Connecticut Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

Guidelines for shelters, advocacy groups, hospitals, and agencies collaborating on DV response in Connecticut.

Connecticut: Cross-Agency Coordination Framework

Overview of the Coordinated Statewide Model

Connecticut’s domestic violence service ecosystem generally follows a coordinated statewide model that aligns local providers, coalitions, state agencies, universities, and related systems (courts, law enforcement, health, housing) under shared operational expectations. The emphasis is on standardized referral pathways, consistent eligibility interpretation, and cross-system communication rather than creating a single centralized provider.

This page outlines a practical framework that agencies in Connecticut can use to structure participation, develop or refine memoranda of understanding (MOUs), and assess readiness for data sharing and academic partnerships.

Core Components of the Statewide Coordination Model

Connecticut partners can organize statewide coordination around four primary components: governance, operations, information-sharing, and quality improvement.

1. Governance and Structure

• State-Level Convening Body
  • Includes representation from domestic violence organizations, coalitions, state agencies (e.g., health, social services, housing, justice), and allied sectors.
  • Provides a forum for setting shared priorities, aligning initiatives, and reviewing implementation progress.
  • Coordinates with any existing statewide coalitions and task forces rather than duplicating structures.
• Thematic Workgroups
  • Issue-specific workgroups (e.g., civil-legal access, child welfare interface, healthcare integration, housing stability).
  • Time-limited or standing, with defined scopes of work and reporting expectations to the convening body.
  • Can be co-chaired by local agencies and state entities to ensure operational relevance.
• Regional Alignment
  • Use judicial districts, health service regions, or established coalition regions as organizing boundaries.
  • Designate a lead or coordinating agency in each region to interface with the statewide structure.
  • Encourage alignment between regional task forces and the statewide priorities defined by the convening body.

2. Operational Coordination

• Standardized Referral Protocols
  • Shared referral templates between shelters, legal aid, community-based programs, and institutional partners (hospitals, colleges, social services).
  • Clear pathways for warm handoffs, including defined points of contact at participating agencies.
  • Use of common terminology for service categories (e.g., emergency housing, civil-legal assistance, advocacy in court, systems navigation).
• Service Mapping and Gap Analysis
  • Statewide inventory of domestic-violence-related services, including culturally specific and population-focused programs.
  • Identification of geographic and programmatic gaps to inform funding priorities and partnership efforts.
  • Regular updates integrated into regional coordination meetings.
• Cross-System Touchpoints
  • Defined protocols for interactions with law enforcement, courts, child- and family-serving systems, healthcare, and housing systems.
  • Shared decision trees for when and how agencies engage external partners.
  • Templates for cross-system MOUs that clarify roles, expectations, and escalation pathways.

3. Information-Sharing and Communication

• Statewide Communication Channels
  • Regular statewide coordination calls or virtual meetings for updates on policy, funding, and program changes.
  • Listservs or secure collaboration platforms for time-sensitive updates and peer consultation.
• Common Messaging for Partners
  • Shared language for describing the domestic violence service network to courts, schools, health systems, and community partners.
  • Co-branded or co-developed materials for institutional partners (e.g., bench cards for courts, protocols for hospitals, campus response guides).

4. Quality, Evaluation, and Learning

• Shared Performance Indicators
  • System-level indicators focused on coordination (e.g., referral follow-through, resolution of cross-agency issues).
  • Optional program-level outcome domains that agencies can align with, even when using different funder reporting formats.
• Learning Collaboratives
  • Statewide or regional learning cohorts on topics such as housing partnerships, court navigation, or healthcare integration.
  • Integration of university partners in designing and documenting improvement projects.

Local Agency Participation in Statewide Coordination

Local agencies play a central role in making statewide coordination operational. Participation can be tailored to agency capacity, geography, and program focus while still supporting statewide consistency.

Participation Roles and Expectations

• Core Coordinating Agencies
  • Serve as regional leads or primary liaisons to the statewide convening body.
  • Host or co-host regional coordination meetings that include shelters, advocacy programs, legal partners, and allied services.
  • Maintain regional service maps and contact lists.
• Partner Agencies
  • Participate in regional coordination meetings and information-sharing channels.
  • Adopt or adapt the shared referral tools, eligibility definitions, and communication standards.
  • Designate internal points of contact to manage cross-agency coordination.
• Specialized and Culturally Specific Providers
  • Contribute expertise related to specific communities and subpopulations.
  • Collaborate in designing referral pathways that account for language access, cultural norms, and accessibility needs.
  • Engage in joint planning for outreach with mainstream providers.

