state

Washington Domestic Violence Coordination Framework

DV agency partnership, collaboration, and integration guidelines for Washington State.

washingtoncoordination

REGIONAL COORDINATION

Washington State Coordination Overview

Statewide Context and System Features

Washington’s domestic violence response infrastructure includes state-level coalitions, regional task forces, tribal governments, county-based human services, and independent nonprofit providers. Coordinated work benefits from recognizing the state’s geographic, demographic, and jurisdictional diversity, including significant differences between the Seattle metro area, mid-sized cities, and rural or frontier counties.

This page outlines operational considerations for cross-agency coordination within Washington, with emphasis on Seattle metro complexities, rural service arrangements, and shared eligibility criteria frameworks that can be used across programs.

Seattle Metro Complexities

The Seattle metropolitan area (including King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties and adjacent communities) presents coordination challenges related to scale, overlapping initiatives, and multi-jurisdictional governance.

Urban System Characteristics

High service density: Multiple agencies provide similar or overlapping services (legal advocacy, housing navigation, culturally-specific supports), requiring clear referral protocols and shared definitions to reduce duplication.
Cross-county flows: Survivors and persons causing harm frequently move between King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties, affecting eligibility determinations, case management continuity, and data-sharing agreements.
Complex funding streams: Local levies, city funds (e.g., Seattle, Tacoma), county funds, state contracts, and federal grants coexist, each with distinct reporting and eligibility requirements.
Specialized courts and systems: Protection order courts, therapeutic courts, and coordinated entry systems (for housing and homelessness) may each use different intake tools and definitions.

Coordination Priorities in the Seattle Metro

Regional intake alignment: Develop cross-agency templates for core intake fields (demographics, risk factors, legal system involvement, housing status) that can be mapped to each funder’s requirements.
Referral standards: Create written referral agreements clarifying when clients are transferred, co-served, or remain with the originating agency, especially between city-funded and county-funded programs.
System navigation roles: Define responsibilities for system navigators and housing advocates across coordinated entry, legal aid, and DV-specific services to avoid parallel case management.
Transportation and access: Include transit access, language access, and ADA considerations in any regional service planning, given disparities between Seattle, South King County, and surrounding cities.
Tribal and urban Native coordination: Ensure formal consultation pathways and data-sharing protocols with tribal governments and urban Native-serving organizations where service areas overlap.

Examples of Metro Collaboration Models

Multi-county DV coordination table: Regular meetings of King, Snohomish, and Pierce county leads, major city funders, and key providers to review capacity, shared metrics, and system gaps.
Shared eligibility matrices: A joint matrix documenting which agencies can serve whom (e.g., immigration status, gender, relationship to harm-doer, housing status, jurisdiction), updated quarterly and integrated into staff training.
Centralized legal referral hub: One designated entity to triage legal referrals (protection orders, family law, immigration, housing) and allocate cases across multiple firms and nonprofits based on capacity and conflict checks.

Rural and Frontier Service Considerations

Outside the major metros (Seattle-Tacoma-Everett, Spokane, Vancouver, and the I-5 corridor), Washington includes rural and frontier counties with limited providers and large geographic coverage areas. Coordination in these regions often depends on flexible models and strong cross-sector relationships.

Common Rural Challenges

Limited provider presence: Some counties may have only one DV-specific organization, part-time advocates, or services provided from adjacent counties.
Transportation barriers: Long distances, limited public transit, and seasonal weather conditions constrain access to in-person services and court appearances.
Confidentiality in small communities: High visibility in small towns complicates office location decisions, in-person outreach, and privacy practices.
Limited housing stock: Very few emergency units or transitional housing units, with reliance on motels or out-of-county shelter placements.

Service Delivery Models for Rural Washington

Hub-and-spoke networks: A central agency in a regional hub (e.g., Yakima, Wenatchee, Walla Walla) coordinating satellite service points, mobile advocacy, and scheduled court accompaniment days in smaller towns.
Cross-county MOUs: Neighboring counties sharing advocates, shelter capacity, and after-hours response through formal memoranda of understanding that specify reimbursement, on-call coverage, and supervision structures.
Co-location strategies: Placing advocates within multi-service centers (public health, community resource centers, tribal community centers) to maximize contact and reduce travel burden.
Technology-supported access: Structured use of phone and secure video for intakes, legal consultations, and partner meetings, supported by clear protocols for documentation and data security.

