Advocacy Hub — DVSupport.Network

Research briefs, policy recommendations, national advocacy goals, and inter-agency collaboration frameworks.

Advocacy Hub

National Priorities

The Advocacy Hub outlines shared national priorities that can support consistent, coordinated action among domestic violence coalitions, legal advocates, social service agencies, shelters, and allied sectors. These priorities can be adapted to state and local contexts while maintaining alignment with broader systems-level goals.

• Cross-system coordination – Enhance structured collaboration among courts, law enforcement, social services, housing providers, healthcare, and community-based organizations through clear referral pathways, standardized communication protocols, and joint planning mechanisms.
• Access to services – Promote policy and program models that reduce barriers related to language, disability, immigration status, economic status, and geography, including options for remote and hybrid service delivery.
• Workforce capacity and sustainability – Advance strategies that support training, supervision structures, reasonable caseloads, and stable funding for staff working in advocacy, case management, and legal support roles.
• Data quality and responsible use – Improve consistency and comparability of non-identifying program data collection, while establishing governance practices that prioritize confidentiality, ethical use, and inter-agency coordination.
• Civil-legal and systems navigation – Support policies that improve access to civil-legal help, court navigation assistance, immigration-related advocacy, and administrative advocacy with public benefit systems.
• Housing stability and economic supports – Align advocacy agendas to include emergency housing pathways, longer-term housing options, income supports, and employment-related services in collaboration with mainstream housing and workforce systems.
• Culturally specific and community-based leadership – Elevate and resource advocacy led by culturally specific organizations, tribal programs, and community-based initiatives, ensuring they are integrated into policy development and systems change efforts.

Policy Frameworks

Policy frameworks in this context refer to structured approaches that organizations can use to align local advocacy agendas with regional and national efforts. These frameworks do not provide legal guidance; instead, they focus on coordination models, governance, and implementation planning.

1. Multi-Level Alignment Framework

This framework helps organizations connect agency-level priorities with state, regional, and national advocacy goals.

• Agency level – Identify operational gaps (e.g., referral delays, data-sharing challenges, service bottlenecks) that advocacy can address through policy or systems change.
• Regional/coalition level – Use coalition structures to consolidate agency priorities, surface cross-cutting themes, and establish shared talking points and issue briefs.
• State/national level – Align with broader agendas that address funding structures, statewide systems practices, and cross-jurisdictional issues (e.g., information exchange, cross-border coordination).

2. Systems-Change Logic Model

Organizations can use a logic-model approach to organize advocacy activities around systems outcomes rather than individual program changes.

• Inputs – Staff time, coalition working groups, non-identifying data, prior evaluation findings, partner expertise.
• Activities – Policy scans, stakeholder interviews, issue briefs, testimony coordination, joint letters, agency sign-on processes.
• Outputs – Model protocols, recommended practice standards, implementation toolkits, training curricula for systems partners.
• Outcomes – More consistent institutional responses, reduced administrative barriers, improved referral completion, more transparent inter-agency expectations.

3. Governance and Accountability Framework

For coalitions and multi-agency advocacy groups, clear governance helps maintain consistency over time, even when staff or leadership changes.

• Governance structure – Defined roles for a steering committee, issue-specific workgroups, and advisory members such as research partners or technical specialists.
• Decision-making processes – Transparent criteria for position endorsements, sign-on procedures, and public statements, including how dissenting views are documented.
• Conflict of interest parameters – Written expectations about when members recuse themselves due to funding, employment, or other institutional relationships.
• Review cycles – Scheduled reviews of advocacy priorities and frameworks (e.g., annually or aligned with legislative cycles).

Research Topics

Advocacy initiatives benefit from research agendas that are collaborative, practice-informed, and attentive to ethical and confidentiality considerations. The following topic areas reflect common priorities for multi-agency research partnerships.

Practice and Systems Operations

• Service access patterns across referral sources, including bottlenecks and gaps in pathways between agencies.
• Impact of coordinated entry or central intake models on timeliness, service matching, and follow-through.
• Models for integrating legal advocacy, housing navigation, and economic support services.
• Approaches to coordinating with child welfare, adult protective services, and other protection-oriented systems.

