state

North Carolina Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

DV agency coordination and partnership readiness guidelines for organizations throughout North Carolina.

north carolinastate

STATE PROFILES

North Carolina: Regional Coordination and Service Networks

Overview of the North Carolina Ecosystem

North Carolina maintains a mixed coordination environment that includes statewide coalitions, regional collaboratives, and local providers such as shelters, legal partners, healthcare systems, and community-based organizations. This page outlines common network structures, indicative eligibility criteria, and practical collaboration workflows that agencies can adapt or reference when aligning operations within the state.

Regional Service Network Structures

Domestic violence–related service delivery in North Carolina commonly aligns to several overlapping geographies:

Statewide coalitions and technical assistance entities
Multi-county regional collaboratives
Single-county coordination tables
Metro-area cross-jurisdictional groups

1. Statewide and Cross-Regional Entities

Statewide bodies typically provide policy coordination, technical assistance, training, and systems-level advocacy. They often host working groups that cut across regions and service types, including:

Domestic violence program leadership cohorts
Legal and court-based response workgroups
Data and evaluation learning communities
Funding and sustainability collaboratives

Participation in statewide structures can support alignment of local protocols with emerging state priorities and cross-system initiatives involving courts, law enforcement, and human services agencies.

2. Multi-County Regional Collaboratives

Multi-county collaboratives in North Carolina often evolve around shared referral flows, court circuits, or human services catchment areas. Common features include:

Core membership of domestic violence service providers from each county
Representation from legal services, law enforcement, courts, and healthcare partners
Shared training calendars and cross-agency protocols
Informal or formal mutual-aid agreements for capacity overflow

These collaboratives frequently coordinate on:

Standardized referral pathways between counties
Priority access protocols when capacity is limited in one county
Transportation and relocation logistics across county lines
Joint grant applications and shared outcome frameworks

3. County-Level Coordination Tables

Within individual counties, coordination is often structured through standing interagency meetings or task forces. These may be hosted by a domestic violence agency, a human services department, or a criminal justice coordinating body. Typical participants include:

Domestic violence service organizations and shelters
Legal aid and court-based programs
Local law enforcement and prosecutors’ offices
Public health and hospital representatives
Behavioral health and social service providers
Community-based organizations and culturally specific partners

County tables usually focus on operational alignment, including information flows, cross-referrals, and local policy implementation.

4. Metro-Area and Urban Networks

In metropolitan centers, networks may be more specialized, with subgroups focused on specific pathways or populations. Common features include:

Centralized intake or coordinated access pilots among multiple agencies
Specialized court or docket coordination workgroups
Data-sharing and technology coordination working groups
Collaborative training structures with universities and health systems

Urban networks may also serve as hubs that support surrounding rural counties with technical assistance, overflow capacity, or shared training.

North Carolina’s regional service networks are dynamic and may be branded or structured differently across counties. Agencies often benefit from mapping overlapping memberships (e.g., coalitions, task forces, grant consortia) to avoid fragmented coordination efforts.

Indicative Eligibility Criteria for Network Participation

While specific participation requirements vary by network and funding source, the following categories outline common eligibility considerations used by North Carolina partners when setting expectations for membership or collaboration.

1. Organizational Profile and Scope

Networks typically define which entities are in scope for membership or formal partnership. Examples of profile-based criteria include:

Nonprofit, public, or tribal status with a defined domestic or sexual violence response component
Direct service delivery related to housing, legal assistance, advocacy, healthcare, or behavioral health
System partner roles, such as courts, law enforcement, human services, or corrections
Organizations serving specific populations (e.g., youth-focused, culturally specific, disability-focused)

Some networks distinguish between full members, advisory partners, and observers based on role and scope of work.

2. Operational Readiness and Capacity

To support consistent collaboration, networks may articulate minimum operational standards, such as:

Designated staff contact for interagency coordination and referrals
Documented service descriptions and eligibility rules for their own programs
Capacity to respond to email or phone referrals within defined timeframes
Ability to participate in periodic meetings or data-sharing discussions

These criteria help ensure that agencies, once included, can consistently follow through on network workflows.

3. Policy and Practice Alignment

Many North Carolina networks assess alignment with shared practice principles and operational standards, which may include:

Compliance with relevant state and federal requirements applicable to the agency type
Use of non-discrimination and accessibility policies consistent with network norms
Clear internal confidentiality protocols and informed-consent procedures
Commitment to coordinated problem-solving on interagency barriers or complaints

Networks may incorporate these expectations into MOUs or participation agreements without offering legal advice or establishing compliance oversight roles.

4. Data and Reporting Participation

Given the importance of shared information for funding and planning, networks often identify baseline expectations for data collaboration, such as:

Willingness to share de-identified aggregate data for planning or evaluation purposes
Participation in periodic reporting on referrals, service utilization, or outcomes
Engagement in shared indicator development or common definitions work
Adherence to mutually agreed-upon privacy and data-handling protocols

Specific data elements and processes are usually negotiated within the network’s governance structure and tailored to funding requirements.

