MAPPING COMMUNITY LINKAGES, STRENGTHENING FAMILIES

EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATION

“Every child in Tompkins County will have optimal developmental outcomes”Research conducted by Sarah Cantatore, CIPA ’16, and Nancy Potter, Cornell Cooperative Extension, spring 2015 – facilitated by Laurie Miller and Carrie Young, CIPA

THE PROJECT

Measure the strength of collaboration among community agencies in Tompkins County and the Early Childhood Development Collaboration

Collect and analyze data on collaboration and reach across impact areas

Illustrate web of supports for children and families via Social Network Analysis (SNA)

ECDC MISSIONA collaborative of partners who:

Recognize the vital importance of the first five years of life in the development of children

Champion the needs of children by taking individual and collective action

Maximize resources and fill gaps to assure children have what they need to grow and flourish and those who care for them have information and access to the level of support they need when they need it

ECDC PARTNERS

2-1-1 Tompkins Cortland Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga

Child Development Council Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County Department of Social Services

Tompkins County Health Department

Family and Children’s Service of

Ithaca Family Reading Partnership Franziska Racker Centers TC Action Tompkins County Public Library Ithaca Family Fun Little Voices Music and Motion Mama’s Comfort Camp, and more…

STRATEGIES/ACTION GROUPS

Awareness & Access

Professional Development

Policies & Systems

Data & Impact

POSSIBLE FRAMEWORKS

Strengthening FamiliesNYS Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Show relationships between entities

Can be scaled to show strength of relationship

Used to show two kinds of relationships: Level of Collaboration: Organization to Organization

Reach: Organization to Impact Area

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Used UCINET social network analysis software

Illustrate system/supports and where gaps/opportunities may exist

Two important calculations: Density – overall connectedness of the network (%)

Centrality – measure of a node’s (organization or person) quantity and strength of connections – which are “most” connected within the network

METHODOLOGY

Sarah and ECDC input

Selecting impact areas to exploreIdentifying programs and collaborators to include in network analysis

Determining criteria for measuring involvement and collaboration

Collecting data through surveyAnalyzing responses via Social Network Analysis using UCINET

ECDC INPUT

March ECDC Meeting

Explained project goals and social network analysis

Group brainstormed and decided on broad impact areas to assess

6 Impact Areas

Physical Health

Mental Health

Child Welfare

Education and Care

Targeted Special Needs Programs

Family Capacity Building

ORGANIZATIONS/PROGRAMS

2-1-1 Tompkins Cortland

Building Bridges

Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga

Cayuga Medical Center

Child Development Council Family Services/TP3 Child Care Network

Cornell Cooperative Extension Nutrition Education Parenting

Department of Social Services Children’s Services

Family & Children’s Service of Ithaca Zero to Five

Family Reading Partnership Baby Reads

Franziska Racker Centers Collaborative Solutions

Network

Health Planning Council

Ithaca City School District

Law Guardian’s Office/Citizens Concerned for Children

Little Voices Music & Motion

Mama’s Comfort Camp

Newfield Central School District

Parents/Families

Tompkins Community Action Head Start/Early Head

Start

Tompkins County Health Department Children with Special

Care Needs MOMS WIC

Tompkins County Public Library

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

Survey was developed in Qualtrics, an online survey tool

Contact person from each organization/program was asked to self-rate:

Level of collaboration with all other organizations/programs

Work in the six broad impact areas

MEASURING COLLABORATION

Networking1

Cooperation2

Coordination3

Coalition4

Collaboration5

-Aware of organization

-Loosely defined roles

-Little communication-All decisions

are made independently

-Provide information to

each other-Somewhat

defined roles-Formal

communication-All decisions

are made independently

-Share information

and resources-Defined roles

-Frequent communication-Some shared

decision making

-Share ideas-Share

resources-Frequent and

prioritized communication-All members have a vote in

decisionmaking

-Members belong to one

system-Frequent

communication is

characterized by mutual trust-Consensus is reached on all

decisionsSource: Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W. & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383-392.

SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION Survey was open from March 23 to April 25

90% response rate

FINDINGS

NETWORK OF COLLABORATION

Density = 0.799

FREQUENCIES OF RATINGS

Zero One Two Three Four Five0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Collaboration Rating

Fre

qu

en

cy

LEVEL 1 - NETWORKING

LEVEL 2 - COOPERATION

LEVEL 3 - COORDINATION

LEVEL 4 - COALITION

LEVEL 5 - COLLABORATION

CENTRALITY – COLLABORATION NETWORK

2-1-

1 To

mpk

ins Co

rtland

AFC:

CCC

Build

ing

Brid

ges

Cath

olic C

harit

ies

CCE:

all ot

hers

CCE:

Nut

rition

Educ

ation

CCE:

Par

entin

g

CDC:

all ot

hers

CDC:

Chi

ld C

are

Networ

k

CDC:

TP3

CMC

DSS: a

ll ot

hers

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

FCSI

: all ot

hers

FCSI

: Zer

o to

Five

FRP:

all ot

hers

FRP:

