Coordinated Responses
Our Partners
Related Tools

Examples of national indicators on coordination

Last edited: March 07, 2019

This content is available in


National-level indicators specifically on multi-sectoral coordination include:

  • A national network for prevention of and response to violence against women exists to ensure multi-sectoral coordination among all social actors (Bloom, 2008).
  • A national action plan on violence against women that includes coordination as a goal (Coy et al., 2008).
  • Preparation and signing of Memoranda of Understanding (cooperation agreements) among different sectors/institutions.
  • Establishment of national, state/provincial and local coordination bodies.
  • Sub-indicator on the proportion of local multi-agency coordinating bodies working to an integrated violence against women agenda (Kelly, 2008).


Example of national indicators of coordination: Evaluation of coordinating councils in producing systems change in the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence (US)

In the US, Allen and colleagues (2010) developed an evaluation methodology to test the impact of Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCCs) in Illinois on the criminal justice system response to intimate partner violence.  Rather than measure the overall effects of the coordinated response, the aim was to examine the effectiveness of this type of coordination structure as a vehicle for bringing about change. 

The evaluation had a multi-method design, incorporating:

  • key informant interviews with council coordinators (n=20);
  • ethnographic data collection in three case study sites including:
    • key informant interviews with council members (n=40)
    • key informant interviews/focus groups with domestic violence survivors in two case study communities (n=26)
    • 11 formal observations of council meetings;
  • surveys from council members across all 21 FVCCs (n=681; response rate = 46% and ranged from 22% to 91%);
  • criminal justice data (arrest and order of protection) and human service records (referral rates to domestic violence programs) housed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA); and
  • local FVCC annual reports from 2000-2006 for all 21 areas.

The study objectives were to examine:

  • the nature of state and local council organisational structures, goals, and activities;
  • councils’ capacity for collaboration and inclusivity;
  • the extent to which councils have an impact on immediate outcomes, including perceived shifts in stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships, councils’ ability to affect institutionalised change, or changes in the policies and practices of organisations;
  • the extent to which councils are related to wider outcomes, including inter-agency connections and systems change markers (order of protection, arrest, and referral rates to domestic violence programs);
  • which factors and processes enable councils to achieve systems change (e.g. having solid leadership, an inclusive climate, a shared mission, broad and representative membership), and local community context (e.g. community support; active, engaged leaders); and
  • victim/survivor perspectives regarding what is working well in the community response to IPV and areas for improvement.

The evaluation found that councils generated stronger relationships and enhanced knowledge among stakeholders, and some were well positioned to facilitate institutionalised change in the systems response to intimate partner violence.

Source: Allen, N., Javdani, S., Anderson, C., Rana, S., Newman, D., Todd, N., Lehrner, A., Walden, A., Larsen, S. and Davis, S. (2010) Coordinating the Criminal Justice Response to Intimate Partner Violence: The Effectiveness of Councils in Producing Systems Change, available in English.