Practice Guidance 
Photo: Daniel Coulmann/Fotolia
Photo: Daniel Coulmann/Fotolia
Introduction
Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. If found guilty, a perpetrator faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine, or both. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 extends the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour, no longer making it a requirement for abusers and victims to either still be in a relationship or to still live together when it occurs.
Coercive and controlling behaviours are a form of gender-based violence used by perpetrators to limit another person’s freedom by making them subordinate via the use of humiliation and threats. They do not relate to a single incident but rather a purposeful pattern of behaviours carried out over a period of time to exert power and control. The UK cross-government definition of coercive and controlling behaviours states:
Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour is: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim (Home Office, 2015).
The term ‘partner’ will be used in this quick guide to refer to the relationship between the victim/survivor and the perpetrator. However, it is important to be aware that coercive and controlling behaviours often continue after the relationship has ended and, as such, this guide is also relevant to those who are ex-partners. Though people of all genders can perpetrate coercive and controlling behaviours, it is known from decades of research and other evidence, such as police statistics, that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women the victims. Within the first 28 months of the coercive and controlling behaviour legislation being enacted, 107 perpetrators were sentenced; all but one were male, and all but one victim were female (McGorrery and McMahon, 2019).
Key messages
- Coercive and controlling behaviours are not individual acts, but an ongoing, pervasive, purposeful pattern of behaviour (Stark, 2009). What may appear minor on the surface such as a perpetrator wanting the plates arranged in a particular way, or accompanying their partner to and from work, may combine to form a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviours that limit a victim’s personal freedom.
- Perpetrators use coercive and controlling behaviours to elicit fear and to ‘trap’ victims into the relationship, where they continue to exert more control. This is often carried out over a long period of time in many different ways, ultimately leaving the victim with limited ‘space for action’ (Kelly, 2003, p143).
- Victims say that it is what an abusive partner prevents them from doing rather than what they make them do that has the biggest impact on them (Stark, 2009). For example, a perpetrator may deny their partner access to basic resources such as food and clean water or prevent them from interacting with family and friends. This leads to them becoming isolated from the outside world.
- Victims often say that the coercive and controlling behaviour rather than physical violence is the worst part of domestic abuse (Stark, 2009). Though victims often suffer terrible physical acts of violence, it is the fear of what the perpetrator will do which ultimately traps them in an abusive relationship.
- It is not always easy to spot if a person is experiencing coercive and controlling behaviours. Perpetrators have often ‘trained’ their partner to behave in a way that makes it appear to the outside world that the relationship is healthy. For example, the house may be clean and tidy and children well presented, but underlying this may be threats that if this image is not upheld then they and/or their children will be at risk. This lack of recognition from others that there is a problem means a partner can easily become isolated from outside support, enabling the perpetrator to continue the abuse.
Due to the ongoing, pervasive nature of coercive control, behaviours can be difficult to spot, for victims themselves, family and friends, and wider society. Perpetrators are often clever manipulators, and to the outside world may appear charming and incapable of committing these crimes. There are, however, some signs that social workers can look out for though it is important to note that these signs do not always mean that somebody is experiencing coercive control.
How do perpetrators limit a victim’s space for action?
There are a number of ways a perpetrator ensures that a victim remains ‘trapped’ in an abusive relationship. Some of these will be outlined below, though it is important to remember that this is by no means an exhaustive review. The main purpose of tactics deployed by perpetrators is to make victims dependent on them, to isolate them from support and ensure they live in constant fear. Combined, these tactics erode a victim’s space for action and trap them in an abusive relationship.
Threats, humiliation and degradation
A victim’s space for action can be limited by the perpetrator making threats towards them, in addition to humiliating and degrading them. Points to consider include:
- Has their partner threatened to harm them, people they care about, or their pets? Perpetrators know that by making these threats and using intimidation their partner will be more likely to remain under their control. This often leads victims to modify their behaviour in an attempt to ‘please’ the perpetrator and keep themselves and their loved ones safe. It is important to remember that the perpetrator always holds the ‘remote control’ in the relationship, and attempts by victims to save or leave the relationship often fail, due to their limited space for action.
- Does their partner degrade them by calling them names, saying they are ugly or making them feel worthless? One way perpetrators maintain control of their partner is by eroding their self-esteem. This can lead to victims feeling worthless and, as such, they are less likely to leave the relationship because they will feel dependent on the perpetrator. This continual degradation and humiliation can mean that victims feel responsible for the abuse and feel that if only they ‘did things right’ the relationship would be okay. This self-blame further isolates and silences victims and reinforces the perpetrator’s notion that it is the victim’s fault.
- Has their partner threatened to leave the relationship and take the children? By making threats such as this, a victim is forced to act in accordance with the perpetrator’s ‘rules’ to ensure the safety of themselves and their children.
Financial abuse
A perpetrator may maintain control over their partner financially to make them dependent. This can be carried out in a number of ways.
