API Integrations — DVSupport.Network

Technical overview for organizations integrating DVSupport.Network data, including shelters, resources, and regional frameworks.

API Integration for Cross-Agency Coordination

1. API Overview

The API is designed to support structured, cross-agency coordination by enabling systems at shelters, hospitals, universities, municipal agencies, and allied organizations to exchange non-identifying operational data. It is intended for institutional use, not for individual or survivor-facing applications.

The API focuses on:

• Standardized reference data (e.g., program types, service categories, eligibility flags)
• Resource availability snapshots (e.g., capacity indicators, service hours, intake status)
• Inter-agency coordination metadata (e.g., referral pathways, participation in coalitions, MOU presence)
• Aggregated and de-identified metrics for planning, reporting, and systems-level analysis

The API follows REST-style conventions and is optimized for back-end integrations with case management systems, hospital social work platforms, campus response systems, and municipal coordination tools.

2. Types of Data Available

The API is limited to operational and coordination data. It is not intended for storage or exchange of detailed case narratives or sensitive clinical records. Available data categories generally include:

2.1 Organizational Directory Data

• Organization profiles (name, type, region, high-level scope of services)
• Program-level entries (e.g., shelter programs, advocacy units, legal clinics, campus offices)
• Service categories and tags mapped to standardized taxonomies
• Geographic service areas (e.g., counties, municipalities, campus boundaries)
• Participation in coalitions and working groups

2.2 Capacity and Availability Indicators

• Reported capacity status ranges (e.g., “accepting referrals,” “limited capacity,” “temporarily paused”)
• Non-identifying utilization indicators (e.g., percentage bands, not precise headcounts)
• Intake channels currently active (e.g., phone intake, online request form, scheduled appointments)
• Hours of operation and temporary service changes (e.g., weather-related closures, planned reductions)

2.3 Referral and Coordination Metadata

• Referral eligibility parameters at a high level (e.g., age ranges, service domains, geographic constraints)
• Preferred referral pathways (e.g., “warm transfer,” “provider-to-provider contact,” “documentation packet”)
• Presence of formal agreements (e.g., MOU on file, data-sharing agreement present, consortium membership)
• Designated coordination contacts (role-based information only, not personal contact details when avoidable)

2.4 Aggregated, De-Identified Metrics

• Time-banded service utilization trends (e.g., monthly, quarterly)
• High-level referral flow patterns between organizational types (e.g., hospital-to-shelter, campus-to-legal)
• Aggregated outcome categories defined by participating agencies (e.g., “service engagement initiated”)
• System capacity planning indicators (e.g., region-level demand bands, not individual case data)

2.5 Configuration and Governance Data

• Standardized taxonomies and code lists (e.g., service types, eligibility codes, coordination status values)
• Governance and participation flags (e.g., coalition membership, working group involvement)
• Published coordination protocols and escalation pathways at a structural level

3. Rate Limits & Fairness Guidelines

Rate limits are designed to maintain reliable access for a diverse network of agencies and to avoid over-consumption by any single system. Limits may be adjusted based on regional adoption, load patterns, and strategic priorities.

3.1 Standard Rate Limit Model

• Per-organization request quotas defined on a rolling time window (e.g., per minute, hour, day)
• Separate rate classes for:
  • Read operations (GET)
  • Configuration and taxonomy lookups (low-cost, often higher limits)
  • Write or update operations (where available)
• Graceful throttling responses with standard HTTP status codes indicating backoff conditions

3.2 Fairness and Shared Infrastructure Principles

• Encourage caching of relatively static data (e.g., taxonomies, organizational profiles) within local systems.
• Use incremental or filtered queries instead of repeatedly pulling complete datasets.
• Schedule bulk synchronization tasks during off-peak windows where operationally feasible.
• Avoid live, high-frequency polling for metrics that change slowly; prefer batched updates.

3.3 Adaptive Limits and Use-Case Tiers

Rate limits may be calibrated based on the integrating organization’s role and use case, for example:

• Core coordination hubs (e.g., municipal coordination centers) may have higher quotas for region-wide synchronization.
• Single-site agencies (e.g., one shelter or campus office) may operate within a standard quota sufficient for regular updates.
• Analytics-focused integrations may be guided toward scheduled bulk pulls rather than high-frequency operational queries.

4. Security & Privacy Principles

The API is structured to prioritize security and minimize privacy risks, while enabling necessary coordination. It is expected that each participating organization will apply its own internal controls, compliance assessments, and governance processes in addition to these measures.

4.1 Authentication and Authorization

• Organization-scoped credentials (e.g., API keys or tokens) issued to a designated technical contact.
• Environment separation (e.g., sandbox vs. production) with distinct credentials and data sets.
• Access scopes aligned to data categories (e.g., directory-only, directory + capacity, analytics-only).
• Revocation and rotation processes for credentials, with recommended periodic key rotation.

4.2 Data Minimization and De-Identification

• Preference for aggregated and de-identified data wherever coordination goals can be met without more granular detail.
• Exclusion of fields that are reasonably likely to identify individuals, particularly in resource and metrics endpoints.
• Use of high-level bands or coded categories instead of precise counts or timestamps whenever feasible.

