Introduction

A review of intimate partner violence (IPV) literature found that few studies focus on male IPV victimization, [1] but findings point toward similar rates for males and females. [2] An article reviewing IPV prevalence in various countries concluded that 19.3% of males and 23.1% of females had been physically assaulted by an intimate partner. [3] A British study found that while females were more likely to have experienced some form of partner abuse at age 16 or older (19.9%), 9.6% of males also had reported this type of abuse. [4] Furthermore, a national survey investigating victimization estimated that 26% of males in Illinois will be victims of intimate partner violence or stalking during their lifetimes; the percentage for females was higher at 42%. [5]

Research also indicates that females perpetrate IPV. Authors of an article on prior studies of IPV in heterosexual relationships found 28.3% of females and 21.6% of males reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate partnership. [6] In addition, some studies have found the majority of IPV to be bidirectional in nature, with the lines between victim and perpetrator blurred in a relationship. [7] While study methodologies, scope, and estimates may differ, research shows that males are IPV victims and that females perpetrate IPV.

Despite the similarities in victimization rates, males are less likely to seek services from a domestic violence provider. Research showed male IPV victims were less likely than female victims to use formal services and were more likely to describe informal support as helpful. [8] However, we know little about how IPV victim service receipt and victimization characteristics differ by gender.

Intimate Partner Violence Risk Factors

Research has identified characteristics associated with increased IPV risk. Being separated or divorced has been shown to increase the likelihood of IPV compared to currently married individuals. [9] Having a long-term illness or disability also increased risk of partner abuse, but this increased risk did not differ by gender. [10] Among females, being an immigrant or unemployed was found to increase one’s likelihood of IPV victimization, whereas higher education attainment decreased IPV risk. [11] We are unaware of any systematic reviews of demographic characteristics linked to increased IPV risk among males.

Studies also point to other risk factors that may vary by gender, including IPV type, use of force, and remaining in an abusive relationship. A Croatian study found that females were more likely to have experienced physical and financial abuse, whereas males were more likely to have experienced psychological abuse. [12] A meta-analysis of studies on IPV perpetration in heterosexual relationships found that gender effects were complex; females were more likely than males to be physically aggressive, but males were more likely to inflict injury. [13] Finally, a study of gender differences in relationships among young adults found that male IPV victims were more likely to remain in the abusive relationship than female IPV victims. [14]

Gender Differences in Help-Seeking

Research suggests that males may be less likely or hesitant to seek help from formal sources of support. For example, a study of Croatian IPV victims’ help-seeking behaviors found that males were less likely to report IPV to police or to the court. [15] In a British hotline report, 50% of male domestic abuse victim callers reported they had never before spoken to anyone about the abuse and 71% stated they would not have called the hotline were it not anonymous. [16]

Researchers have identified barriers to male victim help-seeking. As males are expected to be stoic and self-sufficient, [17] they may feel that seeking help through formal means is a threat to their masculinity. A systematic review of male IPV victims’ help-seeking behaviors revealed that males avoided disclosing IPV because of concerns that others would question their masculinity or assume they were the aggressor. [18] Adherence to traditional gender roles and masculinity has also been shown to negatively impact attitudes toward counseling among males; [19] this occurs because males may internalize the stigma associated with help-seeking. [20] Other barriers to male help-seeking are blame, beliefs about the helpfulness of services, and society often not recognizing IPV against males as abuse. A study of adult responses to IPV vignettes found that participants were more likely to blame an IPV victim when they were male. [21] The belief that formal victim services could not help them also created a barrier; many also assumed victim services for males were not available. [22] Study participants rated police as least helpful of all potential help-seeking sources. [23] Research also has demonstrated that emergency room staff failed to identify IPV in males more than females. [24]

The perpetrator’s gender and sexual orientation also can impact help-seeking behavior. When study participants were presented with vignettes of IPV participants were more likely to describe IPV as abuse when the perpetrator was a heterosexual male and were less likely to do so when partners were the same sex. [25] Respondents were also more likely to report a male assaulting a female to the police, than a female assaulting a male. [26]

Outcomes of IPV

Males and females experience similar long-term effects associated with having intimate partner violence at comparable rates. [27] Exposure to IPV can lead to poor mental health and poor appraisal of one’s own physical health. [28] However, studies have noted that female IPV victims experience more short-term emotional effects (e.g., depressive symptoms). [29] Studies link IPV to depressive symptoms, alcohol disorders, [30] and traumatic brain injury. [31] IPV also causes nightmares, particularly for female victims. [32]

The effects of IPV spill over into other facets of victims’ lives. A study of employee-supervisor dyads found that IPV heightened psychological distress, which led to negative work outcomes. [33] Services for both IPV victims and perpetrators are important as a history of IPV precedes intimate partner homicide (IPH) in the majority of IPH cases. [34] A perpetrator’s history of gun use [35] or strangulation [36] during IPV incidents increases the risk of IPH. For these reasons, understanding male and female IPV victim characteristics and service receipt is paramount to effectively providing services and preventing escalation.

