Why Perpetrator Visibility and Accountability Matters
By Rasha Hamid
Systems and processes designed to respond to domestic abuse often neglect to keep perpetrators visible and at the centre of their work, lacking accountability. This can happen for many reasons. One is that practitioners may feel a lack of confidence in their ability to work with perpetrators, which can often be due to gaps in training that focus on this area of practice. Across various sectors, both historically and traditionally, it has also been “easier” to focus our work on victims since victims are often more willing to engage with practitioners and comply with the interventions offered.
On the other hand, perpetrators are more likely to evade services and present in challenging ways. This may even be an extension of their abusive and controlling behaviours. It can result in agency efforts and attention being directed towards victims who are “there” and more likely to help us work through our processes more efficiently. This can be tempting, given the enormous pressures that most practitioners face in terms of time and resources. Some practitioners working in children’s services also argue that this focus is justified given that, in most cases, the children are in the victim’s care.
Accountability for Perpetrators
I argue that regardless of where the perpetrator might be, physically or geographically, their behaviours and the impacts of those can remain a serious concern for the children if left unaddressed. The Safe & Together Model helps us understand how the perpetrator’s pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour can continue to cause harm, even if he no longer lives with the adult and child survivors.
For example, there may be proceedings in the family court that he can interfere with. By causing delays, making counter-allegations, or using other tactics, he can continue his efforts to control the survivor. This can cause harm to the adult and child survivors and the family functioning. The delays and interference lead to additional and potentially ongoing trauma and financial costs for the survivor in engaging legal services. Or she may be required to make more frequent trips to counsellors, court hearings, or other court-mandated activities.
Another example is where the perpetrator is in prison but engages others to perpetrate violence on his behalf. He is still controlling the adult survivor from prison and causing harm to her, the children, and the family functioning. In this scenario, the family may need to move away from family, friends, school, and networks to be safe from further abuse.
What Came First?
It is difficult to ascertain whether the lack of perpetrator visibility is what has led to interventions becoming fixated on victims or if this were the other way around. Regardless, this is a vicious cycle that agencies can find themselves stuck in and find it challenging to shift away from. Not every practitioner or agency struggles with these issues—when practice is centred around perpetrators, this is often an anomaly and not the norm. Systems remain quite inconsistent around their ability to respond to perpetrators. Ultimately, whatever the reasons, there is certainly an issue with this piece of work not being viewed as a priority. It is often accompanied by a lack of acknowledgment of the consequences of working in ways that allow perpetrators to remain invisible. Exploring these consequences can help us to demonstrate why visibility and accountability matter.
A Focus on Perpetrators Minimises Repeat Referrals to Agencies
We know that a proportion of perpetrators are repeat serial offenders. They continue to be abusive towards the same victim regardless of safety measures put in place to protect her or move on to other victims to repeat similar patterns of behaviours. When our services do not intervene with these individuals effectively, we fail to implement measures to interrupt these patterns. We mistakenly move our focus towards victims who have no control over ending the abuse. It is this form of practice that I believe contributes to the high number of repeat referrals that many agencies see for domestic abuse cases. This is something that many practitioners are often frustrated by.
Lack of Perpetrator Visibility Leads to Mother-Blaming
Perhaps more significant is the way that the lack of visibility around perpetrators leads to victim-blaming practices. When agencies work in ways that leave them invisible or fail to address perpetrators effectively, practice becomes more concerned with expectations around what the victim should or should not do to manage or end the abuse. Victims who do not comply with such expectations may be seen as lacking insight, not acknowledging the abuse, non-engaging, or “failing to protect the children.” Interventions that follow from such practice end up focusing on a list of expectations for the victim. These include access to support for her to work on her insight or improve her awareness of the domestic abuse.
Additionally, planning may also focus on setting actions for her that assume she has control over the perpetrator. The victim may be expected to ensure there is no contact between the perpetrator and the children, not allow the perpetrator into the home, or not breach the bail conditions (even though these are the perpetrator’s conditions). Whilst practitioners may have good intentions at heart when creating actions like this, ultimately, we are telling the victim that she is responsible. And quite importantly, we have left the perpetrator completely invisible here.