4.3 Transport and Storage Expectations

• Encrypted transport (HTTPS) for all API interactions.
• Expectation that integrating organizations will apply their own secure storage and access control standards once data is ingested.
• Guidance to log only minimally necessary request metadata, avoiding inclusion of sensitive content in log entries.

4.4 Access Governance and Oversight

• Organizational approval for new integrations, documented by a designated administrator or department.
• Periodic review of access scopes and rate usage to align with current operational needs.
• Incident response expectations coordinated through existing inter-agency frameworks and MOUs, where applicable.

5. Implementation Examples (Conceptual, Not Code)

The following conceptual patterns illustrate how technical teams might align their systems with the API. They are technology-neutral and are intended to inform architectural decisions rather than dictate specific tools.

5.1 Nightly Synchronization of Regional Resource Directory

• A municipal coordination platform schedules a nightly job to:
  • Pull updated organizational profiles and program lists via directory endpoints.
  • Refresh service category mappings and taxonomies.
  • Update internal search indices used by coordination staff.
• Only delta or “updated since” queries are used to limit load and reduce processing time.
• Changes are logged and surfaced to staff for review where discrepancies appear (e.g., closure of a program).

5.2 Capacity Indicator Integration for Hospital Social Work Teams

• A hospital system integrates the API into its social work referral dashboard.
• When staff review community options, the dashboard:
  • Calls a capacity endpoint to retrieve high-level availability bands for relevant programs.
  • Caches the response for a short, defined period to avoid frequent polling.
  • Displays capacity bands and eligibility tags without any case-specific data flowing to the API.
• The hospital’s audit logs track which staff accessed which resource entries through the internal system, not through the shared API.

5.3 University Case Management System Alignment

• A university campus response office integrates:
  • Directory endpoints to maintain a curated set of community partners for off-campus referrals.
  • Coordination metadata to understand which partners have MOUs in place with the university.
• The campus system stores only identifiers needed to link its internal referral records to external programs; detailed case information remains entirely within campus systems.
• Periodic reconciliation handles changes in participation (e.g., new partners joining a coalition or existing partners pausing certain services).

5.4 Citywide Coordination Dashboard

• A municipal department builds a dashboard aggregating:
  • Aggregated regional utilization metrics from the API.
  • Capacity indicators across multiple organizational types (shelters, legal services, advocacy programs).
  • Coalition participation and coverage by region.
• Data refresh occurs on predictable intervals (e.g., hourly or daily) with robust caching.
• The dashboard is used for planning and inter-agency coordination, not for individual case tracking.

5.5 Cross-System Taxonomy Alignment

• An agency with an existing case management platform uses the API to:
  • Retrieve the standardized service and program taxonomy used across regional partners.
  • Map local service codes to shared codes, storing the mapping in its own configuration database.
• When generating internal reports or participating in regional data requests, the system can convert local codes to shared categories.
• This reduces friction in multi-agency reporting while allowing each system to maintain its internal structures.

6. Requesting Access

Access is provided on an organizational basis and is typically coordinated through an identified technical or administrative contact. The process is designed to align with existing inter-agency agreements and internal governance practices.

6.1 Prerequisites

• Confirmation that the requesting entity is a recognized organization (e.g., shelter, hospital, university, municipal department, legal or social service agency).
• Identification of a primary technical contact and, where applicable, a secondary administrative or compliance contact.
• Clarity on intended use cases (e.g., directory synchronization, capacity visualization, analytics).
• Review of any relevant MOUs, participation agreements, or coalition frameworks already in place.

6.2 Information Typically Collected in an Access Request

• Organization name, type, and primary region(s) of operation.
• Systems to be integrated (e.g., case management platform, hospital EHR interface layer, municipal data hub).
• Expected volume and frequency of calls (to support rate limit and capacity planning).
• Requested data scopes (e.g., directory-only, directory + capacity, inclusion of aggregated metrics).
• Security and privacy points of contact for coordination if questions arise.

6.3 Review and Onboarding

• Initial review of organizational fit and alignment with coordination objectives.
• Discussion of appropriate rate tiers and endpoints given the stated use cases.
• Agreement on communication channels for:
  • Change notifications (e.g., deprecations, schema adjustments, maintenance windows).
  • Credential management (issuance, rotation, revocation).
• Provision of sandbox access (where available) for development and testing prior to production use.

6.4 Ongoing Administration

• Periodic confirmation that integration details (contacts, systems, scopes) remain accurate.
• Optional participation in technical working groups or feedback channels to inform future API enhancements.
• Documentation of any material changes to use cases, especially if they may affect data scope or rate patterns.

Recommended Articles

• Partnership Eligibility and Participation Criteria
• Coalition Frameworks for Cross-Agency Collaboration
• Data Governance Models for Inter-Agency Coordination
• Resource Exchange Protocols Across Service Providers
• Reporting Standards for Multi-Agency Initiatives