Current Study

To further the understanding of how IPV incidents and service use differ by gender, we analyzed InfoNet domestic violence data. InfoNet is a web-based system used by Illinois domestic violence and sexual assault providers for storing client and service data that inform strategic planning, case management, and grant administration. InfoNet contains data on clients, offenses, perpetrators, and services received.

Methods

Procedure and Sample

We examined records on IPV victims who sought services between 2015 and 2019, for abuse perpetuated by a current or former intimate partner. We included victims who had experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse (Table 1). Analyses were limited to data collected in 2019, as the COVID-19 pandemic and Illinois’ stay-at-home orders impacted victim service provision. [37]

Table 1

InfoNet Data Fields Used to Determine Study Inclusion

Table 1

A total of 86,412 client records drawn from 61 Illinois domestic violence service providers met the criteria for study inclusion. This study was approved by ICJIA’s Institutional Review Board.

Table 2 provides a list of variables analyzed and, if applicable, how they were recoded.

Table 2

Variables Used in Analyses and Descriptions [38] [39]

Table 2A Table 2B

Analytic Process

We analyzed the dataset using Excel. We compared male IPV clients with female IPV clients on the variables described in Table 2. When the variable used in the comparison was interval-ratio (i.e., denoted by a number, such as age), we used independent sample t-tests to determine significance; independent sample t-tests are used to determine whether there is significant difference in the sample means of two independent groups. When the variable was nominal (i.e., denoted by the presence or absence of a characteristic, such as disability status), we used chi-square tests to determine significance; chi-square tests are used to determine whether there is significant association between two categorical variables, based on the degree the observed data deviates from what would be expected if the variables were unrelated. For each variable, we omitted cases with missing data; therefore, the denominator used to calculate percentages may vary across variables.

Limitations

Service providers ask clients for demographic information at intake. In most cases, victims seek services shortly after the IPV occurred. However, some clients do not seek services until months or years later. Thus, the demographic information recorded at intake may not accurately reflect certain demographic characteristics (e.g., employment status) at the time the IPV occurred.

Furthermore, this study only included data on IPV victims seeking formal, publicly funded victim services. Since males are reluctant to identify themselves as victims [40] or use formal victim services, [41] males are likely underrepresented in this dataset.

Finally, providers do not consistently enter perpetrators’ criminal court information (e.g., trials, sentencing). Therefore, researchers were unable to analyze data on many of those fields. And while researchers used criminal court information data to create the trial set variable, the results may not be representative of all domestic violence victims in this sample.

Findings

Client Demographics

We compared the demographic characteristics of male and female domestic violence clients using chi-square tests and independent sample t-tests. Results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

IPV Clients’ Demographics, by Gender

Table 3

We found differences in races/ethnicities of male and female clients. There were 9.6 White female clients for every While male client, 14.5 Black female clients for every Black male client, and 17.3 Latina clients for every Latino client. Overall, the racial/ethnic distribution of male clients more closely mirrored the racial/ethnic makeup of Illinois residents at 61% White, 15% Black, and 18% Latino. [42]

Findings also revealed differences in age, and marital, parental, and employment status. Male clients (M = 37.7, SD = 11.32) were an average of 4.3 years older than female IPV clients (M = 33.4, SD = 10.32), t(86,398) = 32.24, p<.001. Females were 15% more likely to be single and males were 4% more likely to be married. Female clients were 10% more likely to be parents of dependent children. Males were more likely to be employed full-time at intake; females were more likely to be employed part-time or unemployed.

Gender differences found in attaining college education mirrored estimates that appeared in the General Social Survey (GSS), a biannual survey measuring American traits and opinions among the adult population; the GSS found 40% of females had a junior college degree or higher compared to 37% of males. [43] In our sample, female clients were 7% more likely to have at least some college education.

Female clients were more likely to have characteristics that could pose barriers to service access; they were 65% more likely to have limited English proficiency and 63% more likely to have a disability.

