| Course | PAC 410 Crisis Intervention and Prevention |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Intimate partner violence crisis paper |
| Length | About 1,052 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 410 Module 4
Hands on Her Throat: Lethality Assessment and Safety Planning for a Woman Whose Husband Drinks
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 410: Crisis Intervention and Prevention
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Hands on Her Throat: Lethality Assessment and Safety Planning for a Woman Whose Husband Drinks
Angela phoned from her car in a supermarket lot shortly after ten in the morning. She was thirty-seven, a dental hygienist and the mother of two children, nine and six. The night before, she had told her husband, Ray, that she wanted a separation. Ray had been drinking since dinner. He grabbed her by the throat and squeezed until she nearly lost consciousness, then let go and told her that if she left, he would make sure she regretted it. Her neck was sore, and her voice was hoarse. Ray keeps a shotgun in the garage. She did not know what to do. This paper describes the assessment and safety planning. Angela, Ray and their children are fictional, and the crisis service is invented; the research is real.
What Predicts Lethal Partner Violence
Campbell et al. (2003) compared two groups of women in eleven American cities: those killed by a partner and those abused by a partner but still alive. Several factors distinguished the women who were killed. The strongest included the abuser's access to a gun, the abuser's previous threats with a weapon, the abuser's unemployment and the woman leaving or separating from the abuser, especially an abuser who was highly controlling. Prior threats to kill, forced sex and the presence of a child of the woman by another partner also raised risk. Prior strangulation was among the factors associated with greater danger.
For Angela, several of these factors are present: Ray has a gun, she has just told him she wants to separate, he threatened her if she leaves and he strangled her last night.
The Danger Assessment
Campbell et al. (2009) reported the validation of the Danger Assessment, an instrument completed with the woman, which asks a series of questions about risk factors and the history of abuse, along with a calendar of recent incidents. They developed a weighted scoring system in which the most strongly predictive items, such as threats with a weapon, threats to kill, attempted strangulation and the abuser's access to a gun, count more heavily, and they set score ranges corresponding to levels of danger, from variable danger to extreme danger. The instrument discriminated well between women who were killed or nearly killed and abused women who were not.
Alcohol and Partner Violence
Foran and O'Leary (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining alcohol use and partner violence. Alcohol use and problems were associated with male-to-female partner violence, with a small to moderate effect, and the association was stronger in clinical samples. The authors noted that alcohol is one of several factors that raise risk, acting through impaired judgment and increased aggression, and that it does not explain or excuse violence. Ray's drinking last night raised the danger, but his choice to strangle her is his responsibility.
Assessing Angela's Danger
The counselor completed the Danger Assessment with Angela. Her score fell in the extreme danger range. The counselor explained what this meant, that women in situations like hers had faced a serious risk of being killed, while making clear that the decisions were hers.
| Risk factor | Angela's situation |
|---|---|
| Attempted strangulation | Last night, to near loss of consciousness |
| Abuser's access to a gun | Shotgun in the garage |
| Threats if she leaves | "You'll regret it" |
| Separation | She told him last night she wants to separate |
| Escalation | Angela says the violence has become more frequent this year |
| Abuser's drinking | Drinks most nights; violent incidents follow drinking |
| Controlling behavior | Checks her phone; controls the money |
Safety Planning With Angela
The safety plan was built with Angela, around what she decided. She did not want to go home that night. She chose to stay with her sister, who lives across town and whom Ray does not know well. Her children were at school; she decided to pick them up early and take them with her. She did not want to call the police yet but agreed to learn about protective orders. The counselor explained that strangulation can cause serious injury that is not visible and urged her to be seen at an emergency department, which she agreed to do that afternoon, where staff could also document the injury. They discussed the shotgun: a protective order could require Ray to surrender firearms, and police could assist. They planned what she would take, including documents, medications and her phone charger, and what she would say if Ray called.
Coordination With an Advocate
With Angela's permission, the counselor made a warm transfer to an advocate at the county's domestic violence program, staying on the line to introduce her. The advocate offered to meet Angela at the hospital, help with a protective order petition and arrange shelter if her sister's house became unsafe. The counselor gave Angela the crisis line number and the national domestic violence hotline and did not record her sister's address in any document Ray could access.
Why Leaving Is Dangerous
Angela's instinct was to leave immediately, and many people would advise her to. The research suggests caution about how. Campbell and colleagues found that separation, especially from a controlling partner, was associated with greater danger, and Ray had already threatened her if she left. Leaving is often still the right choice, but it is safest when planned: when the person leaving has somewhere Ray does not know, has taken the children and documents, has an advocate and, if she chooses, a protective order that addresses the gun. The safety plan was built around making her departure safer, not around persuading her to stay or to leave.
