Engagement with “what works” is not, on the basis of experience, working against domestic violence at the local level, a pointless diversion of activity. However, the “what works” framework may demand compromises that impact on the independence, accountability, and integrity in the academic world of feminism. A lesson learned and important task at hand for researchers is to challenge these trends and to sustain the focus on the needs of all women. Research over the years has shown the persistent failure of professionals working in the criminal justice system to take domestic violence seriously. A review of the domestic violence Crime Reduction Program found that the majority of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships were making steady or good progress in developing strategic responses. This article explores the risks and prospects of the “what works” approach to domestic violence in relation to our own experiences and observations. The discussion draws on knowledge gained from research in two areas of the south east of England completed in 1996 and in 2004, before and after the government’s crime reduction initiatives. The article reflects on research to consider three diversionary pressures operating within contemporary crime reduction work: (1) pressures resulting from the ambiguous position domestic violence experts now occupy in the politics of partnership working; (2) pressures brought by the emphasis on risk management; and (3) narrowing of potential activity on what works to performance indicators. Notes, references