Working with Tribal Nations and Jurisdictions

Washington includes multiple sovereign tribal nations with distinct courts, law enforcement, and service systems. Multi-agency coordination benefits from:

Respecting tribal sovereignty and self-determination in program design and decision-making.
Establishing written protocols for cross-referrals, after-hours contact, and information sharing between tribal and non-tribal agencies.
Clarifying jurisdictional issues (tribal, state, federal) for law enforcement, protection orders, and custody decisions at the planning stage, not case-by-case only.

Joint planning between rural county agencies and tribal governments is more effective when initiated as standing coordination work (e.g., annual planning meetings) rather than only in response to specific incidents or cases.

Eligibility Frameworks in Washington

Eligibility requirements for Washington-based programs vary by funding source, mission, and service type. While each agency maintains its own policies, cross-agency alignment on core eligibility concepts improves coordination and reduces administrative burden.

Core Eligibility Dimensions

Multi-agency partners in Washington commonly structure eligibility frameworks around the following dimensions:

Geographic scope: County of residence, location of the incident, or court jurisdiction (e.g., King County, Eastern Washington regional catchment, tribal lands).
Relationship criteria: Intimate partner or family/household member under Washington statutes, versus broader definitions that may include dating partners, former partners, or co-parents.
Legal system involvement: Whether there is an active case (criminal, family law, protection order) or system-agnostic access regardless of court status.
Population focus: Programs may prioritize specific groups, such as LGBTQ+ communities, immigrant and refugee populations, people with disabilities, tribal members, or youth and young adults.
Funding restrictions: Grant-specific requirements around income thresholds, disability status, homelessness, veteran status, or crime victim designation.

Developing Shared Eligibility Tools

Eligibility crosswalks: A shared spreadsheet or matrix that maps each participating agency’s eligibility criteria and any funder-specific requirements, updated at agreed intervals (e.g., semi-annually).
Standard eligibility questions: A common set of baseline screening questions that all partners can use, with agency-specific add-ons as needed.
Decision trees: Flowcharts that help staff determine whether to keep, refer, or co-serve clients, particularly across county lines or when multiple programs appear suitable.
Exception protocols: Documented processes for making exceptions (e.g., out-of-county placements when local capacity is exhausted), including notification and cost-sharing arrangements.

Alignment with Washington-Specific Systems

Eligibility is often influenced by Washington’s broader human services infrastructure:

Coordinated entry systems: For housing and homelessness, agencies may need to align DV-related eligibility with local coordinated entry policies while maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections.
State benefits and protections: Programs may need to coordinate with systems administering public benefits, crime victim compensation, and related services, ensuring that eligibility processes do not conflict with state requirements.
Local levy and city funding criteria: Seattle, King County, and other local jurisdictions may define target populations differently; regional partners benefit from jointly tracking these definitions.

Additional coordination resources, including examples of cross-jurisdictional eligibility tools and interagency agreements, are available through the broader ecosystem hosted at DV.Support.

Cross-Agency Governance and Planning in Washington

Long-term coordination within Washington is strengthened by formal governance and planning structures that include representation from metro, rural, and tribal partners.

Examples of Governance Structures

Regional steering committees: Multi-county groups that set shared priorities, approve joint protocols, and oversee regional initiatives (e.g., data-sharing pilots, specialized housing programs).
Standing workgroups: Focused groups on topics such as legal system collaboration, housing and shelter coordination, offender intervention program alignment, or language access.
Multi-year regional plans: Documents that identify service gaps, capacity targets, and implementation timelines for both metro and rural regions, used to guide funding proposals and system changes.

Operational Elements for Washington-Specific MOUs

Service areas and jurisdictions: Clear county or tribal boundaries, plus any cross-boundary service agreements (e.g., Seattle clients placed in neighboring counties).
Priority populations: Explicit reference to shared eligibility priorities (e.g., high-lethality risk, unsheltered households, specific language needs).
Data-sharing parameters: What information may be shared, by whom, for what purposes, and under what authorization processes, consistent with applicable privacy requirements.
Cost-sharing and reimbursement: How agencies will handle out-of-county placements, transportation costs, or shared staff positions.
Review cycles: Timelines and processes for annual or biennial review to reflect changes in Washington law, funding, or regional capacity.