Intimate partner violence against women (IPV) affects all populations, but significant variations among these groups have been suggested. However, research results on racial differences in IPV are not only inconclusive, they are also limited–particularly with regard to racial minorities. As a result, it has been challenging for practitioners and service providers in many communities to serve an increasing number of racial minority clients. This study used the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES) to examine differences in the prevalence of IPV, and associated factors, among major race groups in the U.S. Included variables were age, race, financial security, employment, education, social network, IPV perpetration and victimization, and severity of IPV. The results showed that Blacks were victimized the most, followed by Whites and Latinos, and Asians were victimized the least. Asians were the least likely to be victimized by IPV, even when controlling for sociodemographic variables. The odds of victimization for Blacks and Latinos were not significantly different from Whites. Financial security and age affected IPV victimization. Those who perceived themselves as financially secure were less likely to be victimized than those who did not. The older were less likely to be victimized than the younger. Employment, education, and social networks did not affect victimization. Race was not a significant predictor of perpetration, when controlling for other variables. Age was the only predictor of perpetration: the older were less likely to perpetrate IPV than the younger.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors often do not seek critically needed help. A good understanding of the relationship between the pattern of violence and help-seeking is critical to developing adequate services for the survivors, as well as for reaching out to those who do not seek help. This study used the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey to examine how IPV survivor’s help-seeking varies, depending on the characteristics of the survivors and the pattern of victimization. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, with the survivors’ help-seeking and use of formal or informal help as the dependent variables. The study results show that women are the primary victims of IPV, that the pattern of victimization is associated with both whether survivors seek help or not, and which help sources they utilize, if any. IPV consequences are also associated with survivors’ help-seeking, as are demographic factors such as age, gender, race, and immigration status.

This article examines children and adolescent exposure to violence in various contexts. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify the definitions and types of violence reported in studies on victimization using the ecological systems framework. Sources included research studies and/or reports from scholarly journals (n = 140), books (n = 9), conferences/workshops (n = 5), and Web sources, such as Uniform Crime Reports (n = 23). The findings indicated that research differed in terminologies, conceptual and operational definitions, sample sizes, and age group classification for children and adolescents. Furthermore, studies lacked focus on the co-occurrence and interrelatedness of victimization and how these factors might affect the outcomes. Many studies employed a cross-sectional design, which limits strong conclusions about the temporal order of victimization experiences and outcomes. Future research efforts need more consistency among researchers in conceptual and operational definitions and the use of more rigorous designs. Increased holistic assessments are critical for effective prevention and intervention strategies for at-risk children and adolescents.

Many studies have been conducted on gender differences in intimate partner violence (IPV), producing inconsistent results. Some studies report that men were victimized by IPV as much as women were, whereas others find that IPV was predominantly perpetrated by men against women. The nature and context of IPV may be crucial to understanding gender differences in IPV, but national data collections do not regularly report on this information. This study expects to fill this gap by using nationally representative data to examine differences in the nature and context of IPV between male and female perpetrators. This study uses the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES). Descriptive statistics for each gender are first obtained (n = 2,190). A discriminant analysis is used with gender as a grouping variable, including only perpetrators of IPV (n = 236). The independent variables are age, race, education, employment, financial security, frequency and severity of IPV, controlling behaviors, and the initiator of physical arguments. The study findings suggest that women and men do not vary much in the prevalence, frequency, and severity of IPV, controlling behaviors, or the initiation of physical arguments. They also suggest that those variables are rather weak in differentiating IPV against men from IPV against women. Since the study revealed some gender differences in IPV and, at the same time, encountered methodological difficulties in convincingly showing them as real gender differences, more research is clearly needed.