Referral Source

We examined referral sources by client gender using chi-square tests and found significant differences (Table 4). Female IPV clients were more likely to be referred by a hotline or helpline, a medical source, a hospital, a friend, or a family member than males. In contrast, male clients were more likely to be referred by a legal source or the police. They also were more likely to self-refer.

Table 4

IPV Client Referral Sources, by Gender

Table 4

Service Needs

Service need findings are presented in Table 5. Service needs were analyzed using chi-square tests and independent sample t-tests.

Table 5

IPV Clients’ Service Needs, by Gender

Table 5

Each service need examined varied significantly by client gender. Providers were more likely to indicate that female clients needed shelter or housing and emotional or counseling services at intake than males, whereas males were more likely to need legal advocacy at intake. Overall, female IPV clients (M = 2.84, SD = 1.79) averaged more needs than males (M = 2.59, SD = 1.01), t(86,410) = 11.12, p<.001.

Services Received

We also looked at gender differences in services received. Service receipt was analyzed using chi-square tests and independent sample t-tests (Table 6).

Table 6

Services Received by IPV Clients, by Gender

Table 6

Female IPV clients were more likely to receive any form of assistance. They were also more likely to receive housing or shelter services and economic, educational, medical, and employment assistance. In addition, female IPV clients were more likely to receive services related to emotional support, including family counseling, individual counseling, conflict resolution services, and individual therapy. Of clients receiving therapy, females received about twelve times as many counseling hours as male clients. [44] We also observed a gender difference in the number of counseling hours received by male clients when the perpetrator’s gender was male. Males abused by males averaged more counseling hours than males abused by females. [45]

Legal services comprised a larger portion of male victims’ total service contacts at 49% for males and 22% for females. In addition, the type of legal advocacy service received varied by gender. Male IPV clients were 12% more likely to receive civil legal advocacy, whereas female clients were 83% more likely to receive criminal legal advocacy.

Overall, female IPV clients (M = 29.1, SD = 80.75) had more total service contacts than males (M = 9.7, SD = 25.84), t(85,811) = 19.37, p<.001. An analysis of male IPV victims and perpetrator gender revealed that male victims had more total service contacts when the perpetrator was male (M = 14.1, SD = 48.11) than female (M = 9.3, SD = 22.26), t(6,589) = 4.66, p<.001). In comparison, the difference between female clients whose perpetrator was male (M = 28.9, SD = 79.66) and those whose perpetrator was female (M = 30.3, SD = 102.93) was not statistically significant, t(79,258) = .76, p = .449).

Court Use

Differences in court use by gender are presented in Table 7. Chi-square tests were used to compare IPV victims by gender.

Table 7

IPV Client Court Use, by Gender [46]

Table 7

Overall, male clients were 34% more likely to file an order of protection. However, male clients were 43% more likely to file a civil order of protection, while female clients were 71% more likely to file a criminal order of protection. In addition, we found that males who received civil legal advocacy services were more likely to file for an order of protection. [47] Civil orders of protection filed by males were 2.2 times more likely to be denied; no gender difference was observed for criminal orders of protection.

A follow-up chi-square analysis found that when the perpetrator was female, males were more likely to file an order of protection than when the perpetrator was male, χ2 (1, n = 6,615) =108.91, p<.001 (Figure 1). We saw that female clients with a male perpetrator were no more likely to file for an order of protection than those with a female perpetrator, χ2(1, n = 80,048) = .18, p = .671.

Figure 1

Percentage of IPV Clients Filing for an Order of Protection, by Client and Perpetrator Gender

Figure 1

Offense and Perpetrator Characteristics

Table 8 contains findings from chi-square analyses of IPV offense and perpetrator characteristics by gender.

Table 8

Offense and Perpetrator Characteristics of IPV Clients, by Gender

Table 8

We investigated offense characteristics that may increase victims’ risk for future IPV escalation. Females were 24% more likely to have physical DV as their primary presenting issues, whereas males were more likely to have emotional DV as their primary presenting issues. We saw no gender difference in likelihood of being threatened or attacked with a gun or knife, but female clients were more likely to have had the perpetrator hit or attempt to hit them with an object or to have been strangled during the incident.

We also saw differences in the location of the DV incident. Males were 9% more likely to be abused in their own homes, whereas females were 35% more likely to be abused in a home they shared with the perpetrator.

We also found that perpetrator characteristics differed for female IPV clients compared to male IPV clients. Female clients were over eight times more likely to have been abused by a male perpetrator. While there were no differences between client gender and whether the perpetrator was ever their spouse, female clients were 24% more likely to have been abused by a current romantic partner.

