Crisis Intervention in Social Work – Psychosocial Crises and Suicidality

Some crises do not arise from a loss or a life transition but from a threat: a client mentions in passing that her partner strangled her yesterday. A client no longer dares to come to the organisation because a relative is waiting for him outside the door. A mother reports that she locks herself in the bathroom with the children at night. In situations like these, the first question is not how a person can regain their emotional balance but how they can get through the next hours and days safely. This module therefore combines two perspectives that belong together inseparably in practice: crisis intervention, as you have come to know it in the previous modules, and legal and institutional protection against violence – in particular under the Violence Protection Act (Gewaltschutzgesetz). It shows what social work professionals can do in situations of acute danger, what protective instruments exist, who sets them in motion – and where the limits of your own role lie.

PART 1 – Introduction: violence and acute threat as a trigger of crisis

When violence triggers the crisis

Violence in the close social environment is among the most distressing experiences people can have. It strikes those affected where they expect protection, retreat and trust: in their own home, in their partnership, in their family. For crisis intervention, this means a particular starting point. Sonneck and colleagues describe the psychosocial crisis, in essence, as a loss of emotional balance that a person experiences when confronted with events and life circumstances they cannot cope with at that moment (Sonneck et al., 2016). An act of violence is such an event in a particularly acute form: it is often sudden, it injures body and self-image at the same time, and it can be repeated at any time. Unlike with many other triggers of crisis, the danger is therefore often not over when the conversation begins.

For this reason, a crisis caused by violence cannot be worked on solely with the means of a supportive conversation. The basic principles known from Module 2 – relationship, focus on the current trigger, activating resources – remain valid but are supplemented by a priority question: is the person safe now, today and in the next few days? Only once this question has been dealt with is there room for relief, orientation and longer-term planning. The order is not a rigid scheme but a professional priority: safety first.

Definitions: domestic violence and acute danger

In this module, domestic violence is understood – as a working definition for teaching purposes – as violence exercised between people who are or were in a close social relationship, in particular in (former) partnerships, in the family or in a shared household. It includes physical, sexual and psychological violence, threats, control and stalking. The term does not describe a single offence but a pattern in which one person exercises power over another and restricts their self-determination. Domestic violence affects people of all genders, age groups and social situations; in counselling practice, however, professionals particularly often encounter women who experience violence by a (former) partner – a fact that dedicated support structures such as the nationwide ‘Violence against Women’ helpline respond to (Bundesamt für Familie und zivilgesellschaftliche Aufgaben [BAFzA; Federal Office for Family Affairs and Civil Society Functions], n.d.).

The Violence Protection Act does not build on the concept of domestic violence but on the infringement of certain legal interests: body, health, liberty and sexual self-determination. What is decisive is that one person has intentionally and unlawfully infringed these legal interests of another; in addition, the Act also covers threats and stalking (GewSchG). The Act thus protects not only partners but any injured or threatened person – including against siblings, adult children, housemates or strangers. This breadth matters in practice because it opens up protection even where those affected do not see themselves as ‘victims of domestic violence’.

An acute danger exists – again as a working term – when there are concrete indications that a person’s life, health or liberty are seriously threatened in the near future. This can be the imminent return to the home of a violent person, a death threat that has been made, a fresh injury or a violent person waiting outside the organisation. The evaluation of whether there is an acute danger is neither a diagnosis nor a calculated value but a professional judgement that professionals make, wherever possible, together in the team and in line with their organisation’s procedures.

Violence, crisis and suicidality

In practice, experiences of violence and suicidal crises are often intertwined. People who are humiliated, controlled and injured over a long period often experience powerlessness, shame and the feeling that there is no way out. This very narrowing is a core feature of the pre-suicidal syndrome, which Sonneck et al. (2016) present in the tradition of Ringel. In addition, those affected often feel isolated: the violent person has restricted contacts with friends or family, financial dependence makes it harder to move out, and children or pets tie people to the home. When someone in this situation ‘simply can’t go on’, they sometimes mean exhaustion, but sometimes also thoughts of their own death.

For professionals, this calls for a double awareness. On the one hand they clarify the danger that threatens from outside, and on the other the danger that can arise from within. The stance described in Module 4 applies here too: suicidal thoughts are raised calmly and directly, because according to the evidence, asking does not lead to a significant increase in suicidal thoughts, and an open conversation can bring relief. Conversely, it should also be borne in mind that the violence itself can be life-threatening – for example in attacks to the neck. Combining both perspectives without overwhelming the person concerned is the real professional skill in this field.

