Intimate Partner Violence Webinar

Listen as Amy Coha discusses the reality of physical, sexual, psychological, and financial tactics to gain and maintain power and control over a partner.


Amy: Okay, I’m going to start off with a definition of intimate partner violence and basically domestic violence is oftentimes that term is used or family violence. I prefer to use intimate partner violence because it applies not only to heterosexual battering which is mainly statistically a male battering a female partner although it also happens, intimate partner violence also refers to gay and lesbian and bisexual partners as well so that’s why I’m using intimate partner violence or IPV as the term. And basically defining as abuse that refers to physical, sexual, psychological, and financial tactics used by one partner to gain and maintain power and control over the other partner. And as I mentioned it occurs in heterosexual and lesbian and gay relationships.

I want to talk a little bit about history of wife battering. And basically in 1824 in this country in the US a husband could administer what was term “moderate chastisement” in cases of emergency. And basically when we’re talking, when they were defining emergency we’re referring to when a wife did not agree with or “obey” her husband. We have a saying which is commonly used, I hear it everywhere, in all sorts of situations, called someone will use the term “rule of thumb” and yet most of us aren’t aware where that saying comes from. And basically it was referring to the right of a husband to whip his wife using a switch that was no bigger than the circumference of his thumb. So that’s where we have the saying “rule of thumb.” So something that I would ask you to do is to kind of be aware when you hear that term used because if you ask someone if they know what the origin is of that saying most people don’t. And basically it is historically in our country, the legal right of a husband to beat his wife.

I want to talk a little bit about the traditional mental health responses to women. And again putting this in a context of the position of women societallly and how mental health professionals traditionally looked at – kind of examine the issue of how they identify the issue of battering. And basically early on, before we had some good research, the focus was on identifying, kind of looking at psychological characteristics of battered women and I’m going to refer to battered women or survivors and using these characteristics to explain why the abuse occurred. So for example if a mental health professional identified low self esteem or alcohol or drug addiction or learn helplessness they would look at these characteristics and basically look at them or evaluate them as causal to being battered. So looking at someone who had some issues around problem solving or unassertiveness or looking at a battered woman as being emotionally dependent upon her partner or believing in traditional sex roles. These are some of the myths about battered women but unfortunately traditionally the mental health system has oftentimes used these consequences of being battered and view them as being causal.

You can change the slide. Okay.

Some of the other areas in terms of victim blaming within social work we oftentimes examine victim blaming attitudes, blaming the victim or survivor for allowing the abuse to occur or for not stopping the abuse, or the phrase often I’ve heard in the past, sadly I’ve also head in the present from mental health professionals, referring to or noting in their records and working with survivors of battering as a woman who seeks out abusive relationships which is a classic victim blaming response. Over scrutinizing the battered woman’s behavior reinforces her belief and the batterers that she is responsible for the violence. I’m going to talk a little bit later on about couples counseling and the major problem with that. It also colludes with the perpetrator’s belief that he’s not responsible for his violent behaviors by putting this over emphasis on the battered woman’s behavior and not looking at the perpetrator of the violence.

So some of the diagnoses that battered women have received rather than being identified as a battered woman or being identified depending on some of the issues that she’s dealing with or some of the symptoms rather than looking at PTSD which is a much more accurate diagnosis in some cases the mental health system traditionally has looked at battered women or diagnosed them as dependent personality disorders, borderline personality disorders, or masochistic personality disorders. In 1980 there was a huge argument discussion around including self-defeating personality disorder and listing battered women underneath that diagnosis. And basically it was because of the organizing of feminists who were psychologists within the APA and they were successful in getting the criteria changed so that the diagnosis could not be applied to people who had been physically, sexually, or psychologically abused, the classic example of blaming the victim.

So when did attitudes, understanding, more evidence-based research begin to surface? And that basically happened in the late ‘70s, early ‘80s when we began to get better research about how pervasive a social problem intimate partner violence is. And basically part of that research came because of the outgrowth of the feminist movement and the development of the battered women’s movement and most importantly the establishment of hotlines and shelters. Up to the late ‘70s I believe the first shelter for battered women opened in 1977, ’78 in Minnesota. And basically shelters were the first agency, the first opportunity for battered women to seek safety, to be in a safe place for themselves and their children in escaping intimate partner violence.

