Pennsylvania Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

DV partnerships and agency coordination guidelines for organizations across Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Domestic Violence Coordination Overview

State Context and Governance

Pennsylvania’s domestic violence response infrastructure operates through a mixed model that combines a statewide coalition framework with county-driven implementation. Agencies frequently coordinate across judicial districts, county human service systems, and regional funder priorities, resulting in distinct operational environments in different parts of the state.

The statewide coalition and allied networks provide policy advocacy, technical assistance, and funding pass-through functions, while county agencies manage local implementation, partnerships, and cross-system coordination with courts, law enforcement, child welfare, and housing providers.

County-Driven Ecosystem

The Pennsylvania ecosystem is strongly shaped by county-level structures, especially given the state’s size, urban–rural variation, and county-based human services administration.

Key Features of the County-Driven Model

• County Human Service Systems: Many coordination activities align with county-operated offices (e.g., children and youth, behavioral health, homelessness systems, aging services), with domestic violence programs integrated through MOUs and participation in local planning bodies.
• Judicial and Law Enforcement Boundaries: Service areas often mirror county court jurisdictions and local law enforcement regions, influencing protection order processes, arrest/charging practices, and coordinated response teams.
• County-Level Coalitions and Task Forces: In several counties, domestic violence organizations participate in multidisciplinary councils that address high-risk response, lethality assessment integration, and systems improvement.
• Funding and Contracting: County contracts (e.g., for shelter, case management, or coordinated entry participation) shape service standards and reporting, which may differ across counties even for organizations of similar size and mission.
• Cross-County Service Provision: In less-populated or rural areas, a single organization may cover multiple counties, requiring coordination with several human service boards, courts, and law enforcement agencies.

County-Level Coordination Priorities

Agencies in Pennsylvania commonly organize their county-facing work around the following priorities:

• Alignment with county human services and homelessness planning processes, including local governance groups for housing and crisis response.
• Formal protocols with local courts, district attorneys, and public defenders, especially around orders of protection, documentation, and referrals.
• Participation in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), such as child welfare–DV partnerships, elder abuse teams, and high-risk review panels.
• Interoperable data and shared indicators across county systems when feasible, using de-identified or aggregate data where appropriate.
• Joint training and cross-orientation for county agencies, law enforcement, health systems, and community-based organizations.

Pittsburgh (Southwestern PA) vs. Philadelphia (Southeastern PA)

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia represent two distinct operational environments within Pennsylvania, each shaped by its regional governance, court systems, and community provider landscape.

Pittsburgh and Southwestern Pennsylvania Characteristics

Southwestern Pennsylvania, anchored by Pittsburgh (Allegheny County), is characterized by a regional approach that often integrates multiple counties into shared initiatives.

• Regional Collaboration: Domestic violence organizations often participate in regionally coordinated initiatives that include neighboring counties, particularly in housing, health system engagement, and criminal legal coordination.
• Health System Partnerships: Large integrated health systems in the Pittsburgh area create opportunities for standardized screening protocols, warm referral processes, and shared training across hospitals and clinics.
• Cross-County Task Forces: Some task forces and MDTs span multiple counties, requiring clear delineation of roles, referral criteria, and information-sharing parameters across jurisdictions.
• Transportation and Rural Adjacency: Program design must often account for both urban and rural realities, with transportation barriers shaping outreach, mobile advocacy models, and virtual coordination options.

Philadelphia and Southeastern Pennsylvania Characteristics

Philadelphia’s ecosystem is more densely layered, with a high volume of courts, law enforcement agencies, and specialized service providers concentrated in one county.

• High-Volume Court Coordination: Organizations collaborate closely with civil, family, and criminal courts, often embedding staff or liaisons to support navigation of protection orders and related proceedings.
• Specialized Service Landscape: There is a broad range of specialized legal, housing, immigrant, and language-access partners, requiring formal coordination to avoid duplication and ensure alignment.
• City-Managed Systems: Many functions (e.g., homelessness response, behavioral health, and reentry) are administered through city departments, leading to citywide standards, central data systems, and shared policy directives.
• Community and Neighborhood Networks: Neighborhood-based organizations and community centers are key referral points, often participating in city-level partnership tables with domestic violence programs.