PART 2 – Legal fundamentals: protection under the Violence Protection Act

Basic idea: civil-law protection on application

The Act on Civil-Law Protection against Acts of Violence and Stalking, in short the Violence Protection Act, follows a clear basic idea: whoever uses violence should leave – not the person who has suffered violence. For this purpose the Act provides civil-law instruments that a court orders on the application of the injured person (GewSchG). Civil-law means: the primary aim is not to punish an offence – criminal proceedings are responsible for that – but to protect the person concerned in future. Both routes can exist side by side; a criminal complaint is not a precondition for an application under the Violence Protection Act, and conversely a court protection order does not replace criminal proceedings.

For social work, the principle that an application is required is central. It is not the professional, not the organisation and not the youth welfare office that makes the application, but the injured person themselves. Professionals can inform, encourage, help with organisation and refer people to specialist counselling or legal help. They do not, however, provide legal advice in individual cases and do not decide whether an application has prospects of success. This clarity of role protects both sides: the person concerned keeps the decision over their life, and the professional does not overstep the limits of their remit.

Protection orders under Section 1 GewSchG

The core of the Act is the court protection orders. If one person has intentionally and unlawfully infringed the body, health, liberty or sexual self-determination of another, the court, under Section 1(1) GewSchG, on the application of the injured person, takes the measures necessary to prevent further infringements. The Act gives examples of what can be ordered: a ban on entering the injured person’s home, on staying within a certain radius of the home, on visiting certain other places where the injured person regularly spends time, on contacting them – including by means of remote communication – or on bringing about a meeting with them. In practice, these are referred to in simplified terms as orders not to enter, approach or make contact.

Under Section 1(2) GewSchG, the same applies, among other cases, where one person threatens another with such an infringement or stalks them. Protection is therefore possible even before an injury has occurred. This point is important precisely for people who are being threatened, followed or flooded with messages: they do not have to wait until ‘something happens’. Which orders are necessary and appropriate in an individual case is for the court to decide. Breaches of a court protection order are punishable (GewSchG); in the event of a breach, the person affected by violence can also call the police.

Allocation of the home under Section 2 GewSchG

Section 2 GewSchG is particularly significant for people who live with the violent person. If the injured person has run a shared household with the perpetrator that was intended to be long-term, they can demand that the jointly used home be allocated to them for sole use. This makes the principle ‘whoever is violent must leave’ concrete: it is not the person concerned and, where applicable, their children who have to leave their home, but the person who used violence.

The allocation is not, however, permanent in every case. If the perpetrator holds rights in the home, alone or jointly with third parties – for example ownership – the allocation must be limited to a maximum of six months. Under narrow conditions, for example if the injured person has not been able to find suitable replacement housing on reasonable terms within this time, an extension of a maximum of six further months is possible. The exact categories of case follow from the text of the provision and depend on the legal relationships to the home; specialist or legal advice is indispensable here (GewSchG). For social work, the time limit means above all one thing: the allocation of the home buys time but often does not replace a long-term housing prospect. In parallel with the protection order, support with finding housing, securing a livelihood and organising everyday life is therefore often needed.

The 2026 reform: location monitoring, perpetrator programmes, maximum penalty

The Violence Protection Act was extended in 2026. With the Act on the Introduction of Electronic Location Monitoring and Perpetrator Work in the Violence Protection Act of 2 July 2026, promulgated in BGBl. 2026 I No. 198, the legislator set three focal points; the Bundestag had passed the Act on 8 May 2026 (GewSchG). First, family courts will in future be able to order electronic location monitoring of perpetrators – colloquially often called an ‘electronic ankle tag’. The aim is to monitor compliance with orders not to approach more effectively and to warn those affected earlier. Second, family courts can oblige perpetrators to take part in social training courses or in counselling on violence prevention. This brings the responsibility of the violent person more into focus. Third, the maximum penalty for breaches of protection orders under the Violence Protection Act is raised from two to three years’ imprisonment.

For practice, one detail is decisive: the new provisions enter into force in stages. Professionals should not assess in an individual case which parts apply from what date, but have this clarified by specialist counselling services or by a lawyer. Restraint is therefore called for towards those affected: it would be professionally wrong to hold out electronic monitoring as something that is certainly available. It is more helpful to say that the legislator has widened the options for protection and that a counselling service can clarify what comes into question in the specific case.

PART 3 – Practice I: safety first – acting in acute danger

Recognising acute danger and calling the emergency number

The first professional question in any crisis involving violence is: is there a danger to life or limb now? If a violent person threatens to force their way into the organisation, if a client reports on the phone that she is being attacked right now, or if someone is seriously injured, the emergency call takes priority over any conversation. In Germany, you can reach the police on 110 and the fire service and emergency medical service on 112; 112 is free of charge and can be reached across Europe. The number 116 117, by contrast, is the out-of-hours medical service and expressly not an emergency number (Land Niedersachsen, 2025). This distinction sounds trivial but, as experience shows, is not always at the front of people’s minds in stressful situations – it is worth reminding the team of it regularly and displaying it clearly.

