The Danger of “Common Sense” Solutions to Complex Problems
By Leah Vejzovic, LMSW, North America Regional Manager, Safe & Together Institute
When systems feel under pressure—whether from budget cuts, staff turnover, public scrutiny, or political shifts—there’s a predictable pattern that emerges: calls for “common sense” solutions. These approaches often sound reasonable on the surface. They promise clarity, efficiency, and quick results. But at the intersection of domestic violence and child welfare, “common sense” solutions are often anything but sensible, and they can be actively harmful to the children and families we serve.
Why “Common Sense” Resurfaces During Times of Change
I’ve noticed this pattern throughout my career: When systems experience disruption or uncertainty, simplified approaches gain traction. Sometimes it’s framed as “getting back to basics.” Other times it’s positioned as cutting through bureaucracy or political correctness. The language varies, but the underlying premise is the same—that complex problems can be solved with straightforward, intuitive interventions.
The appeal is understandable. Domestic abuse–informed child welfare practice is demanding work. It requires us to think critically, document thoroughly, and resist the urge to fall back on assumptions. When practitioners are overwhelmed, under-resourced, or uncertain about the future, the promise of simpler solutions can feel like relief.
But here’s what we know from decades of practice and research: Domestic violence and its impact on children is not simple. Perpetrators of domestic violence use sophisticated, patterned strategies to harm their partners and children. These patterns don’t show up in a single incident or reveal themselves in one interview. Understanding them requires careful observation, engagement, documentation, and analysis over time.
What “Common Sense” Solutions Actually Look Like in Practice
Let me be specific about what I mean. “Common sense” approaches in our field often include:
Focusing solely on physical violence while ignoring coercive control. This seems straightforward—document the injuries, assess the danger, intervene. But perpetrators who use coercive control may never lay a hand on their partner while still terrorizing them and their children through surveillance, isolation, economic abuse, and psychological manipulation. When we focus only on physical violence, we miss the majority of the harm and give perpetrators a roadmap for how to abuse without consequences.
Treating domestic violence as a “relationship problem” or “conflict.” This framing suggests that both parties share responsibility for the violence and that the solution lies in better communication or anger management. It sounds reasonable until you understand the dynamics of power and control. Domestic violence is not a conflict resolution issue—it’s about one person choosing to dominate and harm another. Interventions based on this misunderstanding not only fail to create safety—they can also increase danger.
Expecting survivors to “just leave” or holding them responsible for protecting their children by leaving. On the surface, this may seem logical: If there’s violence in the home, the adult victim should remove themselves and their children from the situation. But this ignores everything we know about why survivors stay, the risks of separation, and the reality that perpetrators remain dangerous—often more dangerous—after separation. In fact, a 2003 study led by Jacqueline Campbell showed that separation increased homicide risk by about three times. Approaches that punish survivors for not leaving or that remove children based on a parent’s “failure to protect” are rooted in this oversimplified logic and lack of consideration for the very real lethality risk.
Requiring perpetrators to complete generic domestic violence programs without assessing whether their behavior actually changes. This approach checks a box—the person “did the program”—but doesn’t account for whether they’ve stopped using coercive control, whether they’re parenting in ways that continue to harm children, or whether they’re undermining the survivor’s parenting. It mistakes compliance with accountability.
These approaches feel intuitive because they align with common cultural narratives about violence, family, and responsibility. But they don’t align with what we actually observe when we pay attention to perpetrator patterns.
Why Perpetrator Pattern–Based Practice Matters More Than Ever
The Safe & Together Model’s emphasis on perpetrator pattern–based practice is not academic or theoretical—it’s based on what actually creates safety and well-being for children. When we document and analyze patterns of behavior using tools like the Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool (PPMT), we see things that single incidents don’t reveal. We see how a perpetrator uses multiple pathways to harm—not just physical violence, but interference with parenting, coerced engagement in illegal activity, exploitation of the child’s vulnerabilities, and more.
This level of analysis requires critical thinking. It requires us to look beyond the crisis of the moment and ask: What is this person’s pattern? How does this behavior serve their goal of power and control? How does this impact the child’s lived experience? These aren’t “common sense” questions because the answers aren’t immediately obvious. They require thorough assessment, documentation, and often uncomfortable conversations.
But this is precisely the work that protects children and supports survivors. When we understand perpetrator patterns, we can:
Make more accurate assessments of risk and safety.
Hold perpetrators accountable for the actual harm they cause, not just the incidents that result in visible injuries or police involvement.
Partner effectively with survivors by understanding the context of their decisions and actions.
Develop interventions that address the root cause of harm rather than symptoms.
Resist the pressure to apply interventions that sound reasonable but don't match the behavior we’re observing.
Grounding Ourselves in What We Know
During times of uncertainty, the most important thing we can do is anchor ourselves in evidence-informed practice. The Safe & Together Model provides that anchor. Resources like our Core Training, the Uncovering Coercive Control Toolkit, and the Partnering with Survivors course give practitioners concrete skills for doing this complex work well, even when external circumstances feel chaotic.
For multi-disciplinary teams working at this intersection, ensuring that everyone—from child protection to law enforcement to advocates—is operating from a shared understanding of perpetrator behavior dynamics rather than falling back on assumptions that may conflict across disciplines is crucial to avoiding “common sense” shortcuts that don’t allow us to see the full picture.
I want to be clear: I’m not suggesting that practitioners who feel drawn to simpler approaches are bad at their jobs or don’t care about families. The pull toward “common sense” solutions comes from very real pressures and very real exhaustion. But I am saying that we have to resist that pull—because the stakes are too high.
Children are relying on us to see what’s actually happening in their lives, not what seems obvious at first glance. Survivors are relying on us to understand why their situation is complicated, not to judge them for not following a script we've written based on oversimplified assumptions. And even perpetrators benefit when we hold them accountable for their actual patterns of behavior rather than letting them hide behind the fact that they “completed the program” or “only” used non-physical tactics.
Moving Forward
If you’re feeling the pressure to simplify right now, I encourage you to pause and ask yourself: What would truly serve this child and family? Not what would be easiest to explain or quickest to implement, but what does the evidence—both research and practice evidence—tell us will actually make a difference?
Often, the answer requires us to stay in the complexity a little longer. To document more thoroughly. To think more critically. To resist the urge to categorize quickly. This work has never been easy, but it’s always been necessary. And in times of change and uncertainty, it may be more necessary than ever.
The Safe & Together Model continues to evolve based on what we learn from practitioners in the field who are doing this work every day. Your commitment to perpetrator pattern–based, survivor-centered practice isn’t just about following a Model—it’s about ensuring that when we intervene in families’ lives, we do so based on what we actually observe, not what we assume we know.
That’s not common sense. It’s better than common sense. It’s practice wisdom grounded in evidence, humility, and a genuine commitment to children’s safety and well-being.
Additional Resources
Safe & Together Institute’s domestic abuse–informed trainings
Safe & Together Institute’s upcoming events
David Mandel’s book Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence
