Pathfinders for Hope · Operation Iron Gate Vallejo Pilot
How Can Domestic Violence Agencies Make Safe, Consent-Based Referrals?
Safe consent-based referrals begin with the survivor's goals and the rules that apply to the organizations involved. A partnership agreement is not blanket permission to share case information. Plan a useful next connection without exposing more information than the survivor authorizes or the applicable law permits.
Safe Consent-Based Referrals Require Qualified Guidance
This page is an organizational planning guide, not legal advice, a release form, or a crisis service. Confidentiality obligations differ across programs, funding streams, and jurisdictions. Have a qualified local advisor review the agency's procedures and any proposed data-sharing arrangement.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence's Safety Net Project explains that the federal confidentiality provisions it discusses call for informed, written, reasonably time-limited releases. It also explains why a general partnership agreement does not replace a survivor's specific authorization. Read its confidentiality releases FAQ for context, limits, and questions to take to your own advisor.
Start with a minimum-information decision
Safe consent-based referrals should begin with a clear purpose. What information, if any, is needed for the person to decide whether they want a connection? What information is needed for the receiving organization to describe its general process? Those are different questions. A team can often ask about general availability, eligibility, or access requirements without identifying a survivor or sending case details.
Before sharing information, identify the proposed recipient, the reason for the disclosure, the channel, the specific information to be shared, and the person who is authorized to make the decision. Explain the known benefits and risks in language the survivor can understand. The survivor should have room to ask questions, decline the connection, or choose a different option. Do not treat a referral workflow as a blanket authorization to circulate information.
Keep the record limited to what the organization is permitted to retain. A planning note might show that a survivor requested information about a resource, that a safe communication preference was discussed, and that a next step was identified. It should not become a duplicate case file or a broad directory of sensitive personal details. Qualified program, privacy, and legal staff should determine the actual record, consent, and disclosure requirements for the setting.
Safe consent-based referrals also require teams to distinguish a request for information from a request to contact another organization. A person may want an advocate to explain an option without making any disclosure. A person may want a connection but not want a name, location, phone number, or other details shared until a later conversation. Record the choice that was made, not an assumption about what would be convenient for the workflow.
When the proposed connection involves urgent risk, follow the organization established emergency, safety, and mandated-reporting procedures. This guide does not create an emergency-response process or replace professional judgment. The goal is to support a safer, more informed handoff within the rules that apply to the organization and the survivor.
Plan the connection with the survivor
Start with the intended benefit: which organization does the person want to contact, and for what purpose? Consider whether staff can gather general service information without disclosing identifying details. Avoid making participation in a shared referral platform a default condition of a conversation about options.
Safety Net's release-of-information overview emphasizes survivor choice, the risks and benefits of sharing, and limited authorization. Before a proposed handoff, use agency-approved procedures to clarify the recipient, specific information, purpose, duration, and the person's choices about continuing or withdrawing permission.
Set a clear follow-up boundary before the handoff
A referral is not complete because a message was sent. For safe consent-based referrals, teams should agree on what, if anything, will be confirmed after the survivor chooses a connection. The safest answer may be limited. A receiving organization might confirm only that a general resource conversation occurred, that the person chose not to continue, or that no update can be shared. Do not design a status process that pressures a survivor to disclose more than they want to disclose.
Decide who may follow up, by which method, and during what period. The plan should take account of safe contact preferences, whether voicemail is safe, whether text messages are safe, whether a shared device may be used, and whether a contact from an unfamiliar organization could create risk. A phone number, email address, or physical location should not be treated as a neutral routing detail. It can be safety-sensitive information.
Use a simple stop rule. If the survivor withdraws consent, asks that contact stop, cannot be reached through the agreed safe route, or chooses another option, the team should follow the applicable policy and document only what it is authorized to document. Do not continue sending the referral through additional channels merely because the original handoff is unresolved. A lack of response is not permission for more disclosure.
Partner teams should also avoid turning a shared referral log into a place for case narratives. The useful handoff facts are usually narrow: the requested connection, the agreed channel, the authorized contact role, the current operational status, the next owner, and the date to review it. The receiving organization should control its own records. The sending organization should control its own records. Any shared layer should contain only the minimum information needed to coordinate the handoff.
Test the process with a fictional scenario before using it with real people. Ask each participating role what it would do when consent is limited, when the contact route changes, when a person declines, when the service is unavailable, and when no reply is received. If the answers differ, revise the workflow before relying on the report or the referral status. Safe consent-based referrals depend on shared understanding, not just a shared form.
Make communication part of the safety discussion
A working phone number does not establish that it is a safe contact route. Discuss the proposed channel and follow the survivor's communication instructions through the agency's approved process. Shared devices, message previews, account access, and unexpected notifications can change the risk of a routine update.
Safety Net's digital written consent guidance addresses technology choices and the need for clear instructions about how and when information is shared. Do not assume a digital checkbox by itself establishes valid, informed permission for every disclosure.
Document the decision without turning it into surveillance
Safe consent-based referrals need a record of the decision, but the record should remain proportionate. A team may need to note the agreed purpose, the safe contact preference, the receiving role, the next review point, and whether a follow-up is authorized. It does not need a narrative of the survivor’s experience or a second copy of confidential records.
Use the record to support accountability for the handoff. It should show what the survivor chose, what the organization was authorized to do, and what action remains. If consent changes, the process should change with it. Safe consent-based referrals remain survivor-directed at every stage, including follow-up and closure.
Review the process with qualified staff and a fictional scenario. If a team cannot state what information is permitted, who may contact whom, or what happens when consent is withdrawn, the workflow needs revision before it is used.
Questions for a partner working session
Use fictional examples, not real survivor details, to test the proposed process:
- Can a staff member request general availability without identifying a person?
- Who is authorized to decide whether a requested status update may be shared?
- What does the system send automatically, and to which recipients?
- Can a contact instruction be changed promptly when circumstances change?
- What happens if someone sends information to the wrong partner?
- Who reviews the workflow before real information is entered?
Document unresolved questions and assign them to qualified program, privacy, or legal staff. Do not activate a shared process first and treat confidentiality as a later feature. These questions are proposed implementation checks, not a compliance certification.
Example: a useful connection without a case broadcast
Hypothetical planning example: a survivor wants information about a potential resource. An advocate first checks the resource's general referral process without identifying the person. If a further exchange is wanted, the advocate follows the agency's approved permission and safety process before sharing anything. No case summary is circulated to the whole partner network.
Keep the pilot's role clear
The Operation Iron Gate Vallejo Pilot is being developed; this page does not establish a safe data-sharing arrangement for any particular agency or imply that a platform satisfies its obligations. Public intake is not open. For immediate local resource navigation, 211 can help identify available community contacts; individual service availability must be checked.
See partnership planning and our resource scope and sources. Do not send survivor details, case records, or confidential referral information through this website's general contact channels.
Frequently asked question
Does joining a partner network authorize sharing survivor information?
No. Organizations must determine the specific authorization and legal basis for each proposed disclosure under the rules that apply to them. A network agreement or platform account is not blanket permission to share survivor information.
The general standard behind these steps, including consent as part of the record, is described in referral accountability.
Operation Iron Gate Vallejo Pilot
Pathfinders for Hope is developing the pilot with organizational partners. Public intake is not open, and no service or placement is guaranteed. Discuss the pilot with Pathfinders for Hope or browse the resource hub.
Prepared by Pathfinders for Hope. Updated September 5, 2026. Resource scope and sources.