Workforce and Capacity

• Recruitment, retention, and supervision models that support sustainable advocacy roles.
• Training structures that effectively build cross-system competencies (e.g., courts, healthcare, housing).
• Impacts of funding structures and administrative requirements on program capacity and flexibility.

Equity, Access, and Community-Led Approaches

• Barriers and facilitators to service utilization for different populations and communities.
• Partnership models that strengthen culturally specific and tribal programs within broader coordinated systems.
• Collaborations between mainstream agencies and smaller community-based organizations, including resource-sharing mechanisms.

Data, Technology, and Information Flows

• Non-identifying data dashboards that support regional planning without compromising confidentiality.
• Operational impacts of technology platforms used for referrals, warm handoffs, and inter-agency communication.
• Models for cross-agency data governance that include clear roles, permissions, and oversight processes.

Inter-Agency Collaboration

The Advocacy Hub supports models where organizations coordinate on policy, practice standards, and communication rather than operating in isolation. Inter-agency collaboration can be formalized through MOUs, working groups, and recurring consultation processes.

Collaboration Structures

• Issue-specific working groups – Time-limited or ongoing teams focused on topics such as housing, legal advocacy, technology, or workforce policy.
• Standing coordination tables – Regular cross-sector meetings that bring together shelters, legal aid, courts, social services, healthcare, and community organizations to review trends and align advocacy.
• Regional coalitions – Multi-county or statewide bodies that consolidate local needs into shared priorities and common messaging.
• Cross-system advisory roles – Designated liaisons or advisory positions within public agencies (e.g., courts, housing authorities) who coordinate with advocacy partners.

Core Components of Effective Collaboration

• Shared objectives – A brief, written statement of the outcomes partners are seeking (e.g., streamlined referrals, more consistent court practices, expansion of specific services).
• Defined participation expectations – Clarity on meeting frequency, decision-making processes, and how organizations contribute data, expertise, or staff time.
• Communication protocols – Agreed methods for sharing updates, documents, draft positions, and final statements, including timelines for review and feedback.
• Documentation and tracking – Simple tools (e.g., shared agendas, action logs) that record commitments, next steps, and status of advocacy efforts.

MOUs and Operating Agreements

MOUs can clarify the scope and boundaries of collaboration without creating legal obligations. Common elements include:

• Purpose and scope of the collaboration, including issue areas and target systems.
• Roles and responsibilities of each organization, including lead and supporting roles.
• Information-sharing parameters, with attention to privacy, ethics, and non-identifying data use.
• Governance and escalation processes if partners have conflicting positions on an issue.
• Review periods for updating the agreement, typically aligned with advocacy or funding cycles.

How Organizations Can Participate

Participation in the Advocacy Hub is flexible and can be adjusted to organizational capacity, regional context, and existing coalition structures. The options below can be combined or adopted incrementally.

1. Alignment and Information-Sharing

• Designate a primary advocacy contact and an alternate for inter-agency communication.
• Subscribe to shared calendars, listservs, or coordination platforms used by regional partners.
• Share non-identifying trend information, operational challenges, and practice insights that can inform joint advocacy.

2. Working Group Engagement

• Join existing issue-focused working groups on topics aligned with organizational expertise.
• Contribute to drafting issue briefs, practice recommendations, or feedback memos on proposed policy changes.
• Host or co-host structured consultations with stakeholders such as legal partners, housing agencies, or healthcare systems.

3. Co-Development of Frameworks and Tools

• Collaborate on developing model protocols, referral processes, or coordination guidelines for use across agencies.
• Participate in piloting new tools or processes, providing structured feedback on implementation and feasibility.
• Support the creation of shared training resources and cross-agency orientation materials for new staff.

4. Research and Evaluation Partnerships

• Partner with research institutions or data collaboratives to design and review practice-relevant studies.
• Contribute to shaping research questions, interpretation of findings, and translation into advocacy messages.
• Engage in joint reporting or dashboards that highlight system trends, service gaps, and areas for improvement using non-identifying data.

5. Internal Readiness and Governance

• Develop or update an internal advocacy policy that clarifies who can speak on behalf of the organization and how positions are approved.
• Identify any board or leadership approvals needed for sign-on letters, public comments, or testimony.
• Ensure that staff understand how to route policy-related opportunities and requests to the appropriate internal contacts.