California Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

Comprehensive partnership and coordination guidance for DV-related organizations across California.

California Domestic Violence Coordination Overview

1. Overview of the California Service Ecosystem

California’s domestic violence response system is characterized by a large, diverse ecosystem that spans state agencies, county departments, city programs, nonprofit providers, health systems, and justice partners. The scale of the state and its county-based governance structures create significant variation in program design, coordination mechanisms, and data practices.

This page outlines operational considerations for organizations working within or across California jurisdictions, with attention to ecosystem mapping, county-specific variations, data integration strengths, and cross-institution partnerships.

2. Large-Scale Agency Ecosystem

2.1 Core State-Level Actors

Key state-level entities typically involved in domestic violence-related coordination include:

• State justice and public safety agencies (courts, law enforcement, probation)
• Departments overseeing social services, health and human services, and behavioral health
• Housing and homelessness agencies and funding intermediaries
• Education departments and higher education systems
• Statewide coalitions and technical assistance providers

Multi-agency initiatives often rely on joint task forces, interdepartmental workgroups, and time-limited pilots to test models before embedding them in standard operations.

2.2 Regional and County-Level Infrastructure

At the regional and county levels, partner configurations frequently include:

• County departments of social services, behavioral health, and public health
• Local law enforcement agencies and district attorney offices
• County courts and specialized calendars
• Coordinated entry systems for homelessness response
• Domestic violence shelters, legal aid organizations, and advocacy agencies
• Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and hospital systems

Counties may also participate in regional collaboratives (e.g., multi-county housing or behavioral health initiatives) that indirectly affect domestic violence-related coordination and resource flows.

2.3 Coalition and Network Structures

California’s size has led to multiple tiers of coalition structures, for example:

• Statewide domestic violence coalitions providing policy, training, and systems-change support
• Regional multi-county collaboratives addressing shared challenges (e.g., rural capacity, workforce)
• County-level coordinating councils, multidisciplinary teams, and advisory bodies

These structures often convene agencies to develop shared protocols, harmonized referral pathways, and aligned policy positions.

3. County-by-County Variation

3.1 Governance and Decision-Making

California counties have substantial discretion over service design and funding allocations. Operational differences may appear in:

• Whether domestic violence coordination is anchored in a single lead department or distributed
• How formalized multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and coordinating councils are
• The use of county-level ordinances, resolutions, or policy guidance related to domestic violence

Partners planning cross-county initiatives benefit from early mapping of each county’s governance model and decision-making timelines.

3.2 Service Availability and Capacity

Capacity differs sharply between large urban counties, mid-sized suburban counties, and rural or frontier counties. Variations commonly include:

• Number and specialization of domestic violence service providers
• Availability of culturally and linguistically specific organizations
• Access to legal representation, immigration-focused services, and complex case management
• Transportation, telehealth, and mobile service options in geographically large counties

Regional planning efforts typically need county-specific resource inventories and agreed mechanisms for cross-border referrals.

3.3 Funding Structures and Contracting

While state and federal funding streams are present statewide, counties differ in how they structure:

• Competitive versus sole-source contracting for domestic violence-related services
• Integration of domestic violence services into broader contracts (e.g., family services, housing, behavioral health)
• Use of braided or blended funding models to support multi-issue interventions

Cross-county collaborations often require alignment of contracting cycles, performance metrics, and invoicing protocols to reduce administrative burden on provider agencies.

3.4 Operational Implications for Multi-County Work

For initiatives that span multiple counties, partners frequently adopt:

• Master MOUs with county-specific addenda
• Standardized referral and consent tools adaptable to each jurisdiction
• Tiered governance (e.g., a central steering group and county-level implementation teams)
• Shared training curricula with local customization

4. Data Integration Strengths in California

4.1 Existing Data Infrastructure and Systems

California has multiple mature data systems in domains intersecting with domestic violence work, including:

• Health information exchanges and hospital system data platforms
• County-level behavioral health and public health systems
• Homelessness management information systems (HMIS) used by continuums of care
• Justice and law enforcement systems with standardized case and incident data
• Child welfare and adult protective services case management systems

These systems can support cross-agency coordination when paired with appropriate data-sharing agreements and privacy safeguards.