- Do you know whether the victim has their own bank account with access to money? Do they work, or are they not allowed to? Victims may have all control of finances taken away from them, such as having their wage paid into the perpetrator’s bank account if they do work; not being allowed to work; being put into debt; or receiving a small allowance so that their spending can be monitored. This ‘giving of pocket money’ limits someone’s freedom; it means they are not able to pay for things like public transport or necessities such as food and toiletries. If a victim does not have access to their own finances, they may struggle to meet you for appointments. It also means the victim may often remain in an abusive relationship for longer because they don’t have the financial security to leave (Anitha, 2019; Voth Schrag, 2019).
- Does the victim cancel appointments at short notice or do you struggle to get in touch with them? A perpetrator may cut off a victim’s access to a phone, meaning it may be difficult for you to contact them. For clients who are having trouble making/keeping appointments, consider whether there is a pattern to their ‘evasiveness’ and whether this could be because they are experiencing financial abuse from their partner.
Communication monitoring and surveillance
A person’s actions may be monitored and regulated via electronic measures, such as social media, checking internet history and phone communication. This has been coined “technology facilitated coercive control” (TFCC) (Dragiewicz et al, 2018) or “digital coercive control” (Harris and Woodlock, 2018). Specific ways in which technology is used to stalk, abuse, threaten and harass victims is as follows:
- Social media: does the person have their own social media profile, or do they share it with their partner? If they have their own, does their partner know their password? Maintaining control over their partner’s contact with others is a key way in which perpetrators exert power and control. Perpetrators can also use social media to publicly humiliate victims.
- Does the person seem to make phone calls at particular times? Perpetrators will often make their partner account for their time. They may force them to call them (often from a house phone) to prove they are at home, or call to ‘check in’ on a regular basis, with repercussions if the victim does not follow rules, such as answering by the third ring.
- Tracking mileage on cars: perpetrators may fit a tracking device to their partner’s car, or check the mileage. A victim may then be anxious to use the car, for fear that the perpetrator will find out where they have been. Victims have expressed that they feel perpetrators will “just know” if they have done something they are not “allowed to” (Dutton and Goodman, 2005). Be aware of this when scheduling appointments, as clients may not be able to easily attend.
See our quick guide on technology as a weapon of domestic abuse for more information.
Deprivation
Deprivation is a key factor of coercive control. Perpetrators deprive their partners of their basic needs and human rights in a number of ways. For example:
- preventing access to food or drink;
- not allowing visits to friends and family – or not allowing people to visit;
- not allowing access to medication;
- refusing to allow them to attend appointments eg doctors/counselling;
- depriving them of sleep;
- not allowing access to communication methods or transportation;
- deciding when someone can use the toilet;
- not allowing access to money.
Being subject to sustained deprivation of essential human rights alongside being isolated and controlled by their partner undermines a victim’s capacity to make independent decisions (Stark, 2013). This is helpful to bear in mind when considering why victims ‘don’t just leave’ a relationship.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer relationships
Within lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer relationships (LGBTQ), specific methods of control in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation may be used, such as:
- Threats to ‘out’ the victim to family/friends/work colleagues/children.
- Being accused of not being a ‘real’ gay man/lesbian.
- The perpetrator telling the victim that abuse is ‘normal’ in LGBTQ relationships.
- The perpetrator playing on gender stereotypes by telling the victim that they won’t be believed if they speak about the abuse because, for example, both people in the relationship are women or the victim is the physically smaller of the two.
- Preventing a trans person accessing vital hormones or medication, or controlling what clothes they wear.
- Using the wrong pronouns, for example, calling someone ‘he’ when they identify as ‘she’.
(Butterworth, 2018; Donovan and Hester, 2015; The Greater London Domestic Violence Project/NHS Barking and Dagenham, 2009).
See our quick guide on domestic abuse within LGBTQ relationships for more information.
Effects on children
Research suggests that the effects of coercive control on children are profound, with some expressing that all children living in an environment where domestic abuse is taking place are harmed to some extent (Fong et al, 2019). Children can be directly affected in a number of ways, for example, one piece of research found that children were left isolated and disempowered because of not being able to visit friends, spend time with their mother or take part in extracurricular activities (Katz, 2016).
The Survivor’s Handbook from Women’s Aid highlights that domestic abuse can affect a child’s mood, for example, make them angry or anxious, lower their sense of self-worth and cause them to self-harm. It is also important to note that children can be used by perpetrators post-separation, in order to continue to exert control. Responsibility for the impact on children must be placed with the parent who is the perpetrator, and not the parent who is the victim (Katz, 2016).
Practice tips
People experiencing coercive control often struggle to come forward to seek support because of the reasons touched on in this guide. But there are ways that social workers can assist if they spot the signs of coercive control:
- Speak to the victim alone – where possible, try and speak to them away from their partner. This may not be as simple as being in a different room in a house, but rather a different building. Victims are often justifiably reluctant to speak about what is happening in their relationships, and will be particularly unlikely to do so if their partner is with them or in close proximity.
