To Name or Not to Name: Supporting Workers in the Perpetrator Labelling Debate

Practice TipsWorker Safety
Written By Jessica Sisler

By Rasha Hamid, Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Consultant and Researcher

Language matters in domestic abuse practice. The words we choose shape how harm is understood, how survivors experience our services, and how accountability is framed in the systems designed to protect them. For practitioners working in this field, navigating language is an ongoing and often unsupported professional challenge—one I encounter consistently in training delivery, and nowhere more acutely than in decisions around the term “perpetrator.”

Views on labelling are divided. Some practitioners argue that naming someone a perpetrator is essential—it increases their visibility, centres accountability, resists minimisation of the abuse, and validates survivor experiences. Others hold an equally firm position that the label can be counterproductive—potentially escalating risk, shutting down engagement efforts, or prejudging someone where no definitive evidence, such as a criminal conviction, yet exists. Both positions are held with conviction by thoughtful, experienced practitioners. And then there are those who have not formed a view, not from indifference but because the question has never been properly put to them. In a sector where practitioners are managing heavy caseloads alongside daily exposure to risk and trauma, the philosophical dimensions of language rarely rise to the top of the agenda.

What is clear is that agencies and providers frequently fail to support workers in making these decisions. Organisational frameworks, practice guidance, or open practitioner dialogue on language are rare. Where a firm position does exist, it defaults to terms such as “alleged perpetrator,” often less out of careful consideration and more out of concern around complaints from perpetrators or antagonising them. It is worth noting that a perpetrator’s hostile response to being named is itself part of their abusive pattern of behaviour and should be understood as such rather than treated as a reason to avoid the label.

Without support, practitioners are left to make ad hoc decisions in high-pressure environments. They worry about getting it wrong, upsetting colleagues, aggravating perpetrators, or inadvertently increasing risks to survivors, children, or themselves. This is an avoidable professional burden. Language decisions are not neutral, and when workers feel unsupported in making them, both practice quality and worker wellbeing suffer.

A Framework for Informed Decision-Making

Supporting workers on whether to use labels does not mean mandating a single position. Rigid uniformity is neither realistic nor desirable in a field where context varies enormously. What it does mean is equipping workers and agencies with a framework for thinking through the decision and then supporting their professional judgement. In my practice and training, I encourage workers to consider three aspects when weighing a language choice:

  1. Goal: What is this label achieving in this moment? Is it increasing visibility of that perpetrator, supporting accountability efforts, or helping a survivor feel believed and validated? Or is the language choice being driven by a desire to appease perpetrators, conform to organisational norms, or simply mirror language used by others? Being clear on the function of the language brings intention to what can otherwise be an automatic—or even a politically motivated—choice.

  2. Context: Where is the label being used and with whom? An internal case file, a direct conversation with a perpetrator, a multi-agency meeting, and a family court report are all different settings with different audiences and power dynamics. Language appropriate and necessary in one setting may be unhelpful or risky in another.

  3. Implications: What are the consequences of using this term or of not using it? Safety must sit at the centre of this consideration. Practitioners need to consider risks to themselves and the potential impacts on survivors and children if perpetrators encounter the terminology. Some consequences are intended (e.g., ensuring identification of harm, holding someone accountable, validating survivor experiences), while others are not (e.g., escalating risks, heightening worker anxiety, losing engagement with perpetrators, pushing survivors away). Both deserve equal consideration. Thinking through implications is not about generating fears; it is about anticipating and addressing them.

This three-part framework—goal, context, implications—gives practitioners something to work with rather than defaulting to the path of least resistance. But this only works with genuine organisational backing. Workers need to know their supervisors and senior leadership understand this complexity, that decisions will be supported rather than second-guessed, and that if a language choice leads to a complaint or safety concern, they will not be left to manage this alone. Supervision is central to this. Supervisors should actively create space for these conversations, normalising the complexity rather than treating it as a gap in practice or a topic disconnected from improving outcomes for families.

Beyond the Label

The perpetrator labelling debate has no single answer, and it is unlikely to ever have one. What matters is that views are reached thoughtfully, not by default or through being manipulated by perpetrators. Ultimately, what is most powerful is not the label itself but the rigorous naming of behaviours. It is the detailed, behaviour-focused documentation of what a perpetrator has done that forms the true basis of visibility and accountability.

Models such as Safe & Together offer a structured approach to exactly this kind of practice complexity, enabling workers to make more consistent, defensible decisions while preserving the flexibility that good domestic abuse practice requires. Central to the Model is robust, perpetrator-focused documentation that enables workers and agencies to justify their decisions without fear of challenge. Embedding these elements into regular training and supervision can significantly build worker confidence, improve competence, and enhance overall practice quality.

Critically, the Model’s emphasis on addressing worker safety must sit at the centre of any approach to language and decision-making. Without this foundation, even the most carefully considered framework will fail to achieve its aims. In practical terms, workers need to feel safe making decisions around language, confident they will be supported when challenged, and assured they will not face the consequences of these decisions alone.

Leaving practitioners to navigate this complexity without support is not acceptable. The anxiety many workers feel around labelling is not a sign of weakness. It is a rational response to being asked to make significant professional decisions without guidance or a framework to rely on. When organisations invest in structured approaches, create space for dialogue, and genuinely back their workers in their decision-making, those workers are far better equipped to engage with these difficult questions rather than avoid them. Used thoughtfully, the perpetrator label can be a powerful tool for enhancing visibility and accountability while shifting responsibility away from victims. Used without consideration, it can heighten workers’ anxiety and create safety consequences for survivors, children, and workers alike. In a field where language has real consequences, getting this right matters.

Rasha and Safe & Together Institute’s European Regional Manager Nic Douglas will be discussing this and more during a live webinar on 12 October 2026 at 10 a.m. BST. Register here.

Additional Resources

Jessica Sisler
Next

Technology as a Tool of Coercive Control: When the Screen Becomes the Weapon