Operational Steps for Local Participation

• Formalize Designated Contacts
  • Identify a primary and backup contact for statewide and regional coordination.
  • Ensure contact details are included in shared service directories and updated regularly.
• Align Internal Procedures
  • Review intake, referral, and documentation workflows to align with statewide protocols where feasible.
  • Develop internal guidance on when staff should engage regional partners or escalate complex cross-system situations.
• Engage in Structured Feedback
  • Use regional meetings to raise coordination challenges (e.g., referral bottlenecks, inconsistent eligibility interpretations).
  • Participate in periodic surveys or focus groups that inform statewide planning.

University Partnerships in Connecticut

Connecticut’s higher education institutions provide opportunities for research, workforce development, program evaluation, and policy analysis. Structured partnerships can enhance the statewide model while respecting agency constraints and data protections.

Potential University Roles

• Research and Evaluation
  • Design and implement evaluations of coordinated response initiatives, including process mapping and outcomes tracking.
  • Support logic model development and measurement frameworks for multi-agency projects.
  • Assist with grant applications that require external evaluation components.
• Training and Workforce Development
  • Develop coursework, certificates, and practicums related to domestic violence, systems coordination, and related fields.
  • Provide structured internships or fellowships with clear supervision and role definitions.
  • Host interdisciplinary seminars with participation from agencies and state systems.
• Policy and Systems Analysis
  • Map policy intersections between courts, health, housing, and social services relevant to domestic violence responses.
  • Produce briefs or environmental scans that inform statewide planning and legislative agendas.

Structuring University–Agency Agreements

• Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
  • Clarify the scope of collaboration (research, training, evaluation, policy analysis).
  • Define responsibilities, timelines, deliverables, and communication expectations.
  • Reference applicable ethical, privacy, and institutional review requirements without replicating full legal language.
• Placement and Internship Agreements
  • Specify supervision models, expected tasks, and limitations of student roles.
  • Outline required orientations, confidentiality agreements, and training modules.
  • Describe how feedback will be provided and how performance concerns will be addressed.
• Data Use and Research Protocols
  • Identify what types of de-identified or aggregate data may be shared for research or evaluation.
  • Specify procedures for data request, review, and approval.
  • Address publication review processes and attribution expectations.

Data-Sharing Readiness Across Connecticut Agencies

Data-sharing readiness varies among Connecticut agencies, but common needs include clarifying what can be shared, establishing consistent data elements, and agreeing on secure mechanisms for exchange. The focus is on interoperability and coordination rather than the creation of a single shared database.

Readiness Dimensions

• Policy and Governance Readiness
  • Documented internal policies on client information handling, record retention, and inter-agency communication.
  • Designated data stewards or coordinators responsible for overseeing data-sharing agreements.
  • Mechanisms to align agency policies with statewide coordination frameworks and funder requirements.
• Technical Readiness
  • Use of secure systems for storing and transmitting information (e.g., encrypted email, secure portals).
  • Basic data dictionaries that define how key fields (e.g., service type, referral source) are captured.
  • Capacity to generate aggregate or de-identified reports for collaborative analysis.
• Operational Readiness
  • Internal workflows for receiving, processing, and responding to cross-agency information requests.
  • Training for staff on when and how to share information in line with agency policies and applicable regulations.
  • Clear escalation paths for addressing questions or concerns about specific data-sharing scenarios.

Common Data-Sharing Models in a Statewide Context

• Minimal-Data Coordination
  • Focuses on referral confirmations, service availability, and de-identified trend data.
  • Useful when agencies are at early stages of data-sharing readiness or when technical capacity is limited.
• Aggregate and De-Identified Reporting
  • Regular sharing of aggregate service counts, demographics, and system touchpoints.
  • Supports statewide planning, funding advocacy, and gap analysis without transferring identifiable information.
• Structured Data-Sharing Agreements
  • Project-specific agreements for sharing defined data elements with selected partners (e.g., universities, evaluators, state agencies).
  • Includes clear purpose statements, access parameters, and security expectations.

Practical Steps to Advance Readiness

• Conduct Internal Assessments
  • Inventory current data systems, fields captured, and reporting obligations.
  • Identify where definitions and practices differ across programs within the same organization.
• Align Data Elements
  • Work with regional partners to identify a small set of common data fields for coordinated projects.
  • Develop shared definitions and simple coding schemes that agencies can apply within existing systems.
• Develop Standard Templates
  • Create templates for data-sharing requests, responses, and documentation of approvals.
  • Prepare sample language for MOUs that describe data-sharing purposes and practices at a high level.

Recommended Articles

• Coalition Frameworks for Multi-Agency Coordination
• Partnership Eligibility and Participation Standards
• Data Governance Models for Domestic Violence Collaboratives
• MOU Templates for Cross-Agency Domestic Violence Partnerships
• Structuring University Collaborations in Domestic Violence Systems