- Ask questions but allow people to make their own decisions – if you suspect that someone is being controlled, speak to them (if it is safe to do so) about what they are experiencing and what they would like to happen. There are many services that can support people who are experiencing domestic abuse, including specific services for women, those in LGBTQ relationships, those from black and minority ethnic communities and men.
- Listen, and refer to appropriate services – in many cases this will include domestic abuse services, but be aware that some people may not want this. The fear of speaking about the abuse to an organisation may be too much for some people, who may worry that their partner will find out, they will lose their children/housing/finances etc, or may believe that the relationship will get better without intervention. Listening to the individual’s concerns and worries and acting accordingly will result in a better outcome for them than acting without their consent. Remember, perpetrators may tell their partners that social workers will come and remove their children if they do not ‘do as they are told’, which will make many reluctant to speak out.
- Reporting to the police – again, listen to the individual about their wishes. If someone does wish to report to the police, they will be taking risks and will need to be supported through this process. Social workers should ensure that if anyone wishes to report abuse they have appropriate support in place – whether that is emotional support, practical advice and/or help with sourcing alternative housing. Also, social workers should ensure that they understand coercive and controlling behaviour and know about the statutory guidance framework (Home Office, 2015) and the evidence needed to build a case. Being equipped and able to explain this to victims will help them make an informed decision about whether they want to proceed down this route.
- Support after reporting – be aware that if someone does report to the police or other services, the abuse will not necessarily cease. Research suggests that stalking and harassment continue after a relationship has ended, and in fact, the effects of this can be equally as devastating as abuse perpetrated within the relationship. Evidence suggests that victims are also most at risk of homicide when first leaving an abusive relationship, or shortly after. If someone has ties to their partner, for example, children, they can also be used as a tool of control by the perpetrator. Ensure that someone is supported after reporting, if this is what they decide to do.
- Financial support – as discussed earlier, many people may not have access to their own income if they decide to leave a relationship. The prospect of having to access a refuge or becoming homeless may discourage them from leaving. Ensure that housing options are discussed with the victim so that they are provided with advice on how to secure appropriate housing if they decide to leave the relationship. In addition, ensure that they are aware of any benefits they are entitled to claim.
References
Anitha, S (2019)
‘Understanding Economic Abuse Through an Intersectional Lens: Financial Abuse, Control, and Exploitation of Women’s Productive and Reproductive Labor’
Violence Against Women, Volume 25, Issue 15, p1854-77
Butterworth, K (2018)
Breaking barriers and building bridges: Police responses to same-sex partner abuse in England and Wales
Durham theses, Durham University
Dragiewicz, M; Burgess, J; Matamoros-Fernández, A; Salter, M; Suzor, N P; Woodlock, D and Harris, B (2018)
‘Technology facilitated coercive control: domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms‘
Feminist Media Studies, Volume 18, Issue 4, p609-25
Donovan, C and Hester, M (2015)
Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it?
Policy Press
Dutton, M A and Goodman, L A (2005)
‘Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization’
Sex Roles, Volume 52, Issue 11, p743-56
Fong, V C; Hawes, D and Allen, J L (2019)
‘A systematic review of risk and protective factors for externalizing problems in children exposed to intimate partner violence’
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Volume 20, Issue 2, p149-67
Harris, B A and Woodlock, D (2019)
‘Digital Coercive Control: Insights From Two Landmark Domestic Violence Studies’
The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 59, Issue 3, p530–50
Home Office (2015)
Statutory guidance framework: controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
Katz, E (2016)
‘Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control‘
Child Abuse Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, p46-59
Kelly, L (2003)
‘The Wrong Debate: Reflections on Why Force is Not the Key Issue with Respect to Trafficking in Women for Sexual Exploitation‘
Feminist Review, Volume 73, p139-44
Logan, T K (2017)
‘”If I Can’t Have You Nobody Will”: Explicit Threats in the Context of Coercive Control‘
Violence and Victims, Volume 32, Issue 1, p126-40
McGorrery, P and McMahon, M (2019)
‘Prosecuting controlling or coercive behaviour in England and Wales: Media reports of a novel offence’
Criminology & Criminal Justice
Stark, E (2009)
Coercive Control: How men entrap women in personal life
Oxford University Press
Stark, E (2013)
‘Coercive Control’
in Lombard, N and McMillan, L (eds) Violence Against Women: Current Theory and Practice in Domestic Abuse, Sexual Violence and Exploitation (Research Highlights in Social Work)
Jessica Kingsley Publications
The Greater London Domestic Violence Project/NHS Barking and Dagenham (2009)
Domestic violence: a resource for trans people
Voth Schrag, R J (2019)
‘Experiences of Economic Abuse in the Community: Listening to Survivor Voices‘
Affilia, Volume34, Issue 3, p1-12