Professionals may, and should, call the emergency number themselves in an acute danger. Calling the emergency number is not a decision against the person concerned but a decision for their life and health and for the safety of everyone present, including the professional. The police can take their own immediate measures under the respective state law; the requirements and duration of these are regulated differently in the states and are not the subject of this module. For social work, it is enough to know that immediate police measures and court protection orders are different routes that can complement one another.

The conversation: believing, relieving, not pushing

If there is no immediate danger, the actual crisis conversation begins. For people who experience violence, it is often a big step even to talk about it. Shame, fear of consequences, loyalty towards the partner or family and the worry of not being taken seriously make many of those affected stay silent for a long time. The most important message from the professional is therefore: I believe you, and you are not to blame for the violence. This stance rules out questions such as ‘Why didn’t you just leave?’ because – even when well meant – they shift responsibility onto the person concerned.

The crisis literature describes how people, immediately after a shattering event, often appear calm and inconspicuous on the outside while being in chaos inside; Cullberg (1978) describes this as the shock phase of the traumatic crisis. An act of violence reported in a matter-of-fact way or even with a smile is therefore not a sign that it was ‘not that bad’. In this phase, short, clear sentences, orientation and concrete offers help more than lengthy explanations. Information about protection options is best also handed over in writing – in a form that is safe for the person concerned, for example without a conspicuous letterhead or on a slip of paper that is easy to hide if the violent person checks bags or phones.

At the same time: the professional does not push. Many of those affected need several attempts before they separate or take legal steps, and some deliberately decide against it. Respecting this decision does not mean ignoring the danger. It means thinking together about what the person can do today for their safety – and keeping the door open for a later conversation.

Taking warning signs seriously – and keeping suicidality in mind

Certain indications are regarded in professional practice as particularly serious: attacks to the neck such as strangulation, threats to kill, the use or display of weapons, an increase in the frequency and severity of violence, and the period around a separation, when the violent person risks losing control. Such indications are not points on a scale and do not allow prediction. But they are a clear signal to discuss the safety question particularly carefully with the person concerned and in the team and to involve specialist services. Strangulation, for example, can be life-threatening even when there are hardly any visible outward marks; a medical check-up and documentation of the injuries is therefore advisable.

In parallel, professionals keep the danger from within in view. Statements such as ‘I can’t stand it any more’ or ‘It would be better if I weren’t here any more’ are picked up and followed by a direct question: ‘Do you sometimes think about taking your own life?’ As described in Module 5, a shared safety plan can come out of this. In cases of domestic violence, this often means taking both dangers into account in the same plan: who can be called when the fear of the partner becomes overwhelming, and who when your own dark thoughts get stronger?

PART 4 – Practice II: organising protection, using the network, keeping children in view

Informing about protection options – without legal advice

Social work professionals are often the first people those affected confide in – and they are rarely the right people to give binding answers to individual legal questions. Their task lies in between: they inform, in understandable language, that court protection orders and the option of allocating the home exist, that these are made on the application of the injured person and that specialist counselling services and legal representatives support the application and the proceedings (GewSchG). It helps to accompany the person with practical steps: gathering documents, making appointments, agreeing a safe means of communication, arranging childcare for the day of a court or counselling appointment.

A tried and tested aid is careful documentation of the incidents by the person concerned themselves – for example date, place, type of violence, witnesses, photos of injuries, medical findings or saved messages. Professionals can encourage this but must bear in mind that such records can become dangerous for the person concerned if the violent person finds them. Together you can think about where documents can be kept safely, for example with a trusted person.

The ‘Violence against Women’ helpline – also for professionals

A central nationwide service is the ‘Violence against Women’ helpline (Hilfetelefon “Gewalt gegen Frauen”) of the Federal Office for Family Affairs and Civil Society Functions. It can be reached on 116 016 around the clock, free of charge, confidentially and, on request, anonymously, advises in several languages and can bring in interpreters if needed; its legal basis is the Helpline Act (Hilfetelefongesetz) (BAFzA, n.d.). For social work it is particularly important that the service is aimed not only at affected women but also at their social circle and at professionals (BAFzA, n.d.). Anyone who is unsure how to evaluate a case or which regional support services exist can therefore call themselves – in anonymised form and without disclosing the client’s data.

The helpline replaces neither the emergency number nor longer-term support on the ground. But it can be a low-threshold bridge, especially for people who do not (yet) dare to go to a counselling service, who need help at unusual times or who do not speak German well. For men affected by violence and for people who do not identify as women, there are dedicated services in many regions; it is worth researching these in advance for your own catchment area and keeping them to hand in the organisation.

Children in the household: youth welfare office and taking into care

If children or young people live in the household, they are always affected by domestic violence too – even if they are not hit themselves. Witnessing violence between the people they depend on is a considerable burden and can endanger a child’s wellbeing. Professionals therefore keep the children’s situation in view and act in line with their organisation’s child protection procedures; in many cases the youth welfare office has to be involved. Supporting the parent affected by violence is often at the same time the most effective protection for the children.

