In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

We have to make distinctions. It makes no sense to treat intimate partner violence as a unitary phenomenon. A slap from an intimate terrorist who has taken complete control of his partner’s life is not the same as a slap from a generally noncontrolling partner in the heat of an argument, and of course neither of these is the same as the desperate use of violence by a woman who is being physically and emotionally terrorized by someone she loves. The research cited throughout this book makes it clear that typologies of intimate partner violence are useful—even necessary—tools in domestic violence advocacy and research. In this final chapter, therefore, I will address some of the implications of differentiating among types of violence for intervention and prevention. But I need to start with a caveat. Although I will speak with some authority in order to avoid the distractions of constant qualifications and warnings about the need for further research, it should be kept in mind that research that makes explicit distinctions among types of intimate partner violence is still in its infancy. We still do not have definitive answers to many of questions to which we need answers in order to make decisions about policy and practice with regard to intimate partner violence. We can live with that sort of ambiguity in the world of social research. Science is, after all, a continuous process that is constantly involved in the correction of its errors and the refinement and verification of its theories. The use of those theories in “real life” is a much more risky proposition. In the area of intimate partner violence, people’s lives are at stake, quite literally. So, as we consider the possibility of different interventions for different types of intimate partner violence, one theme must be central: safety first. Implications for Intervention Although there are many sources of potential intervention in intimate partner violence, including friends and family, I will focus on the formal intervenImplications for Intervention, Prevention, and Research 4 5 tion provided by agencies and professionals, including women’s shelters, law enforcement, batterer programs, family court, and family counselors. I will also briefly discuss the importance of the coordinated community response teams that work to improve communication and coordination among all of the agencies that deal with intimate partner violence. shelters and other battered women’s services Thirty years of the battered women’s movement has produced massive changes in the nature of interventions in intimate terrorism, with the major focus on providing protection and assistance to the victim/survivor.1 There are now over eighteen hundred women’s shelters in the United States providing a variety of services, including emergency shelter, support groups for both the women and their children, legal advocacy, individual counseling, and bridge housing, in addition to community education, social change advocacy, and the coordination of community responses to domestic violence.2 Because of the visibility of these services, many of these agencies are known as “shelters,” although most of them devote much more of their resources to other services. Staff at these agencies most often function within a feminist empowerment model in which they see their task as empowering their clients to carry out their own wishes.3 They provide information and supportive services to help women protect themselves within the relationship, gain the financial independence that would allow them to leave if they so choose, file Protection from Abuse orders, join support groups with other victims of intimate partner violence , and generally gather the information and resources that they need to move toward a life without violence. In part because the feminist theories of intimate partner violence that inform this movement have always focused on power and control issues, and in part because most of the cases that come to the attention of such agencies do involve intimate terrorism, shelter policies do not often involve distinctions among types of intimate partner violence. In general, interventions are based on the assumption that clients are dealing with intimate terrorism and therefore that the violence will be repeated and will escalate, and that the abuse involves many forms of control in addition to physical violence. The first order of business is the safety of the victim because intimate terrorism is the type of partner violence that is most likely to escalate to homicide.4 Nevertheless, it is important at least to acknowledge the different types of partner violence in initial discussions with clients...

Share