WORKING WITH CLIENTS THROUGH CHOICE: STRENGTHENING EMPOWERMENT IN DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PRACTICE
Introduction
People working in the family, domestic and sexual violence sector do so because they have genuine care for the safety and well-being of others. Whether in a metropolitan service or in smaller regional or rural communities, we all share the same goal to support victim-survivors so they can find safety, recovery, and healing.
One of the most important and sometimes most challenging ways we do this is through offering choice.
Choice is not an “add-on” to DFV practice. It is central to safety, recovery, and ethical service responses. Yet in pressured systems, limited service environments, and high-risk contexts, choice can be unintentionally narrowed. This is rarely about poor intent. More often, it reflects the realities of workload, funding structures, risk-averse systems, and reliance on familiar programs and pathways.
This article explores why choice matters for victim-survivors, how it can erode despite good intentions, and how DFV practitioners can strengthen choice-centred practice—even when resources are stretched.
Choice as a foundation of safety and recovery
Family, domestic and sexual violence are fundamentally about power and control. People using violence deliberately use coercion, control, surveillance and threats to dominate another person’s life. Over time, this pattern of behaviour erodes victim-survivors’ autonomy and sense of agency. By the time someone reaches out for support, they may have spent years being monitored, controlled, and punished for not complying.
Every interaction with a practitioner or professional is therefore an opportunity to begin restoring agency.
Offering choice is one of the most practical ways this happens. When practitioners provide clear information, outline options, and involve victim-survivors in decisions, they send powerful messages:
You have a right to decide what happens next.
Your knowledge of your own life and circumstances matters.
There is no single “right” pathway to safety or recovery.
Trauma and violence-informed practice (TVIP) reminds us that experiences of DFV are shaped not only by individual trauma, but also by ongoing violence, structural inequities and the ways systems respond. A TVIP approach prioritises physical, emotional and cultural safety, supports choice and collaboration, and recognises that services and systems have a responsibility to reduce harm — not place that burden on individuals (Varcoe et al., 2016; Wathen & Mantler, 2022).
In practice, this means that offering choice does not remove professional responsibility for risk assessment or safety planning. Instead, it involves being transparent about risks and constraints, sharing information openly, and supporting victim-survivors to make informed decisions within the realities of ongoing risk and limited options.
When choice is genuinely supported in this way, people accessing DFV services are more likely to:
engage meaningfully with support
trust practitioners and service systems
develop safety and case management plans that are realistic and sustainable
experience dignity rather than dependence
Providing choice also aligns with trauma-informed practice principles, which emphasise that involving people in decisions that affect them helps counter feelings of helplessness, builds trust, and reduces the risk of re-traumatisation within service interactions (Blue Knot Foundation, 2023).
How choice can narrow — even with good intentions
In practice, offering choice is not always straightforward.
DFV practitioners work within systems shaped by:
High demand and limited funding
Organisational reporting and program requirements
Workforce shortages and turnover
Risk-averse environments
Rapidly changing referral pathways
In regional, rural and remote (RRR) contexts, these pressures are intensified by distance, fewer services, transport barriers, and the need to balance confidentiality in close-knit communities.
Within these realities, choice can narrow in subtle ways:
Workers may default to familiar services or in-house programs
Referral options outside the organisation may not be raised
Clients may be steered toward what is easiest, fastest or most available
Practitioner assumptions influencing what is offered
Directive responses driven by fear of adverse outcomes
This is not about blaming individual practitioners. It is about recognising how systems shape practice.
When options are limited—even unintentionally—clients may miss out on supports that better align with their needs, culture, values, or readiness. Over time, this can erode empowerment and replicate control dynamics that DFV practice seeks to undo.
Collaboration expands choice and strengthens safety
No single service can meet all the intersecting needs that arise from DFV. Safety and case planning often involve housing, legal advice, child well-being, mental health support, financial assistance, and cultural or community connections—sometimes simultaneously.
Choice expands when services work together, not in silos.
Strong collaboration:
Broadens the options available to clients
Reduces duplication and service fatigue
Strengthens coordinated risk management
Supports workers to share responsibility rather than hold it alone
This may involve multi-agency case coordination. In regional and remote settings, it often appears more relational, with practitioners knowing one another, picking up the phone, and building trust over time.
Safety does not belong to a single service; it is strengthened when services work together around the client.
Practising choice in everyday DFV work
Choice-centred practice does not require perfect systems. It is enacted through everyday actions.
Examples include:
Being transparent about what your service can and cannot offer
Providing information about multiple support options, including those outside your organisation
Making warm referrals wherever possible
Following up with clients about whether referrals met their needs
Actively maintaining relationships with other services
Reflecting on how organisational pressures may shape decision-making
Regular reflective practice support practitioners to notice when pressure, familiarity, or system constraints narrow options, and supports a conscious return to choice-centred, empowerment-focused practice.
Language also matters. Shifting from “our client” or “your client’ to “a person accessing multiple supports” reinforces shared responsibility and respect for autonomy.
Conclusion
Offering meaningful options and involving victim-survivors in decision-making are among the most powerful ways DFV practitioners support safety, recovery, and healing. It restores agency where control has been taken, builds trust where trust has been broken, and respects the expertise clients hold in their own lives (Herman, 2015).
While practitioners cannot always change funding structures, service availability or system constraints, they can influence how support is offered. By centring transparency, collaboration and reflection, DFV practitioners strengthen both individual outcomes and the integrity of the service system.
Empowerment is not about giving directions.
It is about offering options — and walking alongside people as they choose their own path.
Key takeaways
Choice is a core component of safe, ethical and trauma and violence-informed DFV practice
Offering meaningful options and involving victim-survivors in decisions supports safety, dignity and recovery
System pressure can unintentionally narrow options, even when intentions are good
Collaboration across services expands choice and strengthens safety
Every day reflective practice keeps empowerment at the centre of our work
References
Blue Knot Foundation. (2023).
Talking about trauma: Guide to everyday conversations. https://blueknot.org.au
Herman, J. L. (2015). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books.
SAMHSA. (2014). Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Varcoe, C. M., Wathen, C. N., Ford-Gilboe, M., Smye, V., & Browne, A. J. (2016). VEGA Briefing Note on Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care. VEGA Project & PreVAiL Research Network.
Wathen, C. N., & Mantler, T. (2022). Trauma- and violence-informed care: Orienting intimate partner violence interventions to equity. Current Epidemiology Reports, 9, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00307-7