This type of planning neglects to take into account the role that the perpetrator plays in the abuse and the harms associated with it. Instead, we have focused on making a judgment around what we think is best for this victim as opposed to addressing the source of our concerns. Having such expectations can then also result in us making judgments about whether a victim is being protective or not based on her willingness to engage with these actions.
The Safe & Together Model Keeps Perpetrators Visible and Accountable
One significant way in which practitioners can improve the visibility and accountability of perpetrators within our systems is by attempting to engage with perpetrators directly for services whose remit allows for this. Practitioners may need to make multiple, creative, and persistent attempts to achieve this engagement, especially when we often see patterns of perpetrators trying to evade our systems. The quantity and quality of our attempts to engage with perpetrators need to be considered—not only how often we attempt it but also in which way and using what methods. Many practitioners may feel unable to achieve visibility and accountability with perpetrators who do not engage with them.
However, in addition to engaging with perpetrators directly, there are various ways agencies can ensure that their interventions are centred around the perpetrator. The Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a good place to start. It enables a thorough assessment of the perpetrator’s pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour and its impact on the child and adult survivors and the family functioning. It also allows us to gain a greater understanding of the adult survivor’s efforts to protect her children and her efforts to mitigate the harm caused by the perpetrator. Even if the perpetrator doesn’t engage, the adult survivor is the expert in his pattern of coercive control. She knows the harm it causes and is a very important source of information before any direct engagement with the perpetrator.
Accountability should be present in everything we do, including documentation. The way we write about cases using an active voice to name the behaviours and highlight the actions of the perpetrator is a good example of this. We often talk about the abuse in passive way ( e.g., “victim reports…” or “the victim is experiencing…”) as opposed to naming the person carrying out these acts (e.g., “the perpetrator has…” or “the perpetrator continues to…”). A vast body of literature addresses how the use of an active voice versus a passive one impacts how we view accountability and responsibility for the abuse. Using an active voice gives us clarity around accountability. A passive one does not. Starting our case notes, reports, or any written documentation with a focus on the perpetrator helps shift our focus towards the perpetrator.
Consider the different responses one might have to a case note that starts with a focus on the victim (e.g., “the victim has reported…”). Another case note may start by immediately painting a clearer picture of the perpetrator’s actions (e.g., “the perpetrator has…”). The same approach needs to be mirrored in verbal discussions we have with the perpetrator, victim, and other agencies. This is an approach that can be implemented in every domestic abuse case regardless of whether perpetrators engage or not, as well as whether the practitioner’s role involves speaking to perpetrators.
Any attempt to keep perpetrators visible and accountable can be facilitated further by using the Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool to map out a very clear and detailed outline of their behaviours. The more we know about a perpetrator, in specific and behavioural terminology, the more difficult it becomes for us to ignore the role they play in the abuse. This knowledge also helps us to put into context the victim’s decision-making. It also helps our efforts to protect the children, alleviating any victim-blaming attitudes we may have once held. Furthermore, this gives us much greater insight into the impacts of the abuse on children or vulnerable adults. We can ensure these are considered when addressing the perpetrator and supporting us to see the impacts of their behaviours on the wider family functioning. The Safe & Together Model offers practitioners practical tools that are shown to work in ensuring perpetrator visibility and accountability.
About the Author
Rasha has been working within the domestic abuse sector since 2011 and much of her work has been in the charity sector and in local authorities in the UK. She is currently a PhD student at the University of Essex and her research focuses on domestic abuse perpetrators and assessing engagement patterns and interventions aimed at addressing their behaviors. Rasha became a Safe & Together Certified Trainer in 2019 and has been working with the Institute since 2021 as both a trainer and a mentor. She has also worked on various research and evaluation projects as a consultant and senior researcher.