Alberta Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

Partnership, agency integration, and DV response coordination guidelines for organizations across Alberta.

Alberta: Inter-Agency Domestic Violence Coordination Overview

Provincial DV Response Structure

Alberta’s domestic violence response operates through a mix of provincial ministries, regional coalitions, funded service providers, and municipal partners. Organizations typically align their work with provincial policy directions, regional planning tables, and local inter-agency protocols.

Key components of the provincial response structure usually include:

• Provincial ministries responsible for community and social services, health, justice, and housing-related mandates.
• Provincially funded domestic violence shelters, second-stage programs, outreach, and community-based agencies.
• Police services and RCMP detachments with specialized domestic violence or family violence units in some jurisdictions.
• Crown prosecution and court-based programs, including specialized dockets where available.
• Health-sector partners such as hospitals, primary care networks, and community health centres.
• Child and family services and related contracted service providers.
• Municipal family and community support services (FCSS) and local community safety initiatives.

Within this structure, domestic violence organizations generally situate themselves through:

• Participation in regional or municipal domestic violence tables or councils.
• Alignment with provincial frameworks on family violence and related policy guidance.
• Formal funding agreements that define service scope, geographic coverage, and reporting expectations.

Cross-Agency Coordination

Cross-agency coordination in Alberta relies on predictable communication channels, regional tables, and shared protocols that are adapted to local capacity. Agencies can use these models as reference points when building or refining coordination practices.

Coordination Models Commonly Used

• Regional collaboration tables: Regular meetings between shelters, outreach programs, Indigenous organizations, police, child and family services, health, housing providers, and municipal representatives to discuss trends, system pressures, and operational gaps.
• Case conferencing structures: Time-limited, structured meetings among relevant service providers to address specific situations, typically guided by local protocols and clear role definitions.
• Justice–community coordination: Information pathways between police, Crown, courts, probation, and community agencies to support consistent intervention within privacy and confidentiality constraints.
• Health and social services integration: Partnerships between health-care providers, shelters, and outreach teams to support referral pathways and continuity of care.

Elements to Clarify in Local Agreements

To support predictable coordination, agencies may wish to formalize the following elements in local MOUs or protocols:

• Scope and objectives of the coordination table or partnership.
• Decision-making process (e.g., consensus, advisory, co-chairing arrangements).
• Attendance expectations and representation (roles rather than individuals where possible).
• Frequency and format of meetings, including documentation of minutes and action items.
• Referral and feedback loops between agencies, including timelines and contact points.
• Data-sharing expectations, particularly for aggregate data and de-identified trend information.
• Processes for reviewing and updating shared protocols.

Indigenous Partnership Considerations

Alberta includes diverse First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, as well as urban Indigenous populations. Domestic violence organizations are encouraged to approach Indigenous partnerships as long-term relationships rather than project-specific arrangements.

Foundational Partnership Principles

• Respect for governance and protocol: Recognize the authority of First Nations, Métis communities, and Indigenous organizations, and follow locally appropriate engagement protocols.
• Distinct urban and on-reserve/off-settlement contexts: Plan for different service pathways and coordination requirements in urban centres, rural areas, and on-reserve or settlement settings.
• Co-developed processes: Where possible, co-design referral pathways, case conferencing protocols, and data-sharing approaches with Indigenous partners rather than adapting mainstream models without consultation.
• Cultural and community-based programming: Integrate or refer to Indigenous-led and community-based supports as part of coordinated responses.

Operational Components of Indigenous Partnerships

• Formal agreements: MOUs or partnership statements that outline roles, expectations, consent processes, and communication channels between organizations and Indigenous partners.
• Referral and follow-up: Clearly defined processes for making, receiving, and closing referrals between Indigenous and non-Indigenous agencies, including how information is documented and shared.
• Capacity and resource sharing: Joint training opportunities, shared access to space or technology, and support for administrative capacity where possible.
• Governance input: Inclusion of Indigenous partners in local or regional planning tables and advisory structures related to domestic violence response.

Data-Sharing Expectations

Data-sharing in Alberta’s domestic violence sector is shaped by provincial privacy legislation, contractual obligations, and each organization’s internal policies. Sector partners typically focus on using data to understand service demand, outcomes, and system gaps while maintaining confidentiality.

Data Types Commonly Exchanged

• Aggregate service data: Numbers of intakes, service episodes, and program utilization by region or demographic categories, shared at a non-identifiable level.
• De-identified trend information: Observed patterns related to service demand, referral pathways, housing access, and justice interactions.
• Operational capacity data: Bed counts, waitlists, program capacity, and service hours, often shared to inform referrals and regional planning.
• Case-level information with consent: Limited, specific information for coordination purposes, shared according to consent processes, applicable legislation, and organizational policy.

Frameworks for Local Data-Sharing Arrangements

When developing or updating local data-sharing practices, organizations may wish to document:

• Purpose and scope of data-sharing (planning, evaluation, coordination).
• Types of data to be shared (aggregate, de-identified, or case-level with consent).
• Roles and responsibilities for data custodianship, access control, and retention.
• Processes for obtaining, documenting, and reviewing client consent where applicable.
• Methods for secure transmission and storage of shared information.
• Reporting timelines (e.g., quarterly aggregate reports to regional tables).
• Mechanisms for addressing data quality concerns or discrepancies.

Eligibility for Alberta Organizations

Eligibility to participate in Alberta-focused coordination, resource exchange, or collaborative planning processes on this platform can be structured around organizational type, mandate, and alignment with domestic violence-related work.

Organizational Eligibility Parameters

• Geographic connection: The organization primarily operates in Alberta or delivers services that directly impact individuals or communities in Alberta (including province-wide or cross-provincial programs with a defined Alberta component).
• Mandate alignment: The organization’s core or substantial program areas relate to domestic violence, family violence, gender-based violence, justice response, housing stability, child and family services, health, mental health, addictions, or community safety.
• Non-profit, public, or Indigenous governance: Includes registered non-profits, charities, public-sector agencies, Indigenous governments or organizations, and publicly accountable entities engaged in relevant work.
• Policy and standards compatibility: Organizational policies support confidentiality, privacy, non-discrimination, and professional conduct aligned with regional expectations.
• Operational capacity: The organization has designated staff or roles able to participate in coordination activities, respond to communication, and meet basic reporting commitments where applicable.

Types of Eligible Participants

• Emergency shelters and second-stage housing providers operating in Alberta.
• Community-based domestic violence and outreach programs.
• Indigenous-led organizations and service providers working with Alberta communities.
• Healthcare entities engaged in domestic violence-related screening, referrals, or coordination.
• Justice-related services, including community justice programs and court-based supports.
• Housing, homelessness, and income-support organizations with relevant intersections.
• Municipal and regional bodies leading community safety or social planning initiatives.

Documentation and Verification Considerations

To support consistent eligibility assessment for Alberta-based collaboration, organizations may be asked to provide:

• Basic organizational information (legal name, governance type, and contact details).
• Description of services and geographic coverage within Alberta.
• Evidence of non-profit, public, or Indigenous governance status, where applicable.
• Confirmation of internal policies regarding privacy, confidentiality, and data handling.
• Identification of primary contacts for coordination, data, and partnership discussions.