Those who perpetrated IPV against female clients (M = 36.0, SD = 10.97) were an average of two years older than those who perpetrated IPV against males (M = 34.0, SD = 10.00), t(85,532) = 14.18, p<.001. Male clients were older than their perpetrators (M = 3.7, SD = 8.56); female clients were younger than their perpetrators (M = -2.6, SD = 8.36), t(85,486) = 58.13, p<.001.

Discussion

Female IPV Victim Risk Factors

Foremost, during the period studied, female IPV clients were more likely to have a disability and economic-related service needs than male IPV clients. While research has shown that females are more likely to have a disability than males in the United States, [48] the differences observed between males and females were smaller than those seen in our sample of IPV victims, suggesting that females with a disability are more likely to experience IPV than males with a disability. As a result, having a disability may increase females’ risk of IPV more than males.

Female clients also were more likely to be unemployed at intake and to receive employment and economic assistance than males. This finding was consistent with an Australian study which found that unemployment increased females’ risk of experiencing physical abuse, but not risk for males. [49] The increased risk factors for female IPV clients and their greater service usage is consistent with findings from a previous study; researchers found that female victims returned to their abusers due to lack of money or shelter. [50]

These findings point to two potential IPV risk factors for females – having a disability and economic-related needs. These findings indicate that for female IPV victims, assistance services are important. Providers should be aware female IPV victims are more likely than males to have disabilities or economic-related needs and ensure they have the capacity to serve clients with disabilities and other needs.

Order of Protection Filings among Male IPV Victims

Male IPV clients were more likely to receive civil legal advocacy and to file for a civil order of protection than female clients, particularly when the male IPV client’s perpetrator was female. In addition, male clients who had received civil legal advocacy were more likely to file for an order of protection than female clients receiving civil legal advocacy. Studies have identified several reasons male IPV victims may be more likely to file for an order of protection. Males may file an order of protection to protect themselves from being considered to be the perpetrator if the abuse escalates. Previous research has shown IPV against males in heterosexual relationships can be minimized by the victims’ friends and family. Males also are assumed to be the perpetrator. [51]

Additional research suggests that male IPV may be at greater risk of legal or administrative abuse. This type of abuse occurs when the perpetrator manipulates legal or administrative institutions to harm the victim, such as filing unsubstantiated orders of protection. [52] Males may be at greater risk because of gender assumptions victim service providers and the court system have about IPV perpetrators. [53] A survey of male IPV victims demonstrated how widespread legal or administrative abuse is; 67% of male IPV victims reported being falsely accused of abuse by a partner, 49% were falsely accused by a partner of physically abusing their children, and 39% had a restraining order filed against them based on their abusers’ lies. [54] Other researchers noted that female IPV victims had also experienced similar abuse, including unsubstantiated lawsuits and allegations of child endangerment. [55] To protect against these forms of abuse, male victims may be more likely than females to seek legal advocacy services or file for an order of protection.

Male IPV victims may also be more likely to receive legal advocacy services than females because inequities in the legal system benefiting female IPV victims lead them to seek assistance from service providers. One study found that judges were thirteen times more likely to grant a temporary restraining order to a female victim against a male perpetrator than to grant an order for a male victim against a female perpetrator. [56] Another study found that even though most received civil legal services, male clients’ civil orders of protection were over twice as likely to be denied compared to those of female clients.

Overall Services Needed and Received

Female clients had more service needs and service contacts than male clients. This suggests that female IPV victims have greater service needs and require more intensive services than males. Specifically, female IPV clients were more likely to need emotional support or counseling and to receive various emotional support services, including individual counseling and family counseling, than males. Female victims’ greater need for and receipt of counseling points to increased emotional and psychological impacts compared to males. This is consistent with prior research which found that female IPV victims were more likely than males to have experienced short-term negative emotional effects from IPV. [57] However, males may have also been less likely to participate in counseling because of gender roles stressing that males should be self-sufficient and manage problems on their own. [58] A survey of help-seeking behaviors found males were eight times more likely than females to have said they would fix their problems on their own. [59]

While male IPV victims had fewer needs and were less likely to receive most service types than females, differences in male IPV victims’ service receipt varied by perpetrator gender. Males abused by a male had more service contacts than when the perpetrator was female.

Prior research examining the relationship between gender and service needs or receipt among IPV victims is scarce. One study found that males and females at a Dutch sexual assault center received comparable service types. [60] This is inconsistent with our findings. Additional research is needed to better understand whether service needs and receipt differ by IPV victim or perpetrator gender.