Bab

y Re

ads

Health

Plann

ing

Coun

cil

Health

care

Pro

vide

rsIC

SD

Little V

oice

s

Mam

a's Co

mfo

rt C

amp

NCSD

Pare

nts/Fa

milie

s

Privat

e Bu

sines

ses

Rack

er: a

ll ot

hers

Rack

er: C

ollabo

rativ

e So

lutio

ns N

etwor

k

TCAc

t: all o

ther

s

TCAc

t: Hea

d St

art

TCHD: a

ll ot

hers

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial C

are

Needs

TCHD: M

OMS

TCHD: W

ICTC

PL

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY – IMPACT AREAS

CENTRALITY – EDUCATION NETWORK

AFC:

CCC

Build

ing

Brid

ges

Cath

olic C

harit

ies

CCE:

Nut

rition

Educ

ation

CCE:

Par

entin

g

CDC:

all ot

hers

CDC:

Chi

ld C

are

Networ

k

CDC:

TP3

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

FRP:

all ot

hers

FRP:

Bab

y Re

ads

ICSD

Little V

oice

s

Mam

a's Co

mfo

rt C

amp

NCSD

Pare

nts/Fa

milie

s

Privat

e Bu

sines

ses

Rack

er: a

ll ot

hers

Rack

er: C

ollabo

rativ

e So

lutio

ns N

etwor

k

TCAc

t: all o

ther

s

TCAc

t: Hea

d St

art

TCHD: a

ll ot

hers

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial C

are

Needs

TCHD: M

OMS

TCHD: W

ICTC

PL

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Organzation/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY - FAMILY CAPACITY BUILDING NETWORK

Build

ing

Brid

ges

CCE:

all ot

hers

CCE:

Nut

rition

Educ

ation

CCE:

Par

entin

g

CDC:

all ot

hers

CDC:

TP3

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

FCSI

: all ot

hers

FCSI

: Zer

o to

Five

FRP:

all ot

hers

FRP:

Bab

y Re

ads

Little V

oice

s

Mam

a's Co

mfo

rt C

amp

NCSD

Pare

nts/Fa

milie

s

Rack

er: a

ll ot

hers

Rack

er: C

ollabo

rativ

e So

lutio

ns N

etwor

k

TCAc

t: all o

ther

s

TCAc

t: Hea

d St

art

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial C

are

Needs

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY - MENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

AFC:C

CC

Build

ing

Bridge

s

Catho

lic C

harit

ies

CDC: all ot

hers

CDC: Chi

ld C

are

Networ

k

CDC: TP3

CMC

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

FCSI

: all ot

hers

FCSI

: Zer

o to

Fiv

e

Mam

a's Com

fort C

amp

NCSD

Pare

nts/

Fam

ilies

Racke

r: a

ll ot

hers

Racke

r: C

olla

bora

tive

Solu

tions

Net

wor

k

TCHD: a

ll ot

hers

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial

Car

e Nee

ds

TCHD: M

OMS

TCHD: W

IC

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY - PHYSICAL HEALTH NETWORK

Build

ing

Brid

ges

CCE:

Nut

rition

Educ

ation

CDC:

Chi

ld C

are

Networ

k

CDC:

TP3

CMC

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

Health

Plann

ing

Coun

cil

Health

care

Pro

vide

rs

NCSD

Pare

nts/Fa

milie

s

Privat

e Bu

sines

ses

Rack

er: a

ll ot

hers

Rack

er: C

ollabo

rativ

e So

lutio

ns N

etwor

k

TCHD: a

ll ot

hers

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial C

are

Needs

TCHD: M

OMS

TCHD: W

IC

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY - CHILD WELFARE NETWORK

AFC:C

CC

Build

ing

Bridge

s

Catho

lic C

harit

ies

CCE: P

aren

ting

CDC: all

othe

rs

CDC: Chi

ld C

are

Networ

kCMC

DSS: a

ll ot

hers

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvice

s

FCSI

: all

othe

rs

FCSI

: Zer

o to

Fiv

e

Mama'

s Com

fort

Camp

Pare

nts/Fa

mili

es

Racke

r: al

l oth

ers

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

CENTRALITY -TARGETED SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMS NETWORK

Build

ing

Brid

ges

Cath

olic C

harit

ies

CDC:

all ot

hers

DSS: C

hild

ren'

s Se

rvices

ICSD

Pare

nts/Fa

milie

s

Rack

er: a

ll ot

hers

Rack

er: C

ollabo

rativ

e So

lutio

ns N

etwor

k

TCAc

t: all o

ther

s

TCAc

t: Hea

d St

art

TCHD: a

ll ot

hers

TCHD: C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial C

are

Needs

TCHD: M

OMS

TCHD: W

IC

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Organization/Program

Centr

ality

FINDINGS

Shows the overall network is well-connected, with almost half of the connections at “Cooperation” or above – however, 55% reported at the level of “Networking” or no interaction at all

Each of the six impact areas has good support from local organizations

Identifies well-connected programs: Department of Social Services: Children’s Services and Cornell Cooperative Extension: Parenting

NEXT STEPS AND QUESTIONS

Is this useful?

Should we take a closer look – can SNA be used to: measure the scale of work in each impact area?

show a clear picture of potential gaps in services?

explore how organizations are networking; cooperating; coordinating, building coalitions; collaborating?

examine whether networks help organizations share resources? plan and work together for greater impact? provide more or better services? more effectively/seamlessly meet needs?