Having been heavily involved with the refuge system in the past, I'm afraid I can't support them any more, except on the basis of urging absolutely desperate women to use them (as that is sometimes all there is).
Too much of standard refuge practice is oppressive to women; the near universal insistence that women leave their home area and support networks to start again - destitute - in an unfamiliar area (instead of allowing women to calculate their own level of risk); The widespread ban on sons over 10 from joining their mothers in refuge (giving women a desperate choice to make); The pressure routinely put on women to relinquish their jobs and cars in order to enter refuge (funding concerns and trace risk cited respectively) thereby stripping women of self-respect and independence when they most need it and, as Snerr says, the questionable ethnic segregation.
The system is so outdated and infantalising, it's almost laughable. A C21st feminist response to male violence would entail removing the perpetrators, restricting the perpetrators, curtailling the personal freedoms of the perpetrators. We currently have the opposite and it props up and covers the inadequacies of the police and judicial response.
The key unifying feature of women in refuge is destitution and homelessness, even more than DV; women escaping violence who have an alternative choice tend to take it.
'Black and Latin American' seems a fairly random pairing, in any case. But if there is an argument for, say, language- based services, then it seems more coherent to me if it is a service that relates to homelessness with special cultural features.