Furthermore, researchers and providers should explore factors to explain why IPV victim service needs and receipt differed by gender in the present study. Future studies can examine whether males IPV victims have fewer service needs or are less likely to disclose needs. Providers should also review their intake procedures to ensure any tools or approaches used to assess client need are appropriate for both male and female IPV victims, including clients with same-sex partners. A study examining male and female attitudes toward therapy found that males prefer support groups and group psychological therapy. [61] Providers should offer or consider offering group counseling or therapy options to male clients if such service options might better meet their male IPV clients’ needs.

Use of Housing Services and Shelter

Results showed that female IPV clients were more likely to need shelter or housing services, to have been abused in a home they shared with the perpetrator, and to have received economic and employment assistance than male IPV clients. These findings suggest that female IPV victims may have increased housing needs because their current living situations are unsafe and they have fewer financial resources to relocate.

Similarity to Underlying Illinois Demographics

We also found that the racial/ethnic makeup of male IPV clients was closer to the racial/ethnic makeup of Illinois residents than it was for female IPV clients. While this study found that White IPV clients are underrepresented and Black IPV clients are overrepresented compared to the general Illinois population, this finding was more pronounced for female clients. However, the observed differences may be the result of differences in the characteristics of victims who access publicly funded victim services, rather than gender differences in IPV victimization patterns.

In a prior analysis of InfoNet data, ICJIA researchers found Black female and Latina domestic violence victims accessed victim services more often than would be expected based on their representation in the Illinois population. Furthermore, results suggest that these differences were partially dependent on economic factors, as female IPV clients’ racial makeup in this sample more closely mirrored Illinois residents whose annual household income was below $50,000 annually. [62] The small number of male IPV clients reported in InfoNet prevented researchers from conducting a similar analysis for males. However, male clients’ racial/ethnic characteristics suggests that their economic circumstances are less likely to lead them to contact a service provider compared to female clients.

Differences in Escalation Risk to Intimate Partner Homicide

We found that female IPV clients were more likely to have reported offense characteristics that may increase their risk for escalation to IPH, including that the perpetrator hit or attempted to hit them and strangulation. Past strangulation is associated with increased risk for IPH. [63] Thus, female IPV victims may be at increased risk for IPH compared to male IPV victims.

Stigma for Male Clients

Previous research has found that stigmatization, along with shame and embarrassment, are key factors discouraging male IPV victims from formal help seeking. [64] In our study, males were less likely to reach out to formal helplines or hotlines for assistance. This was particularly true when the perpetrator was female; we found that male IPV clients were more likely to contact a helpline or hotline when abused by another male than when abused by a female. Research has demonstrated that male IPV victims are often met with indifference and that the abuse they experienced is minimized, particularly if the perpetrator is female. [65] Males abused by females may fear their masculinity will be threatened and that they will not be believed if they reach out for help. [66]

Results also revealed that males abused by females were more likely to receive civil legal advocacy and to file for an order of protection than males abused by males, but had fewer service contacts with victim service providers and fewer counseling hours. This finding suggests that male IPV clients focus more on the legal impacts of the abuse than their emotional support needs. Their decision to prioritize receipt of legal advocacy is not unfounded. Prior research has shown that when females abuse males, the victim is more likely to also be arrested than when a male abuses a female. [67] Overall, lessening the stigma associated with male IPV victims’ service seeking, particularly for heterosexual male victims, is important for increasing their access to and receipt of needed victim services.

In addition, we found that male IPV clients were more likely to be referred to a victim service provider by the police or legal sources than females, suggesting that law enforcement and the legal system may be strong referral pathways for male IPV victims. Male IPV clients were less likely than female clients to be referred to victim service providers by family or friends, suggesting that male IPV clients may be less likely to disclose the abuse to these informal support sources. Furthermore, research has shown that community members may be unaware that males are eligible for services, [68] which may result in fewer male IPV victims being referred by family and friends than females. Efforts to address the stigma of IPV for males can help to address the gender differences in referral sources. Reducing the stigma of being a male IPV victim would result in them feeling more comfortable mentioning the abuse to a wider range of people and institutions.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Our findings highlight several areas where male and female IPV clients diverge and services could be improved. Future studies could increase our understanding of gender differences. Broadly speaking, male victims receive legal services, whereas female victims receive a myriad of services, particularly counseling and assistance services.

