Texas Domestic Violence Coordination Framework
Large-scale DV coordination, partnership readiness, and cross-county integration guidelines for organizations in Texas.
Texas Domestic Violence Coordination Overview
Purpose and Scope
This page outlines coordination considerations for domestic violence–related organizations operating in Texas, with emphasis on major metro ecosystems, rural–urban service gaps, and integration at scale across a large and diverse state.
The content is designed for coalitions, multi-agency task forces, social service providers, legal aid, health systems, and community-based partners engaged in statewide or regional planning.
Statewide Context and Governance
Texas operates within a decentralized landscape where local continuums of care, regional councils of governments, domestic violence coalitions, and large municipal systems play substantial roles in strategy and funding. State-level entities, major private funders, and healthcare systems often act as backbone partners for data, standards, and multi-region program models.
Coordinated planning typically benefits from:
- Clear delineation of statewide vs. regional vs. local functions
- Shared definitions and eligibility criteria for service categories
- Common reporting frameworks to support cross-region analysis
- Structured mechanisms to include both metro and rural perspectives
Major Metro Ecosystems
Each major metro area in Texas functions as a semi-independent ecosystem with distinct funders, governance bodies, and cross-agency collaborations. At the same time, there are overlapping stakeholders (e.g., state agencies, multi-region providers, health systems) that create opportunities for integration.
Houston Area Ecosystem
The Houston region is characterized by a high density of service providers, large health systems, and multi-jurisdictional coordination that spans Harris County and surrounding counties.
Common ecosystem features include:
- Formal or informal domestic violence coordinating councils or task forces
- Established relationships with major hospital systems and FQHC networks
- Integration with homelessness response systems and housing authorities
- Specialized legal aid, immigrant-focused, and language access partners
Operational coordination options:
- Develop common intake and referral protocols for high-volume partner agencies
- Align shelter, non-residential, and legal services on shared prioritization criteria
- Create metro-wide MOUs for data-sharing on de‑identified utilization and capacity
- Establish cross-county working groups for transportation, housing, and court access issues
Dallas–Fort Worth Area Ecosystem
The Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW) region spans multiple counties and municipalities, with complex commuting and court geographies and overlapping service catchment areas.
Common ecosystem features include:
- Multiple shelters and non-residential programs serving overlapping zip codes
- Diverse law enforcement and court jurisdictions, including specialized problem-solving courts in some areas
- Large-scale behavioral health providers and integrated care efforts
- Educational and employer partnerships that operate across county lines
Operational coordination options:
- Develop region-wide mapping of coverage by zip code, program type, and eligibility
- Use standing interagency meetings to manage cross-jurisdictional referral challenges
- Standardize minimum data elements across agencies to support regional dashboards
- Build shared protocols for handling cross-county cases (e.g., choice of courthouse, transport, translation services)
Austin–Central Texas Ecosystem
The Austin–Central Texas ecosystem combines an urban core with rapidly growing suburban and exurban communities. This creates demand for coordinated planning across Travis County and adjacent counties.
Common ecosystem features include:
- Strong involvement of local government in funding and convening
- Proximity to state-level policy and advocacy networks
- Academic and research partners supporting evaluation and data analysis
- Significant overlap between domestic violence, housing affordability, and homelessness planning
Operational coordination options include:
- Establishing metro–suburban working groups to align screening, referral, and follow-up practices
- Leveraging university partners for outcomes measurement and program evaluation
- Coordinating with regional transportation entities on access to services
- Developing joint training plans for law enforcement, courts, and social services across county lines
San Antonio–South Central Texas Ecosystem
The San Antonio region connects an urban center with surrounding rural and semi-rural communities, including cross-regional flows with South and West Texas.
Common ecosystem features include:
- Strong ties between domestic violence organizations and military-connected populations
- Integrated relationships with local faith-based and cultural organizations
- Partnerships with regional health systems and community clinics
- Established collaboration mechanisms with child welfare and family court systems
Operational coordination options:
- Formalize referral pathways for military-connected households through MOUs with military and veteran-serving agencies
- Standardize protocols for services that bridge urban San Antonio and outlying counties
- Develop shared communication practices for cross-county high‑risk cases (within policy and privacy parameters)
- Use regional summits to align priorities among urban, small-city, and rural providers
Rural–Urban Service Gaps
Texas includes extensive rural and frontier areas with limited service density and long travel distances. Coordination efforts often focus on bridging the structural and operational gaps between metro centers and rural communities.
Typical Gap Areas
- Physical access: Limited local agencies, limited transportation, long distances to shelters or specialized services.
- Service breadth: Fewer specialized services (e.g., legal advocacy, medical forensic services, language access, disability-specific supports).
- Workforce: Small staff complements, high turnover risk, and limited access to advanced training.
- Technology and infrastructure: Variable broadband, limited platforms for shared data or virtual services.
