Public governance resource

Referral Governance for Confirmed Handoffs

A referral system needs clear authority, limited information sharing, named responsibility, and a required response when a handoff stalls. This brief defines those operating rules for organizations considering participation in the Vallejo pilot.

Operation Iron Gate is designed to work alongside the Homeless Management Information System and local Coordinated Entry System. It does not replace either one. The HMIS remains the system of record, while the referral workflow focuses on what happens between organizations after a referral is sent.

Pilot status: Prelaunch. This brief defines proposed operating standards. It does not claim pilot outcomes.

Purpose

What This Brief Governs

This brief governs the handoff between a sending organization and a receiving organization. It sets a common standard for referral ownership, status, response, escalation, privacy, and review.

It does not change who controls eligibility, enrollment, placement, benefits, clinical decisions, housing decisions, or records required by law. Each participating organization keeps authority over its own services, policies, staff access, and decisions.

The goal is simple: a person should not disappear between a referral and a result.

Decision rights

Who Owns Each Decision

Sending organization

Confirms consent, identifies the requested service, selects the destination, shares only necessary information, and remains responsible until the receiving side acknowledges the handoff.

Receiving organization

Reviews the referral, confirms receipt, records whether it can act, states a reason when it cannot proceed and the reason can be shared, and names the next action.

Referral coordinator

Monitors unresolved handoffs, follows the agreed escalation path, keeps the current owner visible, and prevents silence from being recorded as success.

Participating organization administrator

Controls staff access, confirms local procedures, reviews exceptions, and makes sure the referral process fits the organization’s legal and operational responsibilities.

Governance group

Approves shared status definitions, review schedules, escalation rules, public metric definitions, and changes that affect more than one participating organization.

Shared language

Referral Status Definitions

Sent: The sending organization transmitted the referral to a named destination.

Acknowledged: The receiving organization confirmed that it received the referral.

Contact pending: The referral was acknowledged, but contact with the person has not yet been confirmed.

Confirmed handoff: The receiving organization accepted responsibility for the next agreed step.

Documented denial: The receiving organization could not proceed and recorded the applicable reason when it could be shared.

Capacity block: The service could not proceed because no appropriate opening was available.

Active escalation: The referral remains unresolved and a named person or role owns the next action.

Closed: The outcome is known, the record is complete, and responsibility for the next step is clear.

Privacy

Use the Minimum Necessary Information

A referral should include only the information needed for the receiving organization to understand and act on that specific handoff. A full client record should not be copied into a separate referral workflow.

Consent must be understandable, connected to a clear purpose, and recorded through the approved process. Access should be limited to staff with a direct role. Each organization remains responsible for following applicable privacy law, professional rules, grant conditions, and local policy.

The public dashboard must contain aggregate counts and rates only. It must not display names, case identifiers, contact details, or information that could reasonably identify a person.

No dead ends

What Happens When a Referral Stalls

1. Keep the referral open. A sent message is not a completed handoff.

2. Surface the delay. The workflow identifies that the agreed response point has passed.

3. Name the owner. A person or role is assigned to the next action.

4. Record the barrier. The record identifies whether the problem involves contact, eligibility, information, capacity, service area, or another documented limitation.

5. Move to the next action. The referral is redirected, reviewed, or escalated according to the approved process.

This follows the No-Dead-End referral model: confirmed receipt, documented denial, or active escalation. Silent disappearance is not an acceptable final state.

System boundary

HMIS and CES Retain Their Roles

HMIS is the Homeless Management Information System. It remains the authoritative record for client demographics, program enrollment, exits, required reporting, and other functions established by the Continuum of Care.

CES is the Coordinated Entry System. It continues to manage the community’s established access, assessment, prioritization, and referral processes.

Operation Iron Gate is not a Coordinated Entry System. It is designed to add a narrow confirmation layer after a referral is made. It records whether the receiving side acknowledged the referral and what next action was confirmed. Review the complete HMIS alignment guide before considering participation.

Public reporting

Metrics to Publish After Launch

The Vallejo pilot has not launched and has no results to report. Once verified activity exists, public reporting may include the following measures:

Arrival confirmation rate: The share of eligible referrals with a receiving-side confirmation that the person reached the agreed next step.

Time to first contact: The elapsed time between referral creation and the first documented contact attempt or confirmed contact.

Documented denial rate: The share of referrals that could not proceed and include a recorded reason when that reason could be shared.

Capacity block rate: The share of referrals that could not proceed because the requested service had no appropriate opening.

Unresolved referral rate: The share of referrals that remain open beyond the agreed review point.

Definitions, reporting periods, inclusion rules, and corrections should be published with every result. Current status is available on the Vallejo Pilot Results Dashboard.

Oversight

How Partners Review the Process

Partners should review a small, consistent set of facts at an agreed interval: unresolved referrals, response delays, denial reasons, capacity blocks, access concerns, privacy incidents, and recurring routing failures.

The review should identify process problems without turning a person’s situation into a blame exercise. Decisions that change shared definitions, escalation rules, public measures, or access boundaries should be written down and communicated to every participating organization.

Each review should end with a named action, responsible role, and review date. If no change is approved, the existing rule remains in force.

Adoption checklist