We suggested that male IPV clients’ greater use of orders of protection and legal services is related to legal and administrative abuse, either because males are more likely to use legal advocacy services to help perpetrate this type of abuse or because documenting the abuse will better protect them. Therefore, domestic violence service providers should devote resources to identifying and responding to legal abuse. We recommend that InfoNet users support the addition of a legal abuse data field. This type of data collection would enable researchers to more fully explore a potential link between legal abuse, order of protection filings, and civil legal advocacy service receipt and to explore gender differences.

Consistent with previous literature, our findings suggest that males may be less likely to leave abusive relationships than females. They also received less counseling and emotional support services than female victims which may impact their ability to leave an abusive relationship. More research is needed to better understand the relationship between emotional support and victims’ ability and/or decision to leave an abusive relationship.

In addition, increased efforts to destigmatize counseling and promote its use to male IPV victims are needed. Male-only support groups for IPV victims may lessen the stigma associated with counseling and therapy; evidence shows males prefer group therapy more than females. [69] A potential challenge to establishing male-only support groups for IPV victims is few males seek services; only 8% of all InfoNet clients were male. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has expanded providers’ use of virtual services, enabling support groups to be held across a larger geographic area and increasing attendance. Additionally, future studies should examine male IPV victims’ counseling preferences, including those for male or female counselors.

Prior studies show that anonymous hotlines help male IPV victims to talk about their experiences, [70] yet InfoNet data indicated males called hotlines less frequently than females. Thus, providers should promote DV hotlines to male populations, portraying them as anonymous and low commitment. Additionally, they should provide training to staff on best practices for serving male IPV clients, including on how unconscious bias may impact the way needs of male IPV victims are assessed and the type and quantity of services they receive.

  1. Scott-Storey, K., O’Donnell, S., Ford-Gilboe, M., Varcoe, C., Wathen, N., Malcolm, J., & Vincent, C. (2023). What about the men? A critical review of men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 858-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211043827 ↩︎

  2. Desmarais, S.E., K. A. Reeves, T. L. Nicholls, R. P. Telford, and M.S. Fiebert. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse. 3(2), 140-69. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e1 ↩︎

  3. Desmarais, S.E., K. A. Reeves, T. L. Nicholls, R. P. Telford, and M.S. Fiebert. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse. 3(2), 140-69. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e1 ↩︎

  4. Brooks, M. (2018). Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Partner Abuse 35 Key Facts. The ManKind Initiative. http://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018-1.pdf ↩︎

  5. Smith, S.G., Chen, J., Basile, K.C., Gilbert, L.K., Merrick, M.T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf ↩︎

  6. Desmarais, S.E., K. A. Reeves, T. L. Nicholls, R. P. Telford, and M.S. Fiebert. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse. 3(2), 170-98. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170 ↩︎

  7. Esquivel-Santoveña, E. E., Lambert, T. L., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1), 6-75. ↩︎

  8. Cho, H., Seon, J., Choi, G. Y., An, S., Kwon, I., Choi, Y. J., … & Yun, S. H. (2020). Gender differences in intimate partner violence victimization, help-seeking, and outcomes among college students. Advances in Social Work, 20(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.18060/23675 ↩︎

  9. Brooks, M. (2018). Male victims of domestic violence and partner abuse: 35 key facts. The ManKind Initiative. http://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018-1.pdf ↩︎

  10. Brooks, M. (2018). Male victims of domestic violence and partner abuse: 35 key facts. The ManKind Initiative. http://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018-1.pdf ↩︎

  11. Sanz-Barbero, B., Barón, N., & Vives-Cases, C. (2019). Prevalence, associated factors and health impact of intimate partner violence against women in different life stages. PLoS one, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221049 ↩︎

  12. Peraica, T., Petrović, Z. K., Barić, Ž., Galić, R., & Kozarić-Kovačić, D. (2021). Gender differences among domestic violence help-seekers: Socio-demographic characteristics, types and duration of violence, perpetrators, and interventions. Journal of Family Violence, 36(4), 429-42. ↩︎

  13. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651 ↩︎

  14. Ahmadabadi, Z., Najman, J. M., Williams, G. M., Clavarino, A. M., & d’Abbs, P. (2021). Gender differences in intimate partner violence in current and prior relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), 915-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517730563 ↩︎

  15. Peraica, T., Petrović, Z. K., Barić, Ž., Galić, R., & Kozarić-Kovačić, D. (2021). Gender differences among domestic violence help-seekers: Socio-demographic characteristics, types and duration of violence, perpetrators, and interventions. Journal of Family Violence, 36(4), 429-42. ↩︎

  16. Brooks, M. (2018). Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Partner Abuse 35 Key Facts. The ManKind Initiative. http://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018-1.pdf ↩︎