So basically once women came to shelters they began telling their stories, shelter staff, advocates, and domestic violence shelter programs began collecting a tremendous amount of information and increasing our understanding of both the dynamics of intimate partner violence and understanding the dynamics how pervasive it was and many of the issues that battered women faced in terms of lack of resources and access to resources. So that was certainly the turning point in terms of recognition of the characteristics associated with battered women were the results of traumatic victimization, not personality disorders.

You can change the slide. Thank you.

The first major study that catalogued the experiences over a thousand battered women was in 1993 was Bowker. And what was really important and critical to our understanding of the resilience that battered women demonstrate and the proactive behaviors and efforts they make on their own behalf to seek safety and to stop the violence was that there were a number of strategies that battered women used in response to being assaulted and in an attempt to stop the violence. And these are ordered in order of how the statistical significance. So the first strategy used was trying to talk their partner out of the abuse. The second one is attempting to get the partner to promise to end their abuse to seek some help, encouraging their partner to get help around their violent behavior. The third is threatening the abuser with non-violent actions such as calling the police or discussing divorce, saying that this is not something that they could tolerate and so talking about getting a divorce.

You can go on to the next slide. Thank you.

The fourth one was hiding from the partner, kind of escaping, trying to leave the situation. The fifth was using passive self-defense to minimize the beatings. The sixth was relying on aggressive self-defense to minimize beatings. The seventh was relying on aggressive defense during the beatings by fighting back. And the last was avoidance, trying to avoid the partner,

The other important information about this study is that 50% of the battered women sought counseling. Why this is important for all of us, particularly social workers and other mental health professionals, is that – and this was in 1993, keep in mind – and the statistics have not changed, it may have increased in terms of battered women actively seeking counseling and support. Many women also sought help from family friends and social service agencies. So certainly this study and others that replicated this and more current studies have debunked the myth that battered women are passive, they’re accepting of the abuse and unwilling to seek help. What we see across the board is multiple attempts at help-seeking efforts and the question then becomes for us as social workers is what has been the response to their help-seeking efforts. And oftentimes the responses that women get from mental health professionals, other social service agencies has been not helpful, has been the exact opposite and not provided either the understanding of the dynamics and the resources were not available for women to successfully leave.

You can go on to the next slide. Thanks.

In looking at the prevalence of intimate partner violence 30% of female homicide victims are killed by their boyfriends, former husbands, and so I think it’s important to keep in mind, and I know just from reading the newspapers, from watching the news, it is not unusual for there to be news stories that we’ve all seen or newspaper articles that usually start with the line “estranged husband kills ex-wife” or former partner, that that is a line that we see all too often. In 1996 the National Crime Victimization Survey found that three out of every four victims of intimate partner violence were female. So some researchers, Jackie Kimball, a PhD nurse, working out of Johns Hopkins has written several articles and given the prevalence of women being killed by husbands, boyfriends, partners she refers to it as femicide in terms of the staggering statistics. So research indicates that the perpetrator’s acts of violence increase in frequency and become more severe over time. This is one of the reasons why early identification and intervention around identifying intimate partner violence is so critical in our work as mental health professionals.

You can go on to the next slide. Thanks.

So I want to talk just briefly about the importance of screening and assessing for intimate partner violence. This is not a new idea. This idea sadly has been around since the late ‘90s and basically both the American Medical Association has called for physicians to routinely screen for intimate partner violence and yet a research study reported that only 10% of primary care physicians regularly ask their patients about intimate partner violence. In studies more recently, in 2007 and 2008, asking physicians about – inquiring about reluctance to screen for intimate partner violence some of the responses included they didn’t feel they had enough time, they felt it was a very personal question to ask someone, they were afraid that it would – their patient would be offended if they ask the question.

So those are some of the personal barriers that prevent physicians, nurse practitioners, and others from routinely screening and yet we know from research, from the responses of survivors that the most helpful thing that a physician or a counselor can do is ask the question.

We can go on to the next screen.

Fewer than 50% of OB-GYN providers conducted routine screenings for intimate partner violence. What’s critically important about this and this is again, this is a study in 2000, is that when a women who’s in a battering relationship becomes pregnant even if her partner wants the child that it is – he’s at increased risk for physical assault. So given that that is a very vulnerable time for someone who’s being battered it becomes even more critical that OB-GYN providers ask the question of all their patients. In 1987 Susan Schecter who’s written a great deal and made major contributions to research on domestic violence, on battered women published guidelines for mental health practitioners in domestic violence cases and there certainly urged universal screening. And she also addressed the importance of both safety planning and working with survivors at an empowerment approach to helping survivors heal from the abuse.

