Ohio Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

Statewide DV coordination, partnership, and data-sharing guidelines for Ohio organizations.

Ohio Domestic Violence Systems Coordination

Overview of the Ohio Landscape

Ohio’s domestic violence service environment operates across 88 counties, multiple metropolitan regions, and several major university and health systems. Coordination efforts typically intersect with:

• County-based domestic violence programs and shelters
• Regional coalitions and task forces
• Hospital and health system response teams
• University-based advocacy, Title IX, and campus safety offices
• Legal aid providers and victim assistance programs
• Behavioral health, child welfare, and social service agencies

This page outlines structural considerations for Ohio partners, with emphasis on county-level complexity, hospital and university collaboration, and eligibility parameters for participation in multi-agency coordination networks.

County-Level Complexity and Coordination Models

Ohio’s county structure creates operational and governance complexity for domestic violence response. Agencies planning cross-county or statewide initiatives often account for:

• Diverse county governance models and funding sources
• Variation in local court practices, law enforcement protocols, and victim assistance units
• Rural, suburban, and urban service patterns, including transportation and access constraints
• Overlap between county service areas and regional health, legal, and social service catchment areas
• Different stages of development for local domestic violence task forces or coordinated community response (CCR) teams

Common County Coordination Structures

Multi-agency domestic violence networks in Ohio frequently organize using the following structures:

• Single-County CCR Teams: County-level teams including law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, probation, shelters, advocates, and victim assistance.
• Multi-County Service Regions: Lead agencies or coalitions providing services and technical assistance across multiple adjacent counties.
• Metropolitan Hubs: Large city-based networks where services extend into surrounding counties (e.g., regional hospital systems and legal aid offices).
• Judicial or Prosecutorial Districts: Structures aligning with court or prosecutorial jurisdictions, which may not match county boundaries.
• Thematic or Population-Focused Networks: Coalitions centered on specific populations (e.g., immigrants, persons with disabilities, LGBTQI+ communities) operating across counties.

Operational Considerations for 88-County Alignment

For Ohio-wide initiatives, organizations frequently adopt layered coordination models:

• Regional Anchor Entities: Identifying a primary coordination agency in each region (e.g., major shelter, legal aid office, or coalition) that liaises with neighboring counties.
• Standardized Participation Agreements: Using uniform memoranda of understanding (MOUs) adaptable to differing county protocols and resources.
• Cross-County Service Maps: Maintaining a shared, periodically updated map of which agencies serve which counties and populations.
• County-Level Points of Contact: Designating at least one operational contact per county for rapid coordination and problem-solving.
• Tiered Engagement: Allowing counties to participate at varying levels (basic information-sharing, active CCR participation, data collaboration) depending on capacity.

Hospital and Health System Collaboration in Ohio

Ohio’s hospital and health system infrastructure plays a significant role in domestic violence identification, documentation, and referral. Coordination typically involves:

• Large multi-hospital systems covering multiple counties and regions
• Community hospitals serving specific localities
• Federally qualified health centers and community health clinics
• Behavioral health and substance use treatment providers
• Specialty clinics (e.g., obstetrics, pediatrics, emergency departments)

Models for Hospital–DV Agency Coordination

Common collaboration models between Ohio hospitals and domestic violence service providers include:

• Formal Referral Protocols: Written protocols for referrals from emergency, inpatient, and outpatient settings to domestic violence agencies and legal aid.
• On-Site Advocates: DV advocates physically embedded in hospitals (e.g., emergency departments, women’s health clinics) during defined hours.
• On-Call Arrangements: 24/7 or limited-hour on-call systems allowing clinicians to connect patients with advocates by phone or secure messaging.
• Clinical Training Partnerships: Regular training cycles on documentation, screening workflows, and referral pathways integrated into staff education.
• Data Collaboration Frameworks: High-level, de-identified data sharing agreements to monitor referral volumes and identify gaps, within applicable privacy frameworks.

Operational Elements to Include in Hospital MOUs

When hospital systems participate in domestic violence networks, MOUs frequently address:

• Defined referral procedures and contact points (units, roles, and availability)
• Use of standardized screening or inquiry tools where adopted
• Mechanisms for case coordination with external agencies while observing confidentiality and privacy standards
• Joint training schedules and evaluation processes
• High-level reporting expectations (e.g., aggregate referral data, training participation)
• Protocols for resolving operational issues, including communication channels and timelines

University and Campus-Based Collaboration

Ohio’s universities, community colleges, and technical schools maintain their own response frameworks that often intersect with community domestic violence providers, especially for off-campus incidents and community-based services.

Key University Stakeholders

Common campus stakeholders in domestic violence-related coordination include:

• Title IX offices and coordinators
• Campus safety or police departments
• Student conduct offices
• Counseling and psychological services
• Student health centers
• Campus-based advocacy or women’s/gender resource centers
• Residential life and housing offices

Campus–Community Coordination Models

In Ohio, campus-community coordination typically follows one or more of these models:

• Preferred Partner Agreements: Universities designate one or more community DV agencies and legal aid providers as preferred referral partners.
• Joint Training and Orientation: Community advocates co-facilitate orientations and professional development for campus staff and student leaders.
• Shared Protocol Development: Campus and community partners jointly draft response protocols for off-campus incidents, after-hours needs, and high-risk situations.
• Campus Advisory Committees: Community agencies hold seats on university committees related to interpersonal violence, equity, or student well-being.
• Research and Evaluation Partnerships: Universities collaborate with DV agencies on program evaluation, surveys, and evidence-informed practice development.

