1. 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

2. 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)

3. ECDC MISSION A 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

4. 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…

5. STRATEGIES/ACTION GROUPS Awareness & Access Professional Development Policies & Systems Data & Impact

6. POSSIBLE FRAMEWORKS Strengthening Families NYS Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems

7. 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

8. 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

9. METHODOLOGY Sarah and ECDC input  Selecting impact areas to explore  Identifying programs and collaborators to include in network analysis  Determining criteria for measuring involvement and collaboration  Collecting data through survey  Analyzing responses via Social Network Analysis using UCINET

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. MEASURING COLLABORATION Networking 1 Cooperation 2 Coordination 3 Coalition 4 Collaboration 5 -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 decision making -Members belong to one system -Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust -Consensus is reached on all decisions Source: 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.

14. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION Survey was open from March 23 to April 25 90% response rate

15. FINDINGS

16. NETWORK OF COLLABORATION Density = 0.799

17. FREQUENCIES OF RATINGS

18. LEVEL 1 - NETWORKING

19. LEVEL 2 - COOPERATION

20. LEVEL 3 - COORDINATION

21. LEVEL 4 - COALITION

22. LEVEL 5 - COLLABORATION

23. CENTRALITY – COLLABORATION NETWORK

24. CENTRALITY – IMPACT AREAS

25. CENTRALITY – EDUCATION NETWORK

26. CENTRALITY - FAMILY CAPACITY BUILDING NETWORK

27. CENTRALITY - MENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

28. CENTRALITY - PHYSICAL HEALTH NETWORK

29. CENTRALITY - CHILD WELFARE NETWORK

30. CENTRALITY - TARGETED SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMS NETWORK

31. 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

32. 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?