Evaluating the Effectiveness of Safe Start Collaboration

1. Evaluating the Effectivenessof Safe Start Collaboration Using Network Analysis George Cole/Dennis Orthner Jordan Institute for Families

2. Underlying Assumptions • All Safe Start sites are dedicating resources to fostering collaboration among the local organizations that serve children exposed to violence (CEV). • Local inter-organizational collaboration at the operational (practical) level is the exception rather than the norm.

3. Why is Collaboration Rare? • Helping organizations are neither mandated nor provided with incentives (funding) to work together to accomplish common goals. • Instead, • public organizations function as independent proprietors of programs that are constrained by narrow streams of state and federal funding; • private organizations typically compete with one another for limited resources. • All are busy. • All protect their turf.

4. Why is That a Problem? • Organizations don’t systematically share information about services or clients: • clients not informed about the range of services available to them • clients “get lost” or “fall through the cracks” between services • service effectiveness suffers in the absence of crucial information • Organizations don’t plan together: • gaps in the availability of services • gaps and overlaps in use of resources

5. Does Collaboration Work? Research has found that organizations that successfully collaborate experience an increase in • numbers of new clients identified and referrals; • funding and resource exchange; • joint assessment and service coordination; • jointly sponsored training; • interagency communication; • speed between referral and intake; • client access to services.

6. How Will Chatham County Safe Start Evaluate the Effectiveness of its Collaborative Efforts? 1. Background 2. Methods 3. Measures

7. Background 1. County Characteristics 2. CEV Characteristics 3. Current State of the CEV System 4. Proposed CEV System

8. Chatham County Characteristics • Geographically large (707 square miles) • Rural (47,000 residents; < 75 per square mile) • Largest community is Siler City (7,000 residents) • Primarily a traditional agricultural economy • 3 major labor intensive industries located in Siler City • Overall, 13% of children < 5 live in poverty; 30% in Siler City • Overall, 17 % African-American, 10% Latino; 50% Latino in Siler City

9. CEV Characteristics:Targets and Witnesses • O-8 year olds exposed to violence in two ways: • as the targets (objects) of violence; • as witnesses to violence. • Most of the violence that 0-8 year olds are exposed to happens in their own homes: • about 30 per year substantiated for physical abuse; • about 400 per year witness a violent domestic incident that results in a police call.

10. CEV Characteristics:Witness Incidents • 69% of incidents involve physical violence • 22% of physically violent incidents involve use or display of a weapon • 87% of incidents occur in residence • 52% male on female; 14% male on male; 14% female on female • 38% white; 40% African-American; 18% Latino

11. Current State of the CEV System • The current “CEV system” consists primarily of those organizations that serve the physically abused child and his/her family. • Organizations that serve the child witness do so because the child is part of a family that is receiving services. These services are not tailored to the the needs of the child witness. • No organization serves a child because he/she witnessed violence, unless the violent incident endangered the child in a manner consistent with a legal finding of neglect, and the child is a client of CPS.

12. Proposed CEV System

13. Methods 1. Annual Survey 2. Quantitative Data - System Performance 3. Network Data - Collaboration

14. Annual Survey • Telephone interview • Respondents are organizational key informants (line practitioners where possible) • Snowball sampling, starting with Safe Start programs and most influential existing CEV organizations/programs

15. Quantitative Data – System Performance • 12 questions rating the performance of the of the service system • Areas of performance: (see handout) • Point and longitudinal analyses - item and scale mean

16. Network Data - Collaboration • Dyadic data regarding organization’s working relationships (“What other organizations do you work with in serving CEV?”) • Characteristics of the relationship • referral/client information/training/planning/etc. • frequency of contact • productivity • if structured by protocol • Point and longitudinal statistical analyses of dyadic data (degree; density; centrality; betweeness; reciprocity) • Point and longitudinal graphic analyses of dyadic data

17. Why use Network Analysis to Evaluate Collaboration? Quantifies it and shows us what it “looks like:” • who are the actors • where are the actors • who is working with whom • who is not working with whom • who is influential (who are the “gatekeepers” and “stars”) • where are the “micro-networks” • where are the protocols and where are they most likely to be working

18. A Look at The Current CEV System Network Graphs (the fun stuff)

19. Complete Network

20. Either Provides “Violence” Services

21. Both Provide “Violence” Services

22. Both Provide – Protocol Cited