Where an acute danger is concerned, one instrument deserves particular mention: under Section 42(1) SGB VIII, the youth welfare office is entitled and obliged to take a child or young person into care, among other situations when the child or young person themselves asks for this or when an urgent danger to their wellbeing requires it (Section 42 SGB VIII). The decision is made by the youth welfare office, not by a professional in another organisation. It is important for young people to know that they can also turn to the youth welfare office themselves. The procedure, time limits and legal protection in taking into care are covered in more depth in a separate course and are not the subject here.

Professional confidentiality and justifying necessity

What those affected confide about violence they have suffered is subject, for social workers and social education workers, to professional confidentiality protected by criminal law under Section 203 StGB. The consent of the person concerned is therefore always the first route when information is to be passed on to the police, doctors, the youth welfare office or relatives. In practice it is often possible to win this consent in the conversation – for example by the professional making transparent why they consider disclosure important, and by leaving the person as much control as possible over timing and content.

Only exceptionally can disclosure without consent be justified. Under Section 34 StGB, a person does not act unlawfully who, in the face of a present danger to life, limb, liberty or another legal interest that cannot be averted in any other way, commits an act in order to avert the danger from themselves or another, if, when weighing up the interests, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one impaired and the act is an appropriate means (Section 34 StGB). This provision is not a general permission to disclose as soon as violence is involved. It requires a concrete, present danger, a careful weighing-up in the individual case, the priority of milder means such as consent, consultation with the manager and team, and traceable documentation. How professional confidentiality and necessity interact in detail is covered in more depth in Module 6; in cases of doubt, legal advice is to be obtained through the organisation or provider (Träger).

PART 5 – Critical perspective: limits, areas of tension and consequences

The application principle between self-determination and being overwhelmed

The application principle of the Violence Protection Act respects the self-determination of those affected: nobody is drawn into court proceedings against their will. At the same time, it asks people in an acute crisis to do something that is particularly hard for them – to make decisions, gather documents, face a violent person in proceedings. Someone who, as Cullberg (1978) describes for the shock phase, feels inwardly paralysed may initially be overwhelmed by an application. Social work is therefore in an area of tension: it should respect the autonomy of those affected and at the same time prevent protection from failing on hurdles that are linked to the crisis itself. One answer is practical support that does not take decisions away but makes it easier to carry them out.

New instruments, open questions

The 2026 reform comes with clear aims: electronic location monitoring is meant to make orders not to approach more enforceable, mandatory perpetrator work is meant to address the cause of the violence, and the higher penalty range is meant to underline the binding nature of court orders (GewSchG). How these instruments will work in practice cannot yet be judged at the legal position of this module – not least because the entry into force is staged. Open questions concern, for example, how quickly monitoring can be set up, how those affected are warned of approaches, how many places are available in perpetrator work and how cooperation between courts, police, counselling services and perpetrator work organisations is organised. For professionals, this calls for an attitude of informed restraint: they know about the innovations but promise nothing that is not yet secured in the individual case.

Blind spots: who finds it hard to access protection

Protection from violence does not reach everyone equally. Anyone without a home of their own cannot benefit from the allocation of the home; anyone living in shared accommodation or a residential facility may meet the violent person in the corridor every day. People with disabilities, older people cared for by relatives, or people with an insecure residence status are often in particular dependencies that make it harder to disclose violence. Men who experience violence often stay silent out of shame, as Mr B.’s example shows, and find fewer specialised services. Language barriers are also a hurdle; multilingual services such as the helpline can build bridges here (BAFzA, n.d.) but do not replace counselling on the ground. Human-rights-oriented social work makes these gaps visible instead of attributing them to those affected as a personal failing.

Limits of your own role – consequences for practice

Social work professionals can achieve a lot in crises involving violence: they listen, believe, name the danger, open up routes and keep in contact. But they can neither issue protection orders nor order taking into care, nor guarantee a person’s safety. This can be a burden – especially when a client returns to the violent person after a conversation. Here it helps to define your own responsibility clearly: it lies in careful, caring and documented work in a team, not in the outcome, which other people and institutions help to decide. At the same time, it becomes clear how important robust structures in the organisation are: a crisis protocol, an up-to-date list of regional points of contact, clear agreements on emergency calls and the right to exclude people from the premises, reliable routes to managers and child protection specialists, and room for peer consultation after distressing situations. Those who know and use these structures act more calmly and more safely in an acute danger – for those affected and for themselves.

Self-reflection – 5 questions

Voluntary · not evaluated – your answers are not saved and are not evaluated by anyone. Click an answer; the explanation helps you assess your own understanding.