Why Domestic Violence Advocate Organizations Should Not Teach Classes for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

Last week, I received two inquiries from victim advocates about the Ananias Foundation's program for domestic violence perpetrators. One was from a volunteer for victim assistance organization that advocates for victims' rights. He was offering to be a "peer supporter" for domestic violence offenders. He said he wanted "to add the voice of a victim" to their programs. He went on to tell me his belief about why many men become violent and he expressed confidence that he could show them "how to handle their anger in a more constructive and positive way." Nevermind he had no experience as an abusive person who had to go through the change process himself, nor did he have any professional training as a counselor.

The sencond inquiry was from a woman who is a victim advocate for an organization that currently teaches domestic violence perpetrator classes. They were looking to update their class materials and wanted to see and discuss our ciricculum. I sent her our Guidebook and replied that I would love to have a conversation with her. She never responded back--probably because she saw we don't teach the usual the gendered ideology they were looking for.

When society confronts the problem of domestic violence, it rightly seeks to support victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and prevent future harm. However, as well-intentioned as these goals are, the strategies used to address them must be thoughtfully constructed to reflect the full reality of abusive dynamics—and to truly help those involved change.

One area of concern is when domestic violence advocate organizations, whose primary mission is to support victims, also attempt to teach intervention classes for those who have perpetrated violence. While these organizations have valuable insights into the needs of survivors, their ideological stance, training, and overall mindset may not equip them to facilitate the personal transformation necessary for behavioral change in abusers. Here’s why.

1. A Narrow Power-and-Control Lens Misses the Complexity of Abuse

Most domestic violence advocacy organizations are grounded in the “Duluth Model,” which frames abuse primarily through the lens of male power and control. This model assumes that domestic violence stems from a patriarchal system where men seek to dominate women. While this may apply to some cases, research and real-life experiences increasingly show that domestic violence is not always about dominance, nor is it exclusively male-perpetrated.

This rigid ideological framework creates several problems:

• Blindness to female-perpetrated violence: Female abusers, who may use physical violence, verbal degradation, threats, or manipulation, are often ignored or minimized. This leaves male victims without resources and leads to confusion or dismissal of male perpetrator group members who experience reciprocal or instigated aggression from their partners.

• Inability to address mutual abuse: Many violent relationships are mutually aggressive, with both partners engaging in harmful behaviors. When instructors teach that violence is always one-sided and driven by gender-based power, they fail to help clients learn how to handle their partner’s aggression safely and without retaliating.

• Oversimplified interventions: Clients are often told to stop using power and control tactics, but this ignores the emotional, psychological, and situational complexities that drive violent responses. Without acknowledging or addressing those complexities, clients are left unprepared to navigate conflict in a healthy way.

In short, the one-size-fits-all ideology often promoted by advocacy organizations is out of step with the lived reality of many people who use violence. It oversimplifies the causes and, in doing so, limits the effectiveness of any attempts at transformation.

2. Lack of Lived Experience and Training in Trauma Recovery and Behavioral Change

Advocacy organizations are largely composed of individuals trained in supporting survivors, not in guiding perpetrators through the long, difficult journey of changing harmful behaviors. While they may have strong skills in crisis intervention and resource coordination, they often lack:

• Lived experience with recovery: True transformation often comes from mentors and counselors who understand firsthand what it means to face inner demons, wrestle with trauma, and do the emotional labor of change. Without this, their teaching can feel theoretical and disconnected.

• Knowledge of trauma healing and cognitive restructuring: Effective intervention requires helping individuals understand their emotional triggers, heal past trauma, and build new cognitive pathways to manage conflict, shame, and relational stress. These are skills drawn from clinical psychology, coaching, and personal mentorship, not advocacy training.

• Tools for emotional resilience: Changing violent behavior is not just about rules and accountability; it’s about helping people develop emotional literacy, impulse control, and empathy—tools that require deep psychological work and patience.

Without this foundation, even the best-intentioned facilitators may fail to connect with participants in a meaningful way or provide the guidance needed to foster genuine change.

3. A Mindset of Protection, Not Rehabilitation

Domestic violence advocates are taught to protect and prioritize victims, which is essential—but this protective mindset does not easily translate into compassion for those who have caused harm. Many carry justifiable anger and grief about the harm done to survivors, but this often creates an environment where perpetrators are viewed not as wounded people acting out harm, but simply as monsters to be managed.

This manifests in several harmful ways:

• Moral judgment instead of curiosity: Instructors may react to harmful behavior with disgust or judgment, rather than curiosity and empathy about why the behavior occurred and how it can be changed.

• Punitive tone: The tone of these classes can lean toward punishment and lecturing, rather than supportive guidance. Clients are often made to feel like they are inherently bad, which can deepen shame and resistance instead of encouraging responsibility and growth.

• Missed opportunity for healing connection: Healing from violent behavior requires trust. If participants don’t feel emotionally safe or respected, they are unlikely to open up about their deeper struggles. The client-facilitator relationship is foundational in change work, and a judgmental stance breaks that bond before it can be formed.

By approaching the perpetrator only as a danger to be controlled, rather than as a human being who also suffers and needs healing, these programs can do more harm than good.

4. Client Distrust and Resistance Are Reinforced

People who are mandated or encouraged to attend intervention programs are often already defensive and distrustful. They worry—sometimes with good reason—that their side of the story won’t be heard. This worry is amplified when the class is run by an organization whose primary allegiance is to victims.

Participants may ask:

• Will you believe me when I say my partner hit me first?

• Will you acknowledge that I’m trying, even if I slip up?

• Can I talk about how my trauma affects my reactions, or will you just say I’m making excuses?

If they suspect they’ll be judged or ignored, they will either shut down or perform compliance without internal change. Neither leads to true transformation.

A more effective approach involves trauma-informed mentors or clinicians who are explicitly trained to work with those who have caused harm—people who understand the complexity of abuse, who balance accountability with compassion, and who create a space where trust and introspection can grow.

Conclusion

Domestic violence advocate organizations play an essential role in supporting survivors and promoting safety. However, their strengths in advocacy do not automatically translate to effectiveness in perpetrator intervention. Their ideological lens, lack of experience in behavioral change, punitive tone, and conflict of interest can all undermine the healing process needed for true change.

If we genuinely want to reduce domestic violence in our communities, we must invest in specialized, trauma-informed, and compassion-driven programs led by those equipped to guide people who use violence through the hard but hopeful work of change. Accountability is necessary—but it must be paired with empathy, respect, and an understanding of the deep pain that often lies beneath abusive behavior.

Only then can we begin to break the cycle—for good.