Qualitative analysis explores how social workers interact with IPV survivors in welfare services, suggesting overlooked safety needs.
Since 1991, Israel has enacted legislation to prevent family violence and established centers providing therapeutic and prevention services (CPDVs). However, there is limited research on how social workers interpret and implement the goals of this legislation. This study investigates social workers’ perceptions and responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors within welfare services. Through in-depth interviews with fifty social workers handling IPV cases, our analysis identified two key findings. First, social workers’ primary response focuses on therapeutic interventions, which frequently overlook survivors’ immediate safety needs and legal rights. Second, often they adopt a gender-symmetrical approach to IPV, questioning the credibility of women's reports. A common thread of suspicion toward IPV survivors connects both findings, highlighting how social workers’ skepticism may unintentionally undermine efforts to prevent IPV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benjamin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: