Kansas Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

DV response integration guidelines for organizations operating in Kansas.

Kansas Interagency Coordination Overview

Purpose and Scope

This page outlines coordination options for organizations operating in Kansas, with emphasis on local service coordination, multi-county network design, and common eligibility criteria frameworks. It is intended for domestic violence programs, coalitions, legal services, social service agencies, and allied community partners seeking structured collaboration models within the state.

Context for Kansas-Based Coordination

Kansas includes urban, suburban, rural, and frontier counties, which affects service coverage, referral routing, and partnership design. Agencies frequently operate across multiple counties, and coordination models often combine local, regional, and statewide components to address gaps in transportation, legal access, and specialized services.

Local Service Coordination

Local service coordination in Kansas typically focuses on operational alignment within a single county or a small cluster of neighboring counties anchored by a primary service provider, such as a domestic violence agency, shelter, or community action agency.

Local Coordination Objectives

• Clarify points of contact for referrals, case consultation, and scheduling.
• Standardize basic information-sharing practices within applicable privacy frameworks.
• Align local protocols with statewide standards and coalition guidance.
• Reduce duplication of intake, screening, and documentation where feasible.

Common Local Partners

• Domestic violence and sexual assault programs.
• County law enforcement and city police departments.
• County or district courts, including protection order offices.
• County health departments and behavioral health centers.
• Housing authorities and homeless service providers.
• Legal aid and pro bono legal clinics.
• Child welfare agencies and family services providers.

Local Coordination Mechanisms

• Local interagency working groups
  Regular meetings (monthly or quarterly) convened by a lead agency to review trends, coordinate responses to emerging issues, and update contact lists and protocols.
• Standard referral pathways
  Agreed steps for warm handoffs, emergency placements, and non-urgent referrals, often documented in local protocol guides or referral flowcharts.
• Shared training calendars
  Coordinated trainings for law enforcement, courts, health providers, and social service agencies to ensure consistent understanding of domestic violence dynamics and procedures.
• Local Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
  Basic MOUs outlining scope of collaboration, contact points, information-sharing parameters, and dispute resolution processes.

Multi-County Network Models in Kansas

Because many Kansas counties have limited population and resources, multi-county networks are frequently used to coordinate services, staffing, and specialized programs. These networks can be formal (with governance structures) or informal (based on operational agreements).

Structural Options for Multi-County Networks

• Hub-and-spoke model
  A larger agency (hub) provides core services and infrastructure (e.g., shelter, legal advocacy, 24/7 hotline) while partner agencies (spokes) deliver outreach, limited advocacy, or mobile services in surrounding counties.
• Regional consortium model
  Multiple agencies across several counties share leadership through a steering committee. Each agency retains its own identity but coordinates funding applications, training, and common protocols.
• Lead agency with subcontractors
  One organization holds primary grants and contracts, and subcontracts to partner agencies in neighboring counties for service delivery, data collection, or specific program components.
• Functional specialization model
  One agency may specialize in legal services, another in housing assistance, and another in outreach; partners agree on cross-county referral routes and service coverage.

Multi-County Governance Considerations

• Defined geographic coverage (list of counties, judicial districts, or regions).
• Shared decision-making structures (steering committee, executive council).
• Written policies on membership, voting, conflict resolution, and withdrawal.
• Common reporting formats for funders and coalition partners.
• Processes to regularly update county-specific resource inventories.

Operational Practices for Multi-County Work

• Rotating in-person meetings across counties, supplemented by virtual meetings.
• Designated regional coordinators or liaisons to maintain partner contact.
• Shared calendars for mobile advocacy visits or circuit-based services.
• Region-wide communication protocols for weather events and other disruptions.
• Joint training and technical assistance plans aligned with statewide priorities.

Eligibility Criteria Frameworks

Eligibility criteria in Kansas vary by agency mandate, funding requirements, and program design. The following frameworks can support transparent, consistent, and equitable access across local and multi-county partnerships.