5. Participation and Governance Engagement

Eligibility commonly includes expectations for engagement in network governance and routine coordination activities, for example:

Regular attendance at regional or county-level meetings
Serving periodically on workgroups or time-limited task forces
Timely review and feedback on proposed protocols and tools
Collaboration on joint communications to shared stakeholders

Some networks differentiate between voting and non-voting members based on participation level, public status, or funding relationships.

Agencies evaluating participation in North Carolina networks often document their own internal eligibility, confidentiality, and referral policies in parallel, to support consistent communication with partners and align with multi-agency protocols.

Collaboration Workflows

North Carolina agencies frequently rely on structured, repeatable workflows to manage information flow, referrals, and joint planning. The following models summarize common practice patterns that can be adapted locally.

1. Standardized Referral Workflow

This workflow supports day-to-day service linkages across agencies and counties.

Intake and triage: Each agency uses its own intake process while maintaining a concise, shareable summary of needs, eligibility factors, and urgency.
Partner directory: Regional networks maintain up-to-date contact lists, eligibility criteria, and key program details for participating agencies.
Referral initiation: Referrals are made through agreed channels (e.g., secure email, phone, or dedicated forms) and include only the information required by the receiving agency.
Referral acknowledgment: Receiving agencies confirm receipt within agreed timeframes and clarify next steps or scheduling constraints.
Feedback loop: When appropriate and consistent with confidentiality protocols, referring agencies receive limited-status updates (e.g., “connected,” “waitlisted,” “not eligible”).
Exception handling: Network partners use pre-defined escalation routes for situations such as capacity limitations or uncertainty about program fit.

2. Cross-County Capacity and Overflow Workflow

Regional collaboratives in North Carolina often formalize how they manage cross-county service capacity when one locality is at or near limits.

Capacity monitoring: Agencies share high-level, non-identifying information on current capacity trends (e.g., bed availability ranges, service waitlists) at regular intervals.
Trigger points: Networks agree on thresholds that prompt outreach to neighbors (for example, extended wait times or high utilization in a specific service).
Mutual aid activation: When thresholds are reached, designated contacts coordinate potential transfers, remote services, or temporary coverage from partner agencies.
Cost and logistics coordination: Partners discuss transportation, case handoff, and any funding implications using pre-established parameters in MOUs or agreements.
Post-episode review: Network meetings include brief reviews of cross-county episodes to refine capacity protocols and identify system-level adjustments.

3. Joint Case Coordination Workflow (Non-Clinical)

Some North Carolina networks utilize multi-agency meetings to coordinate complex service situations, without sharing more information than is necessary or permitted.

Case selection: Agencies identify situations where multiple systems are involved and coordination will likely improve efficiency or reduce duplication.
Consent and information boundaries: Each agency follows its own legal and policy requirements for information sharing, with clear documentation of what can and cannot be shared.
Structured case review: Participants share role-specific updates, identify overlaps or gaps, and clarify which agency is responsible for which action.
Action planning: The group develops a concise, agency-specific action list with responsible parties and target timeframes.
Follow-up schedule: A follow-up date is set, or the situation is closed from the joint coordination forum once actions are stabilized.

4. Policy and Protocol Alignment Workflow

To align local practice with statewide expectations or funding requirements, networks often use a consistent process for policy and protocol development.

Issue identification: Members flag operational or policy topics requiring alignment (e.g., referral timeframes, common definitions, documentation standards).
Small-group drafting: A working group reviews current practices and produces draft shared guidelines or process maps.
Network review: Drafts are shared with the broader network for comment, with particular attention to feasibility across rural and urban settings.
Finalization and documentation: After revisions, the network adopts a version-controlled protocol or guideline and sets a review interval.
Implementation support: Agencies coordinate training, internal policy updates, and supportive tools (e.g., checklists or templates).

5. Joint Funding and Reporting Workflow

North Carolina networks frequently collaborate on state or federal grant opportunities that require coordinated planning and collective reporting.

Funding scan: One or more agencies monitor and share relevant funding opportunities with the network.
Role clarification: Partners determine who will act as lead applicant, fiscal agent, or subrecipient, and which agencies will contribute which services.
Shared outcomes: The group develops a common outcomes framework and high-level data plan consistent with requirements and existing systems.
MOU development: Responsibilities, communication expectations, and dispute-resolution processes are documented in MOUs or similar instruments.
Reporting schedule: The network sets internal deadlines ahead of official due dates and clarifies who will compile and submit required reports.
Continuous improvement: Findings from reports and evaluations are fed back into network meetings to adjust workflows or refine service models.

Many North Carolina agencies also reference broader coordination resources and toolkits hosted at DV.Support when designing or revising local collaboration workflows, especially in relation to regional alignment and data practices.