4.2 Common Integration and Matching Approaches

Operational models for data integration often rely on:

• Shared unique identifiers or matching algorithms across systems
• Data warehouses or hubs that aggregate de-identified records for analysis
• Role-based dashboards for county and agency staff
• Data-sharing MOUs that specify purpose, fields, and access controls

Domestic violence-specific initiatives may align with these existing structures rather than creating stand-alone databases.

4.3 Use Cases Relevant to Domestic Violence Coordination

Data integration efforts that intersect with domestic violence-related work commonly focus on:

• Identifying intersections between domestic violence, homelessness, and behavioral health service use
• Tracking service utilization across multiple systems to inform resource planning
• Evaluating outcomes of cross-system interventions (e.g., housing plus legal services)
• Monitoring access disparities by geography, language, or demographic factors

These integrations require structured governance processes to define permissible uses, safeguards, and reporting mechanisms.

4.4 Governance and Data-Sharing Structures

Many California jurisdictions use formal governance bodies to oversee data integration, such as:

• Data governance councils and steering committees
• Interagency data-sharing workgroups with technical and program representatives
• Advisory groups that include subject-matter experts from domestic violence service organizations

These structures are well-suited to incorporating domestic violence perspectives into broader data initiatives, provided confidentiality and risk-management considerations are explicitly addressed.

5. Cross-Institution Partnerships

5.1 Health and Behavioral Health Partnerships

California health systems and behavioral health providers frequently serve as key partners in multi-agency responses. Common coordination mechanisms include:

• MOUs between hospitals, FQHCs, and domestic violence organizations defining referral pathways
• Integrated care teams that include social workers, legal navigators, or community-based advocates
• Shared training and protocols for identifying and responding to domestic violence-related indicators in clinical settings

5.2 Housing, Homelessness, and Domestic Violence Coordination

Due to high housing costs and visible homelessness, many California jurisdictions have invested in closer alignment between domestic violence services and housing/homelessness systems, for example:

• Participation of domestic violence providers in coordinated entry system planning
• Set-asides or prioritization criteria in housing programs informed by domestic violence-related factors
• Joint case conferencing between homelessness response teams and domestic violence service providers, with defined confidentiality protocols

5.3 Justice System and Legal Aid Collaboration

Partnerships across courts, law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and legal aid entities are common features of California’s ecosystem. Operational components may include:

• Specialized domestic violence calendars or dockets with coordinated support services
• Co-located or virtual legal clinics in community-based organizations
• Protocols for warm handoffs between law enforcement and community legal aid partners

Cross-institution partnerships in this area often rely on standardized information-sharing tools, consent forms, and clearly defined role boundaries.

5.4 Education, Workforce, and Community-Based Partnerships

Education and workforce partners (K–12 districts, community colleges, universities, workforce boards) can support upstream coordination by:

• Incorporating domestic violence-related considerations into broader well-being and safety frameworks
• Refining referral pathways from campuses or training programs to community-based organizations
• Participating in regional coalitions focused on economic stability and housing security

5.5 Structuring MOUs and Joint Governance

Across institutions, California partners often use standardized MOU templates that specify:

• Scope of collaboration and target populations
• Data elements and information-sharing conditions
• Roles in outreach, service delivery, and follow-up
• Governance arrangements, meeting cadence, and conflict-resolution processes
• Reporting requirements and performance measurement expectations

Joint governance bodies (steering committees, executive councils, and technical workgroups) provide venues for ongoing alignment and adjustments to partnership structures.

6. Planning Considerations for Multi-Agency Work in California

6.1 Ecosystem Mapping

Organizations developing new initiatives in California may find it useful to:

• Map existing county and regional coordinating bodies and coalitions
• Document current contracts, pilots, and data-sharing arrangements
• Identify overlapping membership across councils to streamline participation

6.2 Alignment with Existing Data and Funding Initiatives

New projects often benefit from aligning with existing:

• Data integration initiatives in health, homelessness, and justice
• County or regional strategic plans addressing family well-being, housing, and behavioral health
• Funding collaboratives or pooled funds targeting cross-system outcomes

Alignment can reduce duplication, improve sustainability, and clarify the contribution of domestic violence-related services within broader strategies.

6.3 Sustainability and Scalability

For pilots and time-limited projects, early planning typically addresses:

• How practices will be institutionalized within county or state structures
• Which data elements and metrics will demonstrate value to multiple funders
• What governance model will support scale-up to additional counties or regions

These considerations are particularly relevant in California, where county autonomy and regional variation can complicate scaling without deliberate design.