I want to talk a little bit about research that I was involved with with Ellen Ridley in the last couple of years. Ellen Ridley, staff person at Family Crisis Services in Portland, Maine and I developed a research project inquiring about battered women/survivor’s experiences in counseling. So basically our research question was “How do mental health counselors enhance or compromise the physical and emotional safety of domestic violence victims, survivors by their counseling practices?” and that was our research question. The study was funded by the Bingham Foundation of Maine, it was approved by the UNE Institutional Review Board in 2007, and basically it was a survey that had 109 questions, it was a 90-minute survey that either one or the other of us conducted by phone or in person, and the interviews were conducted in 2007 and 2008. We completed 103 interviews and there were 102 women we interviewed and one man so that’s the survey sample. What we found that over 60% of the survivors were in the relationship for over four years, the great majority of them were married or living together, 79% had children and 86% of them, most of them chose to enter counseling. So again when we think about the Bowker study in 1983 and our study in 2007 86% of the 103 survivors that we spoke to chose to enter counseling. Over three-quarters of the survivors saw two or more counselors during their abusive relationship. A question you might have is “Why did they seek two or more counselors?” We collected data on two counselors, two counseling experiences. If they had more than that we asked them to choose their worst experience and their best experience. And what we found was that women who went on to see a second counselor was because they felt that the first counselor did not have an understanding of domestic violence and if they self-disclosed that they were being battered that the feedback they got back from the counselor they felt was victim-blaming and so they left that counselor and continued to look for another counselor.

Our survey tool, as I just mentioned, recorded survivors’ experiences up to two counselors. One of the assessment tools we used we administered within the survey was Jackie Kimball’s who I just mentioned is a PhD nurse working out of Johns Hopkins, teaching there, and something she developed called the “danger assessment.” It’s an assessment tool that has 20 questions and basically what this tool does it measures the level of danger the survivor was in the year prior to beginning counseling. Basically this assessment tool has met all the standards through reliability and validity and identifying criteria associated with homicides. The 20 questions are directly related to indicators of abuse where that increases the possibility that the woman is in a very high risk situation.

In terms of looking at the counselor demographics there are – we have data on 177 counselors, 73% of the counselors where female, 50% worked in community agencies, a third were in private practice, some were pastoral counselors, some worked in employee assistance programs or addiction services. Of the 156 counselors only 23% conducted a written screening for intimate partner violence and what this means is that many community agencies or private practice counselors will have someone fill out intake paperwork which will include a series of questions, demographic questions, questions about family history, and only 23% conducted a written screening where they asked any questions at all about intimate partner violence. Of 170 counselors 57% conducted a verbal screening for intimate partner violence. So the screening was inconsistent across the sample.

So what are the results of the danger assessment of the 103 survivors that we met with? Seventy-five per cent of the women in the sample met the criteria for severe to extreme danger as measured by their responses in the danger assessment. Some of the responses, there’s a question about pet abuse – in one situation the batterer let a pet bleed to death in front of the survivor and prevented the survivor from getting help for the pet. In another situation the batterer hit the woman in the head with a metal bat, with a butcher block, with a crowbar. In another the batterer put his thumb over the trachea and pinched the nose of the survivor, trying to kill her. Another situation the woman was stabbed multiple times. This gives you an indication of some of the levels of the violence that these survivors experienced which it should not be surprising that they were in the extreme danger categories.

What are some of the characteristics that battered women identified as what was helpful in terms of their experience with counselors? What was the most helpful? And in many ways this should come as a surprise to no one but basically the characteristics of counselors that survivors found helpful was being understood and being empathized with.

