Rhode Island Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

Inter-agency DV coordination guidelines for Rhode Island shelters, agencies, and organizations.

Rhode Island Coordination Overview

Context: Small-State Coordination Advantages

Rhode Island’s scale and geography create conditions for comparatively rapid alignment across domestic violence programs, legal partners, health systems, housing providers, and statewide coalitions. Travel distances are limited, service catchment areas frequently overlap, and many key actors already participate in shared councils or task forces. This context supports:

• Faster consensus-building on shared protocols and tools
• Feasible statewide adoption of standardized forms and data elements
• Cross-county coordination without complex regional subdivisions
• Centralized convening through a limited set of backbone entities

Coordination work in Rhode Island generally benefits from state-level policy access, streamlined stakeholder mapping, and the ability to pilot and scale initiatives statewide within short timeframes.

Core Partner Types in Rhode Island

Multi-agency coordination in Rhode Island generally involves:

• Domestic violence service organizations and shelters
• Legal services providers and court-based programs
• Law enforcement agencies and specialized units
• Prosecutors and victim-witness assistance programs
• Behavioral health and substance use providers
• Hospitals, community health centers, and medical-legal partnerships
• Housing authorities, homelessness providers, and rapid rehousing programs
• Child welfare and family service agencies
• Campus-based programs and Title IX offices
• Community-based and culturally specific organizations

Backbone or convening roles may be played by statewide coalitions, state agencies, and regional task forces that cover multiple municipalities within compact service territories.

Eligibility for Participation in Statewide Coordination

Eligibility parameters can be defined flexibly so that a broad range of Rhode Island partners can participate while maintaining clear expectations. Common criteria include:

Organizational Eligibility Criteria

• Mission and scope: Organization delivers, funds, or coordinates services that intersect with domestic violence, related legal processes, or stabilization supports (housing, health, income, or family services).
• Legal and governance status: Entity is a recognized public agency, tribal body, nonprofit, educational institution, health system, or other formally constituted organization with transparent governance.
• Service footprint: Programs are available to Rhode Island residents and/or operate facilities, offices, or regular satellite services in the state.
• Policy alignment: Organizational policies are compatible with statewide standards on non-discrimination, confidentiality, and ethical practice, and can be updated as statewide frameworks evolve.
• Capacity for collaboration: Ability to designate staff to participate in meetings, joint trainings, protocol development, and data-related work.

Program- or Project-Level Eligibility

For specific initiatives (for example, a shared referral system or a coordinated training series), Rhode Island partners can define additional criteria, such as:

• Population focus: Programs serving identified priority groups (e.g., families interfacing with multiple systems, high-utilizers of emergency services).
• Readiness stage: Programs that have minimum documentation practices, supervisory structures, or IT systems needed to adopt shared procedures.
• Data infrastructure: Capacity to capture basic standardized data fields and participate in shared reporting cycles.
• Geographic coverage: Inclusion of agencies that, together, cover all Rhode Island counties and key municipalities without major gaps.

Participation Expectations

Eligibility is typically paired with expectations described in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or participation agreement. Common elements include:

• Attendance at regularly scheduled coordination meetings or workgroups
• Designation of a primary liaison and backup contact
• Commitment to jointly develop and test shared tools and workflows
• Agreement to review and update local policies to align with consensus frameworks
• Engagement in continuous quality improvement and feedback processes

Coordination Structures Suited to Rhode Island

Given Rhode Island’s size, statewide coordination can often be structured around a limited number of formal groups with clearly differentiated roles.

Statewide Steering Group

A steering group can provide unified direction for domestic violence-related coordination activities across Rhode Island. Functions may include:

• Setting shared priorities and annual workplans
• Aligning with state policy and funding opportunities
• Approving shared tools, definitions, and minimum standards
• Designating leads for specific initiatives (e.g., data, training, legal coordination)

Operational Workgroups

Workgroups can focus on discrete functional areas and include subject-matter experts from interested agencies:

• Service coordination: Referral pathways, warm handoffs, and cross-program communication protocols.
• Justice system coordination: Court processes, law enforcement interfaces, and prosecution collaboration.
• Health and behavioral health: Screening workflows, documentation practices, and integration with care coordination teams.
• Housing and stabilization: Linkages with homelessness response systems and housing authorities.
• Data and evaluation: Data standards, shared dashboards, and evaluation frameworks.

Local or Sub-Regional Tables

In a compact state, local tables may align with:

• Key municipal clusters (e.g., Providence area, South County, East Bay)
• Shared court jurisdictions or police regions
• Hospital catchment zones or community health center networks

These tables can adapt statewide frameworks to local conditions and test new processes at a manageable scale before broader adoption.

MOU and Governance Considerations

Rhode Island coordination efforts benefit from lightweight but clear governance tools that reflect the state’s scale and existing relationships.