Key Differences in Operational Emphasis

• Scale and Complexity: Philadelphia’s coordination emphasizes navigating large, complex city systems; Pittsburgh’s coordination more often balances city functions with multi-county and rural interfaces.
• Regional Planning: Southwestern Pennsylvania regularly uses multi-county planning frameworks; Southeastern Pennsylvania relies more heavily on county/city-specific planning with some regional overlays.
• Partner Mix: Pittsburgh-region collaborations frequently involve health systems and multi-county funders; Philadelphia collaborations often focus on municipal departments, court systems, and a large nonprofit ecosystem.

Collaboration Models in Pennsylvania

Domestic violence organizations and allied agencies in Pennsylvania commonly use a range of collaboration models tailored to county governance, funder requirements, and regional planning processes.

1. County-Centric Coordination Teams

In this model, a county-level body coordinates domestic violence-related activities and protocols across systems.

• Core Components:
  • Regular convenings of domestic violence agencies, law enforcement, courts, probation, child welfare, and housing partners.
  • Shared agendas focused on case coordination processes, policy alignment, and cross-training priorities.
  • Agreed protocols for referrals, information exchange, and feedback loops.
• Use Cases in Pennsylvania:
  • Counties formalizing high-risk response teams or lethality assessment implementation.
  • Human services boards integrating domestic violence considerations into broader county plans.

2. Regional Multi-County Consortia

Regional consortia are especially relevant in and around Pittsburgh and in other parts of the state where programs span multiple counties.

• Characteristics:
  • Shared training calendars and protocols across several counties.
  • Joint funding proposals that cover a defined region rather than a single county.
  • Standardized referral agreements among agencies serving overlapping catchment areas.
• Advantages:
  • Reduced duplication of specialized services that cannot be sustained in every county.
  • Stronger negotiating position with regional funders, health systems, and statewide initiatives.

3. Urban Systems Integration (Philadelphia Model)

In Philadelphia, collaboration frequently centers on systems integration at the city level.

• Key Elements:
  • Formal MOUs or contracts with city departments (e.g., homelessness, behavioral health, public health, reentry services).
  • Embedded advocates or liaisons in courts, hospitals, and municipal programs.
  • Use of shared city data systems for referrals and outcomes tracking, with attention to privacy and role clarity.
• Coordination Priorities:
  • Streamlining access points and reducing system navigation complexity.
  • Aligning domestic violence program policies with citywide standards on confidentiality, data use, and language access.

4. Thematic or Population-Specific Partnerships

Across the state, agencies engage in partnerships focused on specific populations or themes, which may cross county lines.

• Examples:
  • Immigrant and refugee–focused networks coordinating with domestic violence providers in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
  • Campus and community collaborations with universities and colleges, particularly in major metro areas.
  • Behavioral health and substance use disorder partnerships that integrate screening and referral into treatment settings.
• Operational Considerations:
  • Defined referral criteria and processes for specialized partners.
  • Shared training materials and protocols suitable for use across multiple counties and systems.

5. Funding-Linked Collaboration Models

Collaborations are often structured in response to state, federal, or private funding requirements.

• Common Structures:
  • Lead agency models in which one organization manages a grant and subcontracts to county or regional partners.
  • Consortium applications with multi-agency governance groups overseeing implementation.
  • Performance-based agreements that require shared metrics and coordinated reporting among partners.
• Implementation Needs:
  • Standardized data definitions and shared indicator sets.
  • Clear internal processes for documenting contributions, outcomes, and cost allocations across agencies.

Operational Considerations for Pennsylvania Partnerships

When designing or updating collaboration structures in Pennsylvania, agencies often review the following areas:

• Alignment of service boundaries with county and regional planning areas, including courts and human services.
• MOUs that clearly describe roles, referral thresholds, response timelines, and data-sharing parameters.
• Mechanisms for cross-county service coordination when agencies cover multiple jurisdictions.
• Joint training plans that accommodate both urban and rural partners, including virtual options.
• Consistent documentation of county-specific procedures, especially where Pittsburgh and Philadelphia differ from smaller counties.

Recommended Articles

• Partnership Eligibility Criteria for Domestic Violence Collaborations
• Designing Effective Coalition Frameworks Across Jurisdictions
• Data Governance Models for Multi-Agency Domestic Violence Partnerships
• MOU Structures and Templates for Interagency Coordination
• Funding Collaboration Models for Regional Domestic Violence Networks