Counselors that understood the dynamics of intimate partner violence , counselors who were able to do safety planning with the survivor and when I refer to safety planning what I mean is that counselors who were knowledgeable about local resources, about the local domestic violence shelter, their hotline, how to access the local domestic violence shelter, what legal resources were available in terms of about how to get a restraining order or order for protection from the local court, what were the steps to do that, what legal resources were there around finding an attorney who’s knowledgeable about the dynamics of domestic violence and would be a good choice for someone, for a woman considering divorce and who also needed to be concerned about child custody issues. Other kinds of safety planning in terms of working with the woman, in terms of identifying what other resources, personal resources that she had and other resources that could help her safely plan her leaving the relationship because as we all know in terms of intimate partner violence the most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves the relationship. At that point her partner typically escalates threatening behavior, escalates violence, and so that’s why a plan for leaving, doing a lot of safety planning based on the woman’s experiences and recognizing that the survivor is the expert in understanding what might happen and understanding that an option that a counselor might offer may be the worst option. And just to give an example a survivor might indicate to her counselor that getting a restraining order or an order for protection is not going to ultimately protect her but basically so enrage her husband that it increases her jeopardy. So that some of the resources that we have it may not be effective, may have the opposite effect, and not only not increase the woman’s safety but increase her jeopardy. And that’s what I mean when I’m referring to the survivor is the expert in terms of her husband, her partner, what the threats have been, what the assaults have been, and understanding and making those important choices. As counselors we can certainly assist women and might be able to offer options or resources she might not be aware of but she needs to make that decision, it’s her life and her choice point and she knows them best. Other areas that survivors identified is being respected. Also I’m being very clear in saying abuse is against the law, recognizing that abuse is criminal activity. Being supportive, not blaming the victim for her partner’s actions.

So where does this bring us in terms of recommendations for social workers and for other mental health practitioners and professionals which is what needs to happen for us to address this issue of intimate partner violence? What are the first steps that we really need to do which is obviously identify it? So when we talk about screening that screening should routinely happen at every intake, that woman goes for services whether it’s medical services, whether it’s OB-GYN, whether it’s counseling services, substance abuse services, but routinely at intake that there should be screening questions on domestic violence, on intimate partner violence. That screening should happen in private, it should include both written questions as well as at the first interview it should also include verbal questions. One of the studies done by Jackie Kimball and several other researchers asked looked at solicited feedback from survivors about written and verbal questions. And what they found is that from their study that African-American women identified that they were more comfortable with having a written question on a screening intake. So that we need to use both venues, both written form as well as verbal.
And again asking the question at intake is one step but it also is important as you work with someone in counseling and the counseling therapeutic relationship develops that periodically erase the question. Someone may be embarrassed, someone may be uncomfortable, they don’t know you, they don’t know how you’re going to respond if they disclose they’ve been battered. But I have to say that if a survivor going into counseling sees that question on a written form that’s the other important reason to have it on the intake form. It indicates that this is an issue that is routinely being asked about which increases the likelihood that the survivor will feel empowered to disclose because obviously you’re asking that question of everyone, of every client that you see, so that’s why it’s also important. But again when the counseling relationship develops it doesn’t hurt to ask the question again. When the client is in a – if you’re seeing someone in counseling and during the time you’re working with that client they end the relationship or begin a relationship, also inquiring about battery. Particularly important during child custody and visitation struggles to ask the question if there has been domestic violence. We talked before about when someone is pregnant and when behavioral signs are present.

We can go on to the next slide. Thanks.

So initial paperwork and subsequent discussion should also identify you as a mandated reporter. As social workers and other mental health professionals we are mandated reporters around child abuse and neglect or elder abuse or abuse of adults who have disabilities, certain disabilities where they cannot – they might have an intellectual disability where they cannot advocate for themselves. And so basically it’s important on the paperwork intakes or in our early discussions with our clients that we identify that we’re mandated reporters.

So in terms of developing policies and procedures within private practice or agency practices regarding intimate partner violence again screening is critical. Not offering couples counseling is really important because couples counseling increases the woman’s jeopardy if there’s been a history of violence. Couples counseling assumes that you have a relationship of equals and that both parties are coming into couples counseling to work on particular issues. By definition someone in a battering relationship is not in a relationship of equals and so where one person holds towering control over another person by threats, by physical assault it increases the woman’s jeopardy if she’s honest in that couple’s counseling session about what’s going on. And it gives the perpetrator the message that both of them are responsible for the violence and somehow she’s contributing to the violence, not that he is responsible for his abusive behavior. So that’s another major issue. Also if someone identifies a client who is the survivor of domestic violence and is not comfortable with working with that person or doesn’t have the training or experience, referring to domestic violence specialists so that the woman can get the support and intervention that she deserves.

Move on to the next one.