The Children
Angela's children have heard the arguments. The advocate would connect them with a children's program, and Angela would consider whether and how to inform their school, so staff would not release them to Ray if a protective order was granted.
Conclusion
Angela's situation contained several of the strongest warning signs of lethal partner violence: strangulation, a gun, threats and separation. Campbell and colleagues identify these risk factors, Campbell, Webster and Glass provide a tool that weights them and Foran and O'Leary show how alcohol raises the danger without excusing it. A safety plan built with Angela, medical care for her injury and a warm transfer to an advocate gave her a path through the most dangerous days.
References
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089-1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 653-674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317180
Foran, H. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222-1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001
Reading the PAC 410 Module 4 assignment instructions
Intimate partner violence is the fourth module of PAC 410; the paper here weighs how dangerous a partner violence situation is and builds safety with, not for, the person at risk. Your Aspen course posts the Module 4 prompt that governs; Angela is invented. Present research on risk factors for lethal violence. Use a validated tool, such as the Danger Assessment, and explain its scoring. Address the role of alcohol without excusing violence. Plan safety with the caller rather than for her, respecting her decisions. Coordinate with domestic violence services. Reference each study in APA 7, and protect the caller's location and plans in anything you write down. Address medical care when strangulation is involved. Plan for the children as well as the adult.
How this PAC 410 Module 4 example is built
Angela's husband, Ray, choked her until she nearly lost consciousness, keeps a shotgun in the garage and has said that if she leaves he will make sure she regrets it. Campbell and colleagues' American Journal of Public Health study supplies the homicide risk factors. Campbell, Webster and Glass's Journal of Interpersonal Violence article supplies the Danger Assessment's weighted items and danger levels. Foran and O'Leary's Clinical Psychology Review meta-analysis supplies the alcohol link. A seven-row table applies the risk factors. The safety plan covers tonight, the children, the shotgun, a protective order if she chooses one, medical care for the strangulation and a warm transfer to an advocate.
Where the marks sit in the PAC 410 Module 4 rubric
Partner violence papers earn credit for accurate risk research, correct use of a validated tool and a safety plan that respects the survivor's choices. This example explains why strangulation and a gun in the home are serious warning signs and why the period of leaving is dangerous. The Danger Assessment is applied item by item rather than summarized. Alcohol is presented as a risk factor that raises danger, not as an excuse. The safety plan is built with Angela, around what she decides, and includes medical care, which strangulation requires. A warm transfer to an advocate shows coordination with specialized services and leaves her with a person she can call back. The children's safety is part of the plan.
PAC 410 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Partner violence papers often tell the victim what she must do, such as leave immediately. Plan with her, respecting her decisions, since leaving can be the most dangerous time. Use a validated lethality tool and explain its results to her. Treat strangulation as a serious warning sign and recommend medical evaluation. Ask about weapons, especially guns. Address alcohol as a risk factor without excusing the violence. Protect confidentiality, including her location. Connect her with domestic violence advocates. Plan for children's safety. Remember that the person using violence is responsible for it, and keep that responsibility clear in your language. Name strangulation as a medical emergency.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PAC 410 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 410 Module 1: Crisis Theory and Intervention Models
- PAC 410 Module 2: Suicide Assessment and Intervention
- PAC 410 Module 3: Homicide Threats and Violence
- PAC 410 Module 5: Sexual Assault and Abuse
- PAC 410 Module 6: Bereavement, Grief and Loss
- PAC 410 Module 7: Substance-Related Crises
- PAC 410 Module 8: Disasters, Mass Violence and Community Prevention
- PAC 302 Module 6: Selecting and Administering Tests
- PAC 102 Module 5: Screening and Early Intervention
- PAC 320 Module 5: Inpatient and Residential Treatment
- PAC 415 Module 3: Beneficence and Client Goals
PAC 410 Module 4 questions, answered
What does PAC 410 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 410 covers intimate partner violence in this module, so assessing danger and planning safety with a person at risk is typical. Look at your Module 4 prompt.
What are the strongest risk factors for intimate partner homicide?
Campbell and colleagues found risk factors including the abuser's access to a gun, prior threats with a weapon, unemployment and the victim leaving a controlling partner.
What is the Danger Assessment?
A validated tool, described by Campbell, Webster and Glass, that weights risk factors to estimate the danger of intimate partner homicide.
Where can I find a free PAC 410 Module 4 sample paper?
Read the full paper on this page: lethality assessment and safety planning for a woman whose drinking husband choked her.
Does alcohol cause intimate partner violence?
Foran and O'Leary found alcohol use associated with partner violence, but alcohol raises risk rather than excusing violence; the person using violence remains responsible.