Supporting Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Means Supporting Intervention Services
One of the most persistent myths in the intimate partner violence field is that intervention programs help people who are abusive while diverting attention and resources away from survivors. The reality is quite the opposite.
Effective abuse intervention services are among the most survivor-centered strategies available because they focus on the source of harm. While survivor services provide life-saving support through advocacy, shelter, counseling, legal assistance, and safety planning, intervention services work to address the behaviors of those who are abusive. Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient on its own.
Yet conversations about intimate partner violence often focus almost exclusively on what survivors should do to stay safe: Leave. Get a protective order. Develop a safety plan. Relocate. Change jobs. Protect the children.
Too often, our systems place responsibility for ending abuse on those experiencing it. If we are serious about creating safer families and communities, we must ask a different question: What are we doing to address the behavior of abusive partners?
Intimate Partner Violence Is a Community Problem
Intimate partner violence remains one of the most significant public health and safety concerns in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 41% of women and 26% of men have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner and reported related impacts. The consequences extend far beyond immediate physical injury, affecting mental health, economic stability, housing security, employment, and long-term well-being.
The scale of the problem demands comprehensive solutions.
For nearly three decades, I have worked alongside survivors, children impacted by violence, community partners, and individuals who have been abusive. I have provided counseling to survivors, facilitated intervention groups, trained professionals, and helped organizations and communities strengthen their responses to intimate partner violence. Throughout that time, one lesson has remained constant: Survivor safety improves when communities invest not only in services for those experiencing abuse, but also in interventions that hold those who are abusive accountable.
Early in my career, I worked with survivors who had done everything the system asked of them. They obtained a protective order. They engaged in counseling. They developed a safety plan. They changed nearly every aspect of their lives to protect themselves and their children. The conversation consistently focused on what survivors needed to do next rather than what the person who was abusive needed to change.
That experience has stayed with me because I have seen versions of it repeated for decades. Survivors are often expected to carry the burden of preventing future violence while systems devote far less attention to addressing the behavior of those creating the danger. That imbalance is one reason intervention services matter.
Communities cannot prevent violence solely by helping survivors respond to abuse. We must also address the behavior of those who are abusive.
Intimate Partner Violence Is More Than Physical Violence
One reason intervention services are often misunderstood is that many people continue to view intimate partner violence primarily through the lens of physical assault. Research and survivor experiences tell a different story.
The CDC recognizes psychological aggression, coercive control, stalking, intimidation, and controlling behaviors as forms of intimate partner violence. For many survivors, these patterns create lasting harm long before physical violence occurs—or even when physical violence never occurs at all.
This distinction matters because abusive behavior is rarely the result of unmanaged anger alone. It often involves intentional patterns of domination and control that affect nearly every aspect of a survivor's life.
Effective intervention programs address these underlying dynamics. Participants are challenged to examine beliefs about power, entitlement, accountability, relationships, and parenting. They learn to recognize the impact of their behavior and develop healthier ways of relating to others. This work is not about excusing behavior. It is about confronting it.
Addressing Abuse is an Essential Form of Advocacy
Many people assume that professionals who facilitate intervention programs are advocates for the person who has been abusive. Ethical intervention practitioners are advocates for survivor safety.
They challenge victim-blaming narratives. They refuse to minimize abusive behavior. They help participants understand the consequences and impact of their actions. They support systems that prioritize safety and responsibility. And they work collaboratively with victim advocates, courts, probation officers, child welfare professionals, and community partners to reduce the likelihood of future harm.
Intervention practitioners occupy a unique role within a community’s response to intimate partner violence. They are often among the few professionals whose primary responsibility is to directly address abusive behavior while keeping survivor safety at the center of the work. Survivor-centered systems recognize a simple but powerful principle: responsibility for change rests with the person choosing abusive behavior, not the person experiencing it.
Children Are Survivors Too
When we discuss intimate partner violence, we must also consider its impact on children. Research consistently demonstrates that children exposed to intimate partner violence experience increased risks of emotional, behavioral, developmental, and health challenges. Even when children are not physically harmed, exposure to coercive control, intimidation, threats, and fear can have lasting consequences.
Children learn relationship norms from the environments in which they grow up. When coercive control becomes normalized within a household, children absorb messages about power, respect, communication, conflict resolution, and gender roles long before they enter their own intimate relationships.
Consider a household where one parent routinely monitors, belittles, threatens, or controls the other parent. A child living in that environment is learning lessons about relationships every day. Intervention services help address the behaviors that create these harmful family environments. By promoting safety, empathy, and safer parenting practices, intervention programs contribute not only to survivor safety but also to the long-term well-being of children and future generations.
Accountability is for Systems
Addressing intimate partner violence is not solely the responsibility of survivor service providers or intervention programs. It requires coordinated action across multiple systems.
Courts make decisions that influence accountability. Child welfare agencies assess family safety. Healthcare providers identify warning signs and connect families to resources. Schools observe the impact of violence on children. Employers, faith communities, law enforcement agencies, and community organizations all play important roles in recognizing and responding to abuse.
The intimate partner violence movement has long understood that no single agency can solve this problem alone. Ending abuse requires a coordinated response that combines survivor support, community accountability, intervention services, prevention efforts, and collaboration across systems. Intervention services are one important component of that broader strategy.
Intervention Services Matter
Imagine a survivor who has sought a protective order after years of coercive control and intimidation. The survivor may receive advocacy, legal support, counseling, housing assistance, and safety planning. These services are essential.
However, if the person who is abusive receives no intervention and no opportunity to examine and change their behavior, the underlying risk remains for that survivor, their children, or their next victim.
The CDC's prevention framework recognizes that reducing intimate partner violence requires addressing factors associated with perpetration while strengthening healthy relationship skills and community supports.
This public health approach reinforces what many practitioners have known for decades: preventing violence requires engaging both those experiencing abuse and those causing it.
Looking Ahead
For too long, many communities have measured their response to intimate partner violence by the services available after abuse occurs. Those services remain essential and deserve continued and expanded support.
But if we are serious about creating safer families, reducing repeat violence, and preventing future abuse, we must also invest in strategies that address abusive behavior directly. The question should not be whether communities should support survivor services or intervention services. The question should be how we ensure both are available, effective, and working together.
Supporting survivors and holding those who are abusive responsible for change are not competing priorities. They are two sides of the same commitment. A commitment to safer families and healthier communities. A commitment to end intimate partner violence.
About the Author
Lisa Nitsch, MSW, is the Founder and Principal Consultant of Nitsch Consulting and a nationally recognized leader in intimate partner violence intervention, nonprofit leadership, and systems change. With nearly 30 years of experience spanning direct service, abuse intervention, community engagement, and executive leadership, she helps organizations build capacity, strengthen accountability, and create safer communities.
Organizations seeking to strengthen intervention services, improve coordinated community responses, enhance accountability frameworks, or build survivor-centered systems can benefit from strategic consultation, training, and technical assistance. Nitsch Consulting partners with nonprofits, government agencies, courts, and community leaders to develop practical solutions that improve safety, strengthen organizations, and advance meaningful systems change.