Safety planning is really important, that the therapist understands the importance of safety planning, also that there are expectations for professional development and training in domestic abuse, that sadly many professional schools do not routinely include intimate partner violence in their curriculum. That’s changing and that’s a good sign but there are many practicing social workers, psychologists, substance abuse therapists, other mental health professionals who at the point they went through their professional program did not have that included in their curriculum. So identifying trainings and other professional development opportunities on intimate partner violence is absolutely critical in order to work with survivors. So as well as developing a relationship with your local domestic violence agency, be aware of the resources and it’s always helpful not only to be aware of the resources but if you’re working with a survivor who may be hesitant about contacting the local domestic violence agency, maybe just offering during your session to put in a call to the agency just so she can get a sense about what the resources are rather than hearing it second hand from you, not making the decision for her and telling her “Here’s the shelter you must leave” that’s the last thing that counselors need to do, it’s her choice and her decision making, but basically just giving her the opportunity to get that information firsthand so that if she should need that resource she’s already had at least one phone contact which might reduce the reluctance for her to contact the agency. Having a knowledge of laws in your state on intimate partner violence and protection orders, how to go about getting them, any particular issues. There’s a lot of information around intimate partner violence that is really important for social workers, psychologists, other mental health professionals to learn about and constantly update their knowledge and resources.

You can go on to the next one.

Okay, I think we’re at questions.

Female Speaker: All right, thanks Amy. So I have a good bit of questions. I’m just going to start to read them off and Amy will go ahead and take over and answer them. The first one we have is “So Amy are you saying that it’s untrue that some people seek abusive relationships?”

Amy: Absolutely, absolutely, I mean that’s a major miss. No one seeks abusive relationships. Basically what happens is oftentimes, and in terms of if you look at the research, if you look at first person accounts of survivors they talk about the Doctor Jekyll, Mister Hyde syndrome and that’s oftentimes what advocates working in domestic violence shelters refer to. Individuals who batter their partners do not present that way initially. They often present as very interested in their partner, they present as caring, as being kind, they do not present as “This is what I want my partner to be like” or “This is my expectations from my wife or my girlfriend” they don’t present that way. Many survivors talk about a honeymoon period where their partner is just what you would want in a partner. There might be some disagreements, there might be some arguments, but there is not any indication that someone is going to become violent early on in this honeymoon period.
To use a quote from an individual who battered his partner for many years, was arrested, and then referred to a Batterers Intervention Program, and one of the statements he made is when we asked him to describe his initial dating period, when he first met the woman who then he married and we said “Describe your early relationship” and this is a direct quote “I played the nice guy” and then “I was caring, I was considerate.” And then the question was “Well when did – how long did you do that and then when did you first begin changing your behavior?” and he said “I waited until the relationship gelled” and that’s a direct quote “I waited until the relationship gelled” so that there’s a history in the beginning of a battering relationship that does not indicate to the woman that this is going to change and because of that history when the first assault happens she feels like it comes out of the blue and she’s in complete shock that this happened because this has not been her experience with her partner. So she’s in shock about the assault and then that makes her vulnerable to the excuses then he gives her which is why this happened which is “I’m really sorry. I’m sorry this happened. It won’t happen again. I’m overworked, I’m overstressed” and so the excuses he gives she feels are reasonable given that there isn’t a history of violence or threats and so that’s part of the insidious dynamic in a battering relationship. So she believes that it is an aberration and that this won’t happen again. Sadly, unfortunately, it does happen again. So that’s part of that insidious dynamic.

Female Speaker: Okay, we’ll get a next question. Is the reason why most domestic violence cases women because men fail to report it?

Amy: I’m sorry, will you do that again please.

Female Speaker: Is the reason why most domestic violence cases happen because men fail to report it? I’m not sure of the question.

Amy: I guess I’m wondering if what is being asked is that men who are battered by female partners. My hunch is that’s the question. Okay. Basically I think that might be part of it. There are men who are battered by female partners, that does occur, and I think there may be some element of shame because you are a man and because of the stereotypes in our society about “what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman” so that certainly may be a barrier. And it does happen as well in lesbian and gay male relationships so that I think part of that might be a reluctance to report. But there are services available certainly for men who are battered and there is information available as well.

Female Speaker: Okay. The next one is “The agency that I work for works closely with the Domestic Violence Shelter. I find it very hard for women to get protection orders sometimes. Why do you think this is?”