Core Dimensions of Eligibility

• Geographic eligibility
  Typical criteria include current residence, county of occurrence of harm, or connection to a covered service region (e.g., judicial district, tribal jurisdiction). Multi-county networks frequently adopt shared interpretations to avoid service gaps along county borders.
• Service type eligibility
  Distinctions between eligibility for emergency shelter, legal advocacy, outreach, housing assistance, financial assistance, or counseling. Eligibility definitions may differ between direct services and ancillary supports.
• Funding-source requirements
  Programs may apply specific criteria based on funding (for example, income thresholds, rural/frontier residence, or relationship to a defined crime category), documented in grant-aligned policies.
• Demographic or status-based criteria
  Some programs focus on specific populations (e.g., older adults, people with disabilities, youth, LGBTQ+ communities, or non-citizens) with eligibility criteria that reflect that focus while maintaining nondiscrimination standards.

Shared Eligibility Protocols Across Counties

• Regional eligibility matrix
  A simple, shared table listing each agency, the counties it covers, and eligibility criteria for key services. This matrix is updated at least annually or when major funding changes occur.
• Cross-referral agreements
  If one agency cannot serve a person because of geography, capacity, or funding limitations, partners agree on a default cross-referral pathway to another Kansas agency or regional partner.
• Standard intake data elements
  Partners agree on a baseline set of non-identifying or limited-identifying data elements used to assess eligibility, consistent with privacy and confidentiality obligations.
• Eligibility exception processes
  Documented internal procedures for handling exceptional cases (for example, people located just outside traditional catchment areas when no alternative services are available).

Transparency and Communication

• Maintain clear, written eligibility descriptions for each major program.
• Share updated eligibility and coverage information with local partners, courts, and law enforcement.
• Use consistent terminology for counties, regions, and service types to reduce confusion.
• Incorporate eligibility updates into interagency meeting agendas at least annually.

Data-Sharing and Information Practices

Kansas agencies often coordinate across counties and systems, which requires careful attention to information flows, privacy considerations, and operational consistency. While specific legal obligations are outside the scope of this document, partners can benefit from shared frameworks.

Operational Data-Sharing Options

• High-level aggregate data sharing
  Sharing de-identified, aggregate counts (for example, number of intakes by county or service type) for regional planning, funding proposals, and systems-level collaboration.
• Limited individual-level coordination data
  When consistent with applicable laws and policies, partners may share limited information necessary to complete referrals, coordinate services, or avoid duplicative processes, using defined consent and release procedures.
• Common reporting templates
  Regionally aligned templates for funder reporting, performance indicators, and outcome tracking to reduce administrative burden among multi-county partners.

Funding and Resource Collaboration in Kansas

Coordinated funding strategies can help Kansas agencies sustain services across sparsely populated areas and ensure continuity of care across county lines.

Collaborative Funding Models

• Joint grant applications
  Multi-county networks apply together for federal, state, or foundation funding, assigning roles for fiscal management, program oversight, and reporting.
• Shared staff positions
  Regional staff such as mobile advocates, legal navigators, or data coordinators are shared among multiple agencies, with cost-sharing agreements.
• Centralized administrative support
  A lead agency may host financial management, HR, or grant reporting infrastructure used by smaller partners via formal agreements.

Resource Exchange Protocols

• Written procedures for sharing temporary shelter capacity information across counties.
• Guidelines for reallocating flexible financial assistance based on county-level demand.
• Processes for loaning specialized staff (e.g., language access, legal clinics) between agencies.
• Documentation of in-kind resource sharing, such as training slots, office space, or transportation support.

Developing or Updating Kansas Coordination Agreements

Kansas organizations updating their local or regional coordination structures may find it useful to conduct structured reviews of existing MOUs, eligibility criteria, and network boundaries.

Suggested Review Components

• Map all existing service coverage by county and service type.
• Identify counties with limited or no in-county domestic violence services.
• Review current MOUs for accuracy of contacts, scope, and data-sharing provisions.
• Clarify regional leadership roles and decision-making processes.
• Document any standing interagency workgroups or task forces and their mandates.

Recommended Articles

• Partnership Eligibility and Participation Standards
• Coalition Frameworks and Multi-Agency Governance
• Regional Coordination Models for Multi-County Service Areas
• Data-Sharing Practices for Domestic Violence Collaboratives
• Funding Collaboration Models for Interagency Networks