Domestic abuse is one of the most underidentified issues social workers encounter, and that underidentification isn't usually a knowledge problem. Practitioners generally understand what abuse is. The gap tends to show up in practice — in how and whether screening happens consistently, and what gets done with the information once it surfaces.
Research consistently shows that clients rarely disclose abuse unless they're asked directly. Waiting for a client to volunteer the information means most cases go unaddressed. At the same time, practitioners in many settings report barriers to routine screening — time constraints, concern about upsetting clients, uncertainty about what to do if screening reveals abuse, and discomfort with the conversation itself.
These are real barriers, and acknowledging them is part of addressing them. Screening doesn't require a lengthy intake; it requires a clear, non-judgmental question asked in an appropriate setting.
A few conditions make screening more effective and more ethical.
Privacy is non-negotiable. Screening should only occur when the client is alone. Asking about abuse in front of a partner, family member, or even a child old enough to report back can put the client at greater risk. This applies to all settings — primary care, mental health, child welfare, schools.
Normalize the question. Framing matters. "I ask everyone these questions as part of the work I do here" reduces stigma and makes the conversation feel routine rather than accusatory. It also communicates that the client isn't being singled out.
Be prepared for a disclosure. Screening without a plan for follow-through creates more harm than not screening. Before raising the topic, practitioners should know what resources are available, understand mandatory reporting obligations in their jurisdiction, and have thought through safety planning basics.
Several validated instruments are in regular use:
HITS (Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream) is a four-item tool that's brief enough for almost any setting. It screens for physical, emotional, and verbal abuse and has strong psychometric support.
SAFE-T was developed specifically for use in mental health settings and covers more dimensions of relationship safety.
ASQ (Abuse Assessment Screen) was designed for use with pregnant women and includes questions about frequency and whether abuse has increased during pregnancy.
Partner Violence Screen (PVS) is another brief option that includes a direct question about safety at home and fear of a partner.
No tool is perfect. What matters most is consistent use, not which tool you select. A brief validated instrument used routinely outperforms a comprehensive one used inconsistently.
Disclosures of abuse don't follow a predictable script. Some clients will describe ongoing physical violence. Others will describe patterns that are harder to name — financial control, isolation from family, monitoring of communications, threats involving children. Coercive control often causes serious harm even in the absence of physical violence, and practitioners who screen only for physical abuse will miss it.
When a client discloses, the priorities are safety, not pressure. Clients in abusive relationships are the experts on what is and isn't safe for them to do. A safety plan that a client develops collaboratively and believes in is more useful than one imposed from the outside. Pushing a client toward immediate action — leaving a relationship, calling law enforcement — when they're not ready can increase danger and rupture the therapeutic relationship.
That said, mandatory reporting laws apply in specific circumstances regardless of client readiness, and practitioners need to know them. Abuse of children, vulnerable adults, and (in some jurisdictions) certain victims of crime triggers reporting obligations that aren't discretionary.
Screening looks different depending on where you work.
In medical social work, domestic abuse is often connected to injuries, chronic health conditions, and pregnancy complications. Universal screening in healthcare settings is recommended by multiple medical associations, and social workers in these environments often function as part of an integrated response team.
In child welfare, domestic abuse and child maltreatment frequently co-occur. Exposure to domestic abuse is itself harmful to children, even when children aren't direct targets of violence. Practitioners need to hold both the child's safety and the abused parent's safety simultaneously — these aren't always in tension, but they require careful assessment.
In mental health settings, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance use all have elevated rates among survivors of domestic abuse. Screening should be part of a thorough psychosocial assessment rather than treated as a separate concern.
In school social work, indicators in children — behavioral changes, concerning disclosures, unexplained injuries — may be the entry point rather than direct disclosure from an adult client.
Domestic abuse is a traumatic experience, and many survivors carry the effects of that trauma long after the relationship ends. Trauma-informed principles — safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration, and empowerment — apply directly. Practitioners who understand the neurobiology of trauma are better equipped to interpret what might otherwise look like non-compliance or resistance.
It's also worth noting that the cycle of violence model, while still widely referenced, represents one pattern of abuse rather than a universal description. Not all abusive relationships follow a tension-building/explosion/reconciliation pattern. Practitioners who expect this pattern may fail to recognize abuse that looks different.
The ASWB exam tests domestic abuse screening from several angles, and the questions are almost always grounded in what a competent practitioner would do — not just what abuse is.
A few patterns to watch for:
Privacy and setting. Questions frequently present scenarios where a client is accompanied by a partner or family member, and the correct action involves finding a way to speak with the client privately before raising sensitive topics. The exam tests whether you recognize this as a prerequisite, not an afterthought.
Client self-determination vs. safety. When a client discloses abuse but declines help or indicates they're not ready to leave, the exam generally supports honoring client self-determination while keeping safety options available. Answers that push the client toward immediate action or override their stated wishes are usually wrong.
Mandatory reporting specifics. Questions will test knowledge of when mandatory reporting is required. Know the difference between situations involving children or vulnerable adults (typically mandatory) and situations involving adult clients who can make their own decisions (typically not mandatory, with exceptions).
First response. When a client discloses abuse for the first time, the exam typically prioritizes assessing safety and exploring the client's needs over moving immediately into information-giving or referral. Validate first, assess, then plan.
Screening as a universal practice. Questions sometimes present a practitioner who screens only clients who "seem at risk." The more defensible practice — and the one the exam tends to support — is universal screening.
The underlying principle the exam tests consistently: knowledge of abuse dynamics combined with respect for the client's experience and autonomy, exercised within the practitioner's legal and ethical obligations.
Good screening practice isn't about catching something. It's about creating conditions where clients feel safe enough to tell the truth — and where practitioners are prepared to respond well when they do.
Right now, get SWTP's online practice exams at a reduced price. Just $39. Get additional savings when buying more than one exam at a time-- less than $30 per exam!
Keep going till you pass. Extensions are free.
To receive our free study guide and get started!