- Cross-jurisdictional issues: Cases that routinely span multiple counties, circuits, or law enforcement agencies.
Coordination Models for Rural–Urban Linkages
Agencies may consider layered models that connect local rural presence with metro-based resources, while maintaining local decision-making where appropriate.
- Hub-and-spoke models: Metro or sub-regional “hubs” provide specialized expertise, data infrastructure, training, and complex case consultation, while rural “spokes” maintain local relationships and direct services.
- Regional consortia: Clusters of rural counties jointly contract for services (e.g., legal, behavioral health, translation) that a single county could not sustain alone.
- Shared staff arrangements: Itinerant or rotating staff positions (e.g., legal advocates, navigators) funded by multiple agencies or counties with clear MOUs.
- Virtual coordination infrastructure: Use of secure platforms for case coordination meetings, training, and warm handoffs between rural and urban partners.
Operational Considerations for Closing Gaps
- Develop cross-county agreements that define service territories, eligibility, and handoff protocols.
- Map existing rural resources at county and sub-county levels to identify coverage gaps and duplication.
- Align rural-focused funding initiatives with metro-based resource centers for training and technical assistance.
- Review transportation, lodging, and scheduling arrangements for rural residents accessing metro-based services.
- Coordinate with regional councils of governments, public health departments, and school districts to extend reach.
Many statewide coordination efforts in Texas benefit from a clear inventory of metro and rural partner roles, documented through MOUs that specify geography, referral pathways, and cross-coverage responsibilities.
Integration at Scale Across Texas
Given the size and diversity of Texas, integration at scale tends to focus on shared frameworks rather than fully standardized operations. The goal is interoperability across ecosystems while maintaining local flexibility.
Statewide Integration Objectives
- Enable consistent, baseline service expectations across regions.
- Support multi-region providers in aligning reporting and data practices.
- Facilitate cross-region learning and technical assistance.
- Create predictable pathways for stakeholders (health systems, funders, courts) that operate statewide.
Core Components of Scalable Integration
- Shared definitions and taxonomies: Statewide agreement on key service categories, program types, and outcome domains.
- Minimum data sets: A common set of non-identifying data elements that agencies can report or aggregate for statewide analysis.
- Interoperable referral practices: Standardized referral fields and status categories across platforms, even where different technologies are used.
- Training and credentialing frameworks: Statewide training standards or curricula that can be adapted by regional partners.
- Coordinated funding strategies: Alignment between public and private funders on broad priorities, evaluation metrics, and geographic balance.
Multi-Region Partnership Structures
To operationalize integration at scale, organizations may join or form multi-region structures with clear governance and operational roles.
- Statewide coalitions or alliances: Convene policy working groups, host data and research initiatives, and coordinate training.
- Thematic collaboratives: Focus on specific topics such as legal aid, healthcare integration, housing, or technology and data.
- Backbone organizations: Entities designated to manage shared systems (e.g., data platforms, resource directories) and facilitate cross-region projects.
- Regional implementation teams: Local groups responsible for adapting statewide frameworks to metro or rural contexts and reporting implementation progress.
Data-Sharing and Reporting Alignment
Data-sharing efforts in Texas often need to accommodate variance in technology capacity, legal interpretations, and organizational policies while supporting consistent statewide insights.
- Develop tiered data-sharing models (e.g., summary-level, de-identified, limited data sets) that allow differentiated participation.
- Define standardized reporting cadences (e.g., quarterly, annual) for non-identifying utilization and outcome data.
- Use common templates for data use agreements and MOUs to minimize administrative burden.
- Create regional data stewards or coordinators who support local partners in meeting statewide reporting expectations.
- Leverage third-party or backbone organizations to host neutral, secure data aggregation environments.
Funding Collaboration at Scale
Funding alignment is a central mechanism for scaling integration across Texas.
- Establish joint funding tables where public agencies, private foundations, and large providers share geographic and programmatic priorities.
- Develop co-funded pilot projects that can be replicated across multiple regions with shared evaluation frameworks.
- Coordinate application timelines and reporting requirements where feasible to reduce administrative burden on smaller agencies.
- Encourage multi-region grant applications that include both metro and rural agencies with defined roles and shared metrics.
Partnership Planning Considerations for Texas Agencies
When planning or revising coordination structures in Texas, agencies may wish to:
- Assess existing participation in metro, regional, and statewide networks and identify gaps.
- Clarify organizational priorities (e.g., metro focus with rural linkages, rural focus with metro partnerships, statewide technical assistance role).
- Document current MOUs and data-sharing agreements and evaluate alignment with emerging statewide standards.
- Engage cross-sector partners (health, housing, justice, education, workforce) through structured, time-limited working groups.
- Utilize external technical assistance and resource hubs, such as the broader ecosystem hosted at DV.Support, to inform integration strategies.