Elements of a Coordinated MOU

• Purpose and scope of the coordination initiative
• Definitions of key terms and shared concepts
• Eligibility and participation tiers for agencies
• Roles of the steering group, workgroups, and local tables
• Meeting frequency, quorum norms, and decision-making approaches
• Basic data-sharing principles and references to separate data agreements
• Communication expectations (internal and external)
• Review and amendment cycles for the MOU

Decision-Making Models

Because the network of Rhode Island partners is relatively compact, decision-making models that emphasize consensus can be practical, with defined fallback processes such as:

• Consensus-seeking with documented rationale
• Supermajority voting for policy or protocol adoption
• Pilot-and-review approaches where full agreement is not yet reached

Data-Sharing Opportunities in Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s integrated service landscape and manageable number of major systems create opportunities for coordinated, standards-based data work. While specific legal and technical details should be managed through appropriate counsel and IT teams, multi-agency partners can collectively define operational frameworks.

Foundational Data Coordination Elements

• Shared data dictionary: Agreement on definitions for core fields (e.g., service episodes, referral types, closure reasons) to enable consistent reporting.
• Common identifiers: Use of cross-agency identifiers or matching approaches (where appropriate and permitted) to support case coordination and reduce duplication.
• Standard reporting cycles: Quarterly or semi-annual submissions of aggregated service data for statewide analysis.
• Data quality expectations: Minimum standards for completeness, timeliness, and error correction.

Types of Data-Sharing Arrangements

Rhode Island partners can consider multiple models, tailored to agency capacity and risk tolerance:

• Aggregate reporting hubs: Agencies submit de-identified, aggregate data to a central hub for statewide dashboards and trend analysis.
• Coordinated referral platforms: Shared systems that track referral volume, response times, and connection outcomes across organizations.
• Embedded liaison models: Staff embedded in partner agencies who can access and relay information under existing agreements and protocols.
• Federated data approaches: Agencies retain local data but use standardized queries or tools to generate comparable indicators for joint reporting.

Priority Use Cases for Shared Data

Typical early-stage use cases include:

• Mapping service utilization across Rhode Island to identify gaps and overlaps
• Monitoring referral patterns to ensure equitable access to specialized services
• Tracking timelines from initial contact to key milestones in service pathways
• Supporting grant reporting with standardized, statewide metrics
• Assessing impacts of new protocols or pilots across multiple agencies

Privacy, Confidentiality, and Risk Management (Operational View)

Operational planning for data-sharing in Rhode Island typically addresses:

• Segmentation of data (e.g., operational vs. evaluation datasets)
• Role-based access control and documented authorization processes
• Data minimization, ensuring only necessary data are shared for agreed purposes
• Standardized procedures for correcting inaccurate data in shared systems
• Incident response protocols for potential data issues or system disruptions
• Staff training requirements related to data handling and confidentiality

Legal and compliance details are generally developed in separate documents in coordination with agency leadership, counsel, and IT/security stakeholders.

Funding Collaboration and Small-State Leverage

Rhode Island’s coordination landscape can make joint funding strategies particularly efficient. Multi-agency proposals and braided funding models can:

• Demonstrate comprehensive statewide coverage with a relatively small partner set
• Align local initiatives with state and federal priorities more quickly
• Standardize budget categories and cost allocations across similar programs
• Support shared infrastructure such as data systems, training, and evaluation

Examples of Collaborative Funding Models

• Lead agency with formal subrecipients: One Rhode Island organization manages the prime award, with subawards to specialized partners.
• Consortium proposals: Multiple agencies appear as co-applicants, each responsible for specific roles defined in a shared implementation plan.
• Shared backbone support: A portion of funds allocated to a centralized coordination role (e.g., data hub, training coordinator, or project manager).
• Pooled flexible funds: Agencies contribute or allocate portions of flexible funding into a common pool used for cross-cutting needs (e.g., transportation support, interpretation, technology).

Implementation Roadmap for Rhode Island Partners

Rhode Island agencies can use a phased approach to build and strengthen coordination:

1. Mapping and inventory: Identify active partners, current collaborations, and existing MOUs or data agreements.
2. Governance setup: Confirm or establish a statewide steering group and initial workgroups with clear charters.
3. Eligibility and participation: Define eligibility criteria, participation tiers, and an onboarding process for new partners.
4. Shared tools: Develop core templates (referral forms, release forms, data dictionaries, reporting templates) for voluntary adoption.
5. Data pilots: Launch limited-scope data-sharing pilots focused on high-priority use cases and refine based on findings.
6. Scale and integrate: Expand successful practices statewide, update MOUs, and align new funding applications with the coordinated framework.

Additional coordination tools, sample frameworks, and cross-jurisdictional examples are available through the broader ecosystem hosted at DV.Support, which Rhode Island partners can reference when adapting models to local context.