  17. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3. ↩︎

  18. Huntley, A. L., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., & Feder, G. (2019). Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ open, 9(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021960 ↩︎

  19. Drijber, B. C., Reijnders, U. J., & Ceelen, M. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 173-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20323 ↩︎

  20. Vogel, D. L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S. R., Hammer, J. H., & Hubbard, A. (2011). “Boys don’t cry:” Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 368-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023688 ↩︎

  21. Taylor, C. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2005). Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: Putting attributions of fault and responsibility into context. Sex Roles, 53(7-8), 573-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7143-7 ↩︎

  22. Hogan, K. F., Clarke, V., & Ward, T. (2021). Men’s experiences of help‐seeking for female‐perpetrated intimate partner violence: A qualitative exploration. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/capr.12409 ↩︎

  23. Tsui, V. (2014). Male victims of intimate partner abuse: Use and helpfulness of services. Social Work, 59(2), 121-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swu007 ↩︎

  24. Eynon, G. L. (2014). Lack of emergency services for male victims of domestic violence in Hawaii: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). ↩︎

  25. Russell, B., Chapleau, K. M., & Kraus, S. W. (2015). When is it abuse? How assailant gender, sexual orientation, and protection orders influence perceptions of intimate partner abuse. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 47-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.47 Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30(7-8), 553-65. ↩︎

  26. Felson, R. B., & Feld, S. L. (2009). When a man hits a woman: Moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(6), 477-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20323 ↩︎

  27. Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner Abuse, 10(2), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.2.199 ↩︎

  28. Sanz-Barbero, B., Barón, N., & Vives-Cases, C. (2019). Prevalence, associated factors and health impact of intimate partner violence against women in different life stages. PLoS one, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221049 ↩︎

  29. Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner Abuse, 10(2), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.2.199 ↩︎

  30. Gehring, K. S., & Vaske, J. C. (2017). Out in the open: The consequences of intimate partner violence for victims in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(23), 3669-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515600877 ↩︎

  31. Iverson, K. M., Dardis, C. M., & Pogoda, T. K. (2017). Traumatic brain injury and PTSD symptoms as a consequence of intimate partner violence. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 74, 80-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.01.007 ↩︎

  32. Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner Abuse, 10(2), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.2.199 ↩︎

  33. Garcia, P. R. J. M., Ng, C. S., Capezio, A., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2017). Distressed and drained: Consequences of intimate partner aggression and the buffering role of supervisor support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 106-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.09.003 ↩︎

  34. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D. W., Curry, M. A., … & Wilt, S. A. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, (250), 14-19. ↩︎

  35. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D. W., Curry, M. A., … & Wilt, S. A. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, (250), 14-19. ↩︎

  36. Campbell, J. C., Messing, J. T., & Williams, K. R. (2017). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J. C. Campbell & J. T. Messing (Eds.), Assessing dangerousness: Domestic violence offenders and child abusers (pp. 107–138). Springer Publishing Company. ↩︎

  37. Schaffner, C., Vasquez, A. L., & Kirkner, A. (2022). A short-term analysis of domestic violence and sexual assault victim services following Illinois’s COVID-19 stay-at-home order. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. ↩︎

  38. The “White” category included clients with only White selected and the “Black” category included clients with only Black selected. The “Latino/a” category included clients with “Latino/a” selected; another racial/ethnic category may also have been selected. ↩︎

  39. Civil legal advocacy is defined as “IDVA advocacy in the civil court forum for the purpose of providing information, obtaining, modifying, extending or enforcing (via contempt) an order of protection” and criminal legal advocacy is defined as “IDVA advocacy in the criminal court forum for the purpose of providing information, obtaining, modifying, extending or enforcing an order of protection”. ↩︎

  40. Machado, A., Hines, D., & Matos, M. (2016). Help-seeking and needs of male victims of intimate partner violence in Portugal. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(3), 255-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000013 ↩︎

  41. Cho, H., Seon, J., Choi, G. Y., An, S., Kwon, I., Choi, Y. J., … & Yun, S. H. (2020). Gender differences in intimate partner violence victimization, help-seeking, and outcomes among college students. Advances in Social Work, 20(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.18060/23675 ↩︎

  42. Census Bureau. 2019. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Illinois. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/IL ↩︎

  43. Smith, T. W., Davern, M., Freese, J., and Morgan, S. L. (2018). General Social Survey. ↩︎

  44. The difference between the mean counseling hours received by female clients (M = 59.0, SD = 878.35) and male clients (M = 4.6, SD = 22.41) were significant at a .001 level, t(59,557) = 3.86. ↩︎