Amy: This gets back to the issue, a major issue in terms of the court systems. And since I’m not sure what state this question is from all I can say is that a major focus of work by domestic violence programs has been criminal justice advocacy and by that I mean domestic violence agencies spending a lot of time and resources trying to educate the criminal justice system, police prosecutors, the courts about the importance of restraining orders, about orders for protection. And unfortunately, here’s another myth that’s out there, which is that women who are not battered seek protection orders in order to make sure they get sole custody or say they’re being battered when they’re not. It’s like the myth about women lie about rape. When you look at the statistics of reported rape cases 1% are false reports. It is very small. And so I think having that perception that making the standard so high in order to get a restraining order all that does is increase the vulnerability of the victim who believes this will be helpful in protecting her and will increase the chances of appropriate police response and get her partner arrested if he comes to her house, tries to kick in her door, starts leaving threatening notes on her car, et cetera. But all it does is give the message to the batterer that there is no safety for her, there is no legal recourse, and that is really dangerous. And so that speaks to the need for the community to really work with the courts on education and recognizing the importance of having this legal remedy available to those women who choose it and feel that it will increase their safety.

Female Speaker: All right. The next question “When screening for intimate partner violence should questions be direct or indirect?”

Amy: Good question. I think both. I think it’s important to use several different questions and I think using both approaches I think is helpful.

Female Speaker: Okay. What do you say to a woman who you know is in extreme danger but isn’t willing to leave? I know it’s their choice but then how do you sleep at night?

Amy: A really good question. I think that’s why – I think it’s an important question and I think looking at for example the danger assessment, those 20 questions, by talking to the woman about “I’d like to ask you some questions which will give you some information and me some information about how dangerous the situation you’re in. is that something that you’re interested in doing?” My experience with that is most survivors will say yes. And so going through the questions and then letting her know – going through the questions gives an opportunity too for the social worker to get much more information about the extent of the dangers of the situation she’s in. I mean there are lots of other interview questions that are important to ask in terms of assessing for domestic violence beyond just these 20-question assessment tool but it really speaks to the dangerousness and by going through the questions and then talking to the woman about what the results are in terms of if she’s in a very dangerous category it gives her some feedback based on her won experiences and is really helpful for her, I think, in making some decisions about safety planning. And again she may decide not to leave but just because she decides not to leave doesn’t mean that you can’t do some safety planning so that’s also an opportunity.
Female Speaker: Okay. I just wanted to quickly remind everyone that we’re just going to take a couple more questions because we’re coming up on the hour. We will get the questions that weren’t answered to Amy and we’ll have her answer and if you do have any more specific questions after the webinar that you didn’t have the answer please let your enrollment adviser know.

So our next question is “Amy, overall do you think that the whole social services field needs to change their view on domestic violence and the way that they respond to it?”

Amy: Absolutely. And I’ve been working in this field since 1982 so I’ve seen — on the positive side I’ve seen some major changes in terms of some better policies, at least recognizing the impact of domestic violence on women and on children. But despite movements in terms of better legislation around mandatory arrest, restraining orders more knowledge and tremendous amount more research on the issue but we’re still hitting up against some very stereotypic beliefs about battered women. And again the focus is always on the victim and not about the perpetrator and that’s another whole major area in terms of kind of the excuses that the average person on the street, community members, or folks in social service agencies kind of buying into the myth that if he’s alcoholic or drug addicted and he stops using and also batters his partner the violence will go away. Both those issues have to be addressed – the alcohol and drug addiction absolutely has to be addressed as well as the abusive behavior has to be addressed. Kind of like believing stress causes violence. So there’s a whole list of myths that we believe as community members that allow us to collude – that basically has us colluding with the batterer even though we don’t recognize that and blaming the victim. And so I think we still have a long way to go in terms of public education around the whole issue of supporting survivors and holding perpetrators of violence accountable and that’s what this is all about in terms of changing behavior, that it needs to be a community response, there needs to be social service agencies, police, courts, child custody evaluators. There needs to be a community response that says “We will not tolerate violence. But we will not tolerate violence in intimate partner relationships” and starting from a zero tolerance stance and then working from there.

Female Speaker: Okay, thanks Amy. We just have a couple of minutes left here so you can tell everyone about the course or courses that you teach in the program and how long you’ve been teaching?

Amy: Sure. I’ve been at UNE since 2000. I’m one of the field faculty so my major responsibilities are working with incoming students and working with them around field planning and identifying agencies that they’re going to be doing their field placement in and then supporting them when they’re in the field placement. I teach both foundation year and advance year seminar courses. And given my background in domestic violence I have developed a course on intimate partner violence which I teach in a campus-based program. And I’ll be working on developing an intimate partner violence course for the online program.

Female Speaker: Great. Well thank you so much Amy for presenting tonight and thanks everyone for attending. Like I said if your questions did not get answered we’ll get that information to you very soon and thank you so much again.

Amy: Thanks.


Learn more about our program with a free brochure!