Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem affecting women, men, and children across the United States. Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) serve as the primary intervention for men who use violence, employing three primary modalities: psychoeducation, cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), and other forms of group therapy such as alcohol or drug treatment. However, research indicates that program effectiveness of the primary BIP modalities is limited, due, in part, to the theoretical underpinnings guiding intervention such as learned behavior (psychoeducation), patriarchy as the root cause (Duluth model), and “dysfunctional” thinking (CBT). Considering the mental, physical, and economic toll of IPV on families and the limited effectiveness of current intervention approaches, an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of current modalities and an incorporation of the latest science addressing violence prevention and cessation are paramount. This article draws upon existing theories of trauma and the etiologies of violence perpetration and proposes an alternative model of care for men with IPV histories. Experiences of childhood adversity and trauma have well-established associations with a range of negative sequelae, including neurological, cognitive, behavioral, physical, and emotional outcomes. Childhood trauma is also associated with later violence and IPV perpetration. Thus, incorporating trauma-informed care principles and trauma interventions into programming for IPV perpetrators warrants further investigation. Practice and policy implications of a trauma interventions for men with IPV histories, as well as areas for future research, are discussed.

Stemming in part from the lack of theory, predictors of the relationship between neighborhoods and intimate partner violence (IPV) are underidentified. Furthermore, few mediation studies exist that inductively build and deductively confirm theoretical frameworks. This article provides an integrative review of the literature, aiming to enhance the field’s understanding of predictors and potential mechanisms that drive this relationship, using a combined theoretical model to guide the analysis. The integrative review was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl’s systematic method for integrative reviews with articles published between 1995 and 2015. Findings indicate that macro-, exo-, and mesolevel predictors and mediators in the proposed model have modest empirical support; however, a number of concepts at each ecological level have yet to be fully researched. Results of this review suggest that a well-defined and integrative theoretical framework will enhance the current understanding of ecological research into IPV. Additionally, a comprehensive ecological approach to IPV intervention is likely to be more effective than employing solely an individual-level approach. Intervention implications are discussed.

Social workers, including social work researchers, are called on to challenge social injustices and pursue social change. Research has shown a strong association between trauma and adversity and marginalized populations, exposing the unequal distribution of trauma and its effects throughout society. Given the focus on marginalized populations in social work, the social justice orientation of the field, and the intersection of trauma with marginalized populations, a framework to guide social work researchers in conducting trauma-informed, socially just research with marginalized populations is warranted. Therefore, this article provides a framework integrating trauma theory, trauma-informed principles, and intersectionality as a guide for social work research. The proposed framework is illustrated using a case study of low-income, predominantly African American men recruited from a criminal justice setting, acknowledging facilitators and barriers to implementation. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for researchers and doctoral student training.

Research has revealed that forms of violence are interconnected, but less work focuses on the interconnection of victimization and perpetration, particularly with men. Subsequently, our understanding of the complexities of violence exposure in men’s lives and related policies and treatments remains limited. The present study utilizes a sample of at-risk for violence involvement, college men, to examine the relationships between childhood victimization, adulthood victimization, and adulthood perpetration. Participants are 423 college men receiving course credit who completed a battery of standardized questionnaires via an anonymous web survey. Logistic regression is used. Results indicate that 27% of the men report polyperpetration (two or more types of perpetration), 43.5% report polyvictimization (two or more types of victimization), and 60% report experiencing both forms of victimization and perpetration in the past year. Childhood physical abuse has predictive power for perpetration (psychological aggression and polyperpetration) and victimization (sexual violence, psychological aggression, and polyvictimization) for the men in the past year. Childhood sexual abuse has strong predictive power for perpetration (physical violence, sexual violence, and polyperpetration) and victimization (physical violence and sexual violence) with the men in the past year. Finally, emotional abuse has predictive power for victimization (physical violence and psychological aggression), but not perpetration, for the men in the past year. Developmental psychopathology and the adverse childhood experiences frameworks are used to posit potential pathways explaining the relation between childhood abuse and the overlap between victimization and perpetration in adulthood for men. Implications of this study include the use of trauma-informed models of care with men and expanding the scope of study to examine experiences of both victimization and perpetration, and various types of violence, among men.