As a frontline social worker who has supported and observed thousands of victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), I often find myself questioning why, despite significant efforts, funding, and support, there has been limited progress in preventing IPV. While services for victims have expanded, the role of the perpetrator—or individuals exhibiting harmful behaviors—often remains absent from the conversation and support plans.
IPV is a complex issue with deeply rooted psychological, social, and structural factors. However, there is a glaring gap in how we address the individuals who cause harm. In my experience, many perpetrators are not engaged in available support services, such as the Men’s Behaviour Change Program or MensLine. More concerningly, many are unaware that such resources exist. The focus has largely been on supporting survivors—which is critical—but prevention and intervention efforts must also include those who perpetrate harm.
This raises important questions: Why is there limited research on perpetrators’ perspectives in IPV? Why do so few individuals who cause harm seek support? Barriers likely include fear of legal consequences, societal stigma, and cultural norms that discourage men from acknowledging emotional struggles. Without qualitative and quantitative research in this area, many of these are assumptions rather than evidence-based conclusions. While we have statistics on men involved in the justice system due to IPV-related charges, the reality is that most perpetrators are never formally charged and, as a result, remain outside structured interventions.
Discussions with my colleagues and supervisors often circle back to larger systemic, political, and societal factors that contribute to IPV. Longstanding gender inequality, rigid societal expectations around masculinity, and a culture of silence all create an environment where abusive behaviors may be tolerated or go unchallenged. The lack of awareness and structured early intervention means that many individuals only come into contact with the system when the situation has escalated to crisis levels.
If we are serious about preventing IPV, we need systemic and political change that prioritizes cultural and environmental shifts. Research is critical to understanding the risk factors that lead to harmful behaviors—such as why, under similar stressors, one individual resorts to violence while another chooses a different coping strategy. Additionally, we must explore both perpetrator and victim contributions to the dynamics of IPV—not to assign blame but to identify intervention points that can disrupt cycles of violence.
Early intervention, increased awareness, and reducing the stigma around men seeking support for emotional distress are essential steps forward. A key challenge is how we encourage perpetrators to engage in support services before harm escalates. Another complexity in IPV cases is the mandatory reporting obligations for professionals. When we identify a risk of harm, we are required to report it, which can often lead to involvement from systems such as child protection. While these interventions aim to ensure safety, they may also further isolate families and deter individuals from seeking support.
Given the complexity of IPV, I remain open to diverse perspectives and discussions. A safe and non-judgmental space for dialogue is crucial to developing clearer intervention strategies. By fostering these conversations and encouraging research into perpetrator interventions, we can work toward more effective, evidence-based approaches to preventing IPV.
To Be A Mental Health Social Worker 