Considerations for Multi-Campus Regions

In counties or cities with multiple campuses, agencies may:

• Establish a single regional MOU template, with campus-specific annexes
• Designate a regional liaison from the lead DV agency to coordinate with all local campuses
• Set common data and reporting formats to aggregate regional campus-related trends
• Clarify how campus incidents are integrated into county or regional domestic violence coordination tables

Eligibility for Network Participation in Ohio

Eligibility for participation in multi-agency coordination networks in Ohio generally focuses on organizational role, capacity, and alignment with domestic violence response objectives. Networks often define eligibility in broad, functional terms rather than strictly by agency type.

Typical Eligible Entity Types

Depending on the network’s scope, eligible participants may include:

• Domestic violence service providers and shelters
• Legal aid and civil legal services organizations
• Victim assistance programs (system-based and community-based)
• Hospitals, health systems, and community health centers
• Behavioral health and substance use treatment providers
• Universities, community colleges, and technical schools
• Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices
• Courts, probation, and specialized dockets as appropriate
• Child welfare and family services agencies
• Culturally specific and population-focused organizations
• Homeless services and housing providers
• Statewide or regional coalitions and technical assistance providers

Functional Eligibility Criteria

Ohio-focused networks frequently apply functional criteria such as:

• Relevance of Mission: Organizational mission and services intersect substantively with domestic violence response, prevention, or related systems.
• Operational Capacity: Ability to designate staff time for meetings, data processes, and joint activities.
• Geographic Scope: Clearly defined service area within Ohio (counties, regions, or statewide) and clarity about cross-border work with neighboring states where applicable.
• Data and Confidentiality Practices: Established policies and procedures for handling sensitive information in accordance with applicable standards.
• Governance Alignment: Willingness to participate in agreed-upon governance structures, including decision-making and conflict resolution methods.
• Commitment to Coordination: Agreement to work toward streamlined referral pathways and reduce duplicative or conflicting practices.

Participation Tiers

To accommodate varying capacity across Ohio’s 88 counties and diverse organizations, some networks use participation tiers:

• Core Members: Agencies with direct domestic violence service mandates and high involvement in governance and data collaboration.
• Associate Members: Organizations with related missions (e.g., housing, healthcare, campuses) participating in key activities and information-sharing.
• Advisory or Observer Participants: Entities involved on a consultative basis, such as research institutions or statewide policy organizations.

Onboarding and Documentation

Eligibility implementation is typically supported by standardized onboarding processes, which may include:

• Completion of a participation or interest form describing services, counties served, and existing partnerships
• Review of foundational policies (confidentiality, data use, communications)
• Execution of MOUs or participation agreements outlining expectations and roles
• Designation of primary and secondary points of contact
• Initial orientation to Ohio-specific coordination structures, including relevant county and regional bodies

Funding and Resource Collaboration in Ohio

Multi-agency Ohio initiatives often integrate funding and resource-sharing components to support coordinated work across counties, hospitals, and campuses.

Common Collaboration Approaches

• Lead Agency Models: A single organization manages grant administration and subawards to county-level or thematic partners.
• Consortium Applications: Multiple agencies jointly apply for funding with clearly defined roles by county or function (e.g., hospital liaison, campus liaison).
• In-Kind Support from Systems: Hospitals, universities, or county agencies contribute staff time, space, or IT support as their primary participation mechanism.
• Regional Resource Pools: Resources are allocated at a regional level, then distributed within and across counties as needs are identified.

Reporting Considerations

For Ohio-wide or multi-county projects, reporting structures often:

• Aggregate data by county and region to identify geographic disparities
• Track collaboration metrics (joint trainings, cross-referrals, hospital and campus participation)
• Document network membership changes and participation levels over time
• Include qualitative process notes on coordination challenges and adaptations

Governance and Decision-Making Structures

Given Ohio’s size and complexity, durable governance structures are central to sustaining multi-agency networks.

Structural Options

• Statewide Steering Committees: Oversight body with representation from key sectors (DV agencies, hospitals, universities, legal, regional coalitions).
• Regional Working Groups: Operational teams aligned by geography or health system region to handle localized coordination.
• Topical Subcommittees: Groups focused on hospitals, campuses, data, training, or policy alignment.
• Time-Limited Task Forces: Project-specific bodies addressing discrete issues (e.g., shared screening protocols, cross-county referrals).

Role Clarification

Governance documents for Ohio networks often clarify:

• Decision-making processes (consensus, voting, advisory models)
• Representation and term lengths for steering and working group members
• Expectations for attendance and participation
• Processes for adding or removing members or tiers of participation
• Review schedules for protocols, MOUs, and eligibility criteria