Abstract
This Brief Report introduces the Contextual Abusive Behavior Inventory (C-ABI) — an assessment tool developed for antiviolence programs for women. After nearly 20 years use in the U.S., the C-ABI was implemented as part of a new antiviolence program for women in Australia. This was a community-based group work and case management program for women brought to court and child protective services attention for having used force in their relationships. Most women attending the program also disclosed extensive domestic and sexual violence survivorship histories. Thus, their experiences exist beyond being “victims” or “offenders.” The authors discuss methodological and ethical issues that arose during the program evaluation when the C-ABI was used both as an assessment tool and a research measure to increase understanding about the characteristics and needs of women who have resorted to using force. Practitioners found that the C-ABI was a valuable assessment tool but that it could be and was used against the women by referring institutions. The authors highlight issues for consideration in using and storing the C-ABI both as an assessment tool and a research measure. When working alongside carceral systems of power, practitioners and researchers confront daily challenges of how best to balance women’s intervention needs with the demands of referring entities and potential ongoing risk. The authors hope that, by detailing their experiences with the C-ABI, this brief report will encourage thoughtful innovations in practice and research when working in contexts beyond the victim offender binary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Many Australian programs do not accept mandated clients, though when courts or child protection services suggest they attend programming, women are unlikely to decline. However, that voluntary status remains.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is a professional organization of social workers in the United States. According to the NASW Code of Ethics: 1.02 Self-Determination: “Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals. Social workers may limit clients’ right to self-determination when, in the social workers’ professional judgment, clients’ actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others.” Therefore, exceptions would include a client’s disclosure that they intend to harm themselves, harm someone else, or report child abuse and/or neglect.
References
Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15(3), 358–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912430101500300.
Bible, A., Dasgupta, S. D., & Osthoff, S. (Eds.). (2002). (guest eds.) Special issue: Women’s use of violence. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1267–1415.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Dasgupta, S. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 8, 1364–1389. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102237408.
Dasgupta, S. D., Osthoff, S., & Bible, A. (guest.) (Eds.). (2003). Special issue: Women’s use of violence. Violence Against Women, 9(1), 3-136.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social problems, 39(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096914.
Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380.
Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma-informed or trauma-denied: Principles and implementation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20063.
Gallagher, J. M., & Ashford, J. B. (2016). Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire: Testing alternative measurement models with assaultive misdemeanor offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(11), 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816643986.
Gardner, D. (2009). Victim-defendants in mandated treatment: An ethical quandary. In A. McCloskey, & M. H. Sitaker (Eds.), Backs against the wall: Battered women’s resistance strategies (pp. 69–86). Routledge.
Goodmark, L. (2008). When is a battered woman not a battered woman-when she fights back. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(75), 75–129.
Hegarty, K., Bush, R., & Sheehan, M. (2005). The composite abuse scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012824.
House, E. (2001). When women use force: An advocacy guide to understanding this issue and conducting an assessment with individuals who have used force to determine their eligibility for services from a domestic violence agency. Domestic Violence Project/SAFE House. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/house_whenwomenuseforce.pdf.
Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C. & Larance, L. Y. (2021). Interventions for women who use force in a family context: An Australian practice framework. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. https://vawc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Women-who-use-Force-Practice-Framework-Jan-2020.pdf.
Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C., Larance L. Y., Vicary, D., Spiteri-Staines, A., & Ovenden, G. (2019). Working with women who use force: A feasibility study protocol of the Positive (+)SHIFT group work programme in Australia. BMJ Open, 9, e027496.
Kondrat, E. R. (2002). Actor-centered social work: Re-visioning “person-in-environment” through a critical theory lens. Social Work, 47(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/47.4.435.
Larance, L. Y. (2006). Serving women who use force in their intimate heterosexual relationships: An extended view. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 622–640.
Larance, L. Y. (2012). Commentary on Wilson, Woods, Emerson and Donenberg: The necessity for practitioner vigilance in assessing the full context of an individual’s life experiences.
Larance, L. Y. (2017). A practitioner’s response to: “Addressing violence by female partners is vital to prevent or stop violence against women: Evidence from the Multisite Batterer Intervention Evaluation,” by Murray Straus. Violence Against Women, 23(1) NP1.
Larance, L. Y. (2021). Doctoral dissertation: Talking back to the Web of Power: Women’s legal, child protection, and antiviolence intervention entanglement and resistance. University of Michigan.
Larance, L. Y. (2024). Broken: Women’s narratives of intimate and institutional harm and repair. University of California Press.
Larance, L. Y., & Dasgupta, S. D. (guest eds.). (2012). Special issue: Contemporary perspectives on battered women’s use of non-fatal force in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 18(9), 999–1118.
Larance, L. Y., Hoffman-Ruzicka, A., & Shivas, J. B. (2009). Vista Program curriculum: An extended view of serving women who use force. Jersey Center for Nonviolence.
Larance, L. Y., Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C., Goodmark, L., & Douglas, H. (2022). Beyond the victim-offender binary: Legal and anti-violence intervention considerations with women who have used force in the U.S. and Australia. Affilia: Feminist Inquiry in Social Work, 37(3), 466–486.
Larance, L. Y., & Rousson, A. (2016). Facilitating change: A process of renewal for women who have used force in their intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 22(7), 876–891.
Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. Rutgers University Press.
NHMRC. (2007). National Statement on ethical Conduct in Human Research. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72 updated 2018.
Osthoff, S., Dasgupta, S. D., & Bible, A. (guest.) (Eds.). (2002). Special issue: Women’s use of violence: Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1419–1544.
Potter, H. (2008). Battle cries: Black women and intimate partner abuse. New York University Press.
Roy, D. (2002). South asian battered women’s use of force against intimate male partners: A practice note. Violence Against Women, 18, 1108–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212461431.
Shepard, M. F., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007003001.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CTS) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.4.3.159.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Larance, L.Y., Kertesz, M. Methodological and Ethical Considerations When Working Beyond the Victim-Offender Binary: A Brief Report on the Unintended Consequences of the C-ABI. J Fam Viol 38, 1071–1078 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00584-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00584-w