  45. The difference between the mean counseling hours received by male clients abused by males (M = 7.1, SD = 22.87) and male clients abused by females (M = 4.3, SD = 21.45) were significant at a .05 level, t(4,259) = 2.52. ↩︎

  46. The percentages of those seeking civil and criminal orders of protection do not exactly sum to the percentage seeking any order of protection because some clients seek orders of protection in both settings and some settings are not recorded in InfoNet. ↩︎

  47. 83% of males receiving the service files an order of protection, compared to 65% of females receiving the service. These results were significant at a .001 level. ↩︎

  48. Lee, J., Meijer, E., Phillips, D., & Hu, P. (2021). Disability incidence rates for men and women in 23 countries: Evidence on health effects of gender inequality. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 76(2), 328-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa288 ↩︎

  49. Ahmadabadi, Z., Najman, J. M., Williams, G. M., Clavarino, A. M., & d’Abbs, P. (2021). Gender differences in intimate partner violence in current and prior relationships. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(1-2), 915-37. ↩︎

  50. Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby, N. (2003). “Why doesn’t she just leave?:” A descriptive study of victim reported impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151-5. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023564404773 ↩︎

  51. Walker, A., Lyall, K., Silva, D., Craigie, G., Mayshak, R., Costa, B., … & Bentley, A. (2020). Male victims of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence, help-seeking, and reporting behaviors: A qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(2), 213-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000222 ↩︎

  52. Tilbrook, E., Allan, A., & Dear, G. (2010). Intimate partner abuse of men. Men’s Advisory Network. ↩︎

  53. Tilbrook, E., Allan, A., & Dear, G. (2010). Intimate partner abuse of men. Men’s Advisory Network. ↩︎

  54. Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2010). A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 286-313. https://dx.doi.org/10.1891%2F1946-6560.1.3.286 ↩︎

  55. Miller, S. L., & Smolter, N. L. (2011). “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 637-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407290 ↩︎

  56. Muller, H. J., Desmarais, S. L., & Hamel, J. M. (2009). Do judicial responses to restraining order requests discriminate against male victims of domestic violence?. Journal of Family Violence, 24(8), 625-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9261-4 ↩︎

  57. Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner Abuse, 10(2), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.2.199 ↩︎

  58. Pederson, E. L., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). Male gender role conflict and willingness to seek counseling: Testing a mediation model on college-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 373-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.4.373 ↩︎

  59. Liddon, L., Kingerlee, R., & Barry, J. A. (2018). Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help‐seeking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 42-58. ↩︎

  60. Covers, M. L., Teeuwen, J., & Bicanic, I. A. (2021). Male victims at a Dutch sexual assault center: A comparison to female victims in characteristics and service use. Journal of interpersonal violence. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F08862605211015220 ↩︎

  61. Liddon, L., Kingerlee, R., & Barry, J. A. (2018). Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help‐seeking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 42-58. ↩︎

  62. Gruschow, K., & Schaffner, C. (in press). Big data and InfoNet: What service data can tell us about underserved victims in Illinois. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. ↩︎

  63. Glass, N., Laughon, K., Campbell, J., Block, C. R., Hanson, G., Sharps, P. W., & Taliaferro, E. (2008). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 35(3), 329-35. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jemermed.2007.02.065 ↩︎

  64. Tsui, V., Cheung, M., & Leung, P. (2010). Help‐seeking among male victims of partner abuse: Men’s hard times. Journal of community psychology, 38(6), 769-80. ↩︎

  65. Walker, A., Lyall, K., Silva, D., Craigie, G., Mayshak, R., Costa, B., … & Bentley, A. (2020). Male victims of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence, help-seeking, and reporting behaviors: A qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(2), 213-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000222 ↩︎

  66. Huntley, A. L., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., & Feder, G. (2019). Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): Aa systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ open, 9(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021960 ↩︎

  67. Melton, H. C., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 328-48. ↩︎

  68. Vasquez, A. L., Gonzalez, L. F., Nguyen, S., Schaffner, C., Hiselman, J., Smith, E., Hailey, S., & Reichgelt, R. (2022). 2022 victim service planning research report. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. ↩︎

  69. Liddon, L., Kingerlee, R., & Barry, J. A. (2018). Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help‐seeking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 42-58. ↩︎

  70. Brooks, M. (2018). Male victims of domestic violence and partner abuse: 35 key facts. The ManKind Initiative. http://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/35-Key-Facts-Male-Victims-March-2018-1.pdf ↩︎