported cases do not result in conviction. More are not reported. Failure to address the harmful behavior in the individual could lead to further exposure to violence for the children.

There is also the individual who is causing harm. They deserve the support needed to be both held accountable and given the opportunity to make change. “Intervention services that are humanizing, centering the needs and strengths of the person who has caused harm sets the foundation for deep personal change in the lives of those who have harmed. Centering motivation change internally, in addition to externally motivating support is necessary when attempting to change deeply seeded issues,” says Laura Voith, MSW, PhD, an associate professor at Jack, Joseph, and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Framing the Approach
The humanization that Voith touches upon is a key part of creating intervention programs that offer the possibility of change and thus the possibility of making the aforementioned impact felt. Recognizing that is a part of why the vocabulary and the approach to these intervention programs has shifted in recent years.

Take for example the words and labels used when talking not only about the individual but the programs, as well. “There’s been a progression over time. The language that I prefer instead of batterers or perpetrators or offenders, which are all used depending on who you talk to, is people who have caused harm. The reason why that is important to me is because it allows for the humanization to be a part of the work. Sometimes, those labels can be dehumanizing to people because they reduce them to their worst act. When you dehumanize people, you remove their ability to change,” Davis says.

Similarly, at the VA, “The program intentionally uses the phrasing ‘using intimate partner violence’,” Bruce explains, “rather than labels such as ‘perpetrator’ or ‘abuser.’ This approach aligns with our trauma-informed, person-centered philosophy, aiming to reduce stigma, prevent retraumatization and foster an environment of safety and respect for all veterans.

“Instead of focusing on labels, we highlight behaviors that need to change, maintaining an emphasis on recovery and building trust. It’s important to remember that many individuals who use violence have also experienced violence themselves, and assigning labels can be further traumatizing and a deterrent to accessing care,” she continues.

That same understanding of labels and the confines they create can be seen in the movement away from the name Batterer Intervention Program to Abuse Partner Intervention Program, which is the more common descriptor today for court-mandated programming in the United States.

The Approach
It’s not just a vocabulary mix-up, either. More and more individuals doing this work recognize the need for trauma-informed or trauma-focused care—care that combines accountability for the harm caused with an empathy and awareness of the pain that many of the people who cause harm have felt.

“Childhood trauma and adversities are one of the most robust predictors of intimate partner violence in adulthood. Minimally, social workers should be using a trauma-informed approach, and ideally, social workers are engaging in trauma-responsive interventions, with the latter attempting to resolve the underlying traumatic issues among those who have harmed,” Voith says.

She further explains, “Without trauma-focused interventions, the commonly used psychoeducation approaches (or ‘unlearning violence’) will be less or ineffective. Psychoeducation is effective when our higher brain/frontal lobe is in control, because this is the place where executive functioning comes from. The lower and mid-brain take over, however, when we are in highly stressful situations. So, all of that great work and progress made in psychoeducational programming becomes hijacked by the unaddressed effects of trauma in the lower and mid-brain.”

Existing Programs
There are many examples of programs throughout the United States that offer intervention and even prevention programs to individuals who cause harm, with an approach that aligns with what has already been mentioned.

At the VA, for example, the Intimate Partner Violence Assistance Program serves those experiencing and using violence through education, training, prevention services, and clinical intervention. “For veterans who use or may be at risk of using IPV, trained clinical providers—often social workers or psychologists—conduct thorough assessments and provide both individual and group treatment to enhance relationship skills, like effective communication and conflict resolution, all while addressing the whole person,” Bruce says.

In Chicago, The Men’s Group is a completely voluntary program for Latino men that is run out of a local church. Both Davis and VonDeLinde, were quick to highlight it. It stands out among many of the programs because it is not court-mandated and because of the connection and support that stems from it.

“Part of the reason that men continue to engage with [The Men’s Group] is they, one, found a brotherhood, a social connectedness in it. They volunteer together. They paint each other’s house. They are there for each other,” Davis says, noting that such a connection is very rare. In her experience, many programs forbid participants from fraternizing outside of meetings.

They also continue to engage, she explains, because they can see that it’s helping them reduce violence.

On a slightly different, lower level of intervention, the National Domestic Violence Hotline encourages those who believe they are hurting their partner to call for help. “If you think you may be mistreating or hurting your partner, call us at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). Our advocates can discuss the differences between healthy and unhealthy behaviors. If you’re at the stage where you know you want to seek help, our advocates can also refer you to resources in your area. As always, it’s important to remember that change doesn’t happen overnight—it’s an ongoing process that takes work and willingness,”2 the site reads.

The bulk of the programs in the United States, however, are not like The Men’s Group or the available hotline. They are court mandated. Participants join them after an arrest or conviction. Some are referred through children’s services.

Many of these Batterer Intervention/Abusive Partner Intervention Programs, says Voith when asked about the efficacy in general of intervention programs, are a “one-size-fits-all model, when there is enough research to indicate this model is inadequate. Programs that are screening ([for example] for mental health needs, such as depression, PTSD, severity of violence perpetration, childhood and adulthood adversity, and trauma of participant) and tailoring programming to those needs stand to be much more effective than the current standard of care.”

The Missing Pieces
If the majority of programs became more trauma-focused and, perhaps, were sought out rather than mandated, that may improve engagement and efficacy overall. But it does not fill in all the gaps that persist.

Intervention programs for those who use violence remain primarily aimed at men who harm women, for example. VonDeLinde stresses the importance of providing services to individuals who don’t match the societal stereotype of relationships with IPV. That does not mean simply including them in the services that already exist but rather making sure there are services that are specific to varying populations. For example, practitioners need to reach the LGBTQ+ community in a way that those individuals are most comfortable in order to facilitate change when necessary. “A good friend of mine [in St Louis] has done a lot of research in this area about asking questions to the community about where you would want to get services. Well, [they want] services from the queer community, not from the traditional IPV movement where they haven’t felt welcomed or they don’t see themselves often in our programs,” she says.

In general, VonDeLinde also wants to see more entryways for service and a more systemic approach to IPV programs. “Even some programs where the whole family is served,” she recommends. “The person who is doing harm has something available, the person who has been harmed has something available, the kids have something available. I think sometimes we become so afraid within the US system of really looking at these creative models that it has really stymied the work.”

The more IPV is viewed from a systems perspective and a holistic perspective, the more effective prevention and intervention services can become. After all, IPV is not a simple problem with a simple solution. If it were, it would not impact more than 12 million adults every year in the United States. It is a complicated and complex issue that must be handled as such. Intervention programs for those causing harm are one piece to the puzzle—a piece that is still being fine-tuned but has the potential to make a difference.

— Sue Coyle, MSW, is a freelance writer and social worker in the Philadelphia suburbs.

References
1. DeJong S, Adams A. What you might not know about domestic violence and money. Michigan State University website. https://psychology.msu.edu/news-events/news/domestic-violence-and-money.html#:~:text=In%20a%20study%20we%20did,directly%20contributes%20to%20this%20trap. Updated November 20, 2025.

2. Intervention programs for abusive behaviors. National Domestic Violence Hotline website. https://www.thehotline.org/resources/intervention-programs-for-abusive-behavior/