child abuse fatalities community response team ccsr assessment report fy 2012.pdf · this survey...
TRANSCRIPT
1
OFFICE LOCATION | 358 N. Main, Wichita KS 67202 PHONE | 316.978.3843 TOLL FREE IN KS | 800.445.0116 FAX | 316.978.3593
Strengthening Organizations, Strengthening Communities
Child Abuse Fatalities Community Response Team
Short-term Outcomes and Social Network
Analysis Report June 2012
Prepared by Tara Gregory, Ph.D.
and Bailey Blair, BA
Table of Contents
Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Process Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2 Section I: Anonymous Short-Term Outcomes Survey .................................................................. 3
Section II: Social Network Analysis Survey ................................................................................... 10 Conclusions/Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 19
2
Key Findings
Twenty-eight members completed the anonymous section and 30 responded to the social
network analysis part. The response rate of just over one-half of those invited to participate
in the survey (N=54) is fairly typical given that most (n=40) were sent a link to an online
version (versus those who completed a pen and paper version during various meetings). The
typical response rate for online surveys is between 25 and 30%.
Responses to questions regarding a sense of empowerment and trust were largely positive,
with no less than 78% noting agreement or strong agreement with positive statements about
the group.
The large majority of respondents reported being at least somewhat knowledgeable about
specific protective factors, child abuse/neglect data, prevention efforts, and evidence-based
practices. No members indicated that they are not knowledgeable at all about these topics.
The social network analysis of connections, communication, collaboration, and group
leadership, although somewhat limited due to missing data from those who didn’t complete
the survey, indicates:
o There appear to be few members who are “outsiders” or have a minimal number of
connections within the group;
o There appears to be diverse connections between the sectors represented among
respondents;
o The average number of communications between members was a little less than
three times in the past 90 days;
o The average number of collaborations among members was less than once in the
past 90 days;
o Various analyses regarding connections and communicational influence largely
supported respondents’ choices regarding which members are “primary leaders”;
o The most frequently mentioned “primary leaders” included Vicky Roper, Cyndi
Chapman, Amy Delamaide (facilitator from CCSR), BJ Gore, Kerri Meyer, Rhonda
O’Neill, Tina Peck, Sarah Robinson, and Chief Tom Stolz; and
o A few members who were not identified as “primary leaders” had a large number of
connections and a high level of influence through communication.
Process Overview
Wichita State University Center for Community Support and Research (CCSR) was contracted by
the Child Abuse Fatalities Community Response Team (CAFCRT) to conduct an evaluation of the
achievement of targeted short-term outcomes and coalition cohesion. This report contains results
from a survey administered to active group members.
3
This survey was administered in two parts: one was an anonymous, forced choice survey regarding
various aspects related to CAFCRT’s identified short-term outcomes (sense of trust and
empowerment in the group, communication and networking, and knowledge of child abuse/neglect
data, data sources, protective factors and evidence-based practices). The second part of the survey
gathered information for the purpose of a social network analysis including which members knew
each other, how often they communicated and collaborated, and which members are considered
primary leaders of the group. Members who were asked to participate in the survey were selected
because they had been involved in CAFCRT for over six months and participated regularly in
meetings or activities of the group. Twenty-eight of the 55 invited members (51%) completed the
anonymous part with 30 (55% of the total invited group) completing the social network section.
(Note: The response was higher for the social network analysis because a second request to
complete this section was sent via e-mail due to the importance of having data from as many
members as possible to show complete networks.) Members had opportunities to complete pen and
paper surveys (which were also split into two parts) at one of several small committee meetings or at
a large meeting for general membership. For those who didn’t wish to complete the survey at that
time or who were not present at these meetings, a link to an online survey was provided. Twelve
members completed the survey online with 16 completing hard copies. As with the hard copies, the
social network questions were separated from the other anonymous section in the online version so
that answers could not be traced back to the respondent.
Section 1: Anonymous Short-Term Outcomes Survey
In the anonymous, forced-choice answer part of the survey, respondents were asked a number of
questions regarding the sense of trust and empowerment in the group and their knowledge of child
abuse/neglect data, data sources, protective factors and evidence-based practices. The aggregate
responses related to sense of trust and empowerment in the group are in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Results for questions related to sense of trust and empowerment (n=28)
Statement Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
There is an atmosphere of authentic mutual trust in our group.
0 1 (4%)
0 16 (57%)
11 (39%)
Everyone in our group has a clear sense of our vision.
0
2 (7%)
3 (11%)
20 (71%)
3 (11%)
I feel a sense of responsibility for the success of this group.
0 1 (4%)
5 (18%)
15 (53%)
7 (25%)
Others in the group feel a sense of responsibility for the success of this group.
0 0 2 (7%)
20 (71%)
6 (22%)
4
Members were also asked some additional questions that are tied specifically to a sense of
empowerment. The questions are based on general conceptions of empowerment as containing
elements of access to information, connection to others, personal self-esteem and confidence, and a
sense of impact. In general, the majority of members agreed or strongly agreed with statements
regarding increased sense of empowerment, with only two persons (8%) disagreeing or strongly
disagreeing on each question. See Table 2 for all results.
Table 2. Results of questions regarding members’ sense of empowerment as a result of participating
in CAFCRT (n=28)
Statement Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree
Nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
I feel more confident in addressing the issue of child abuse/neglect.
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
5
(18%)
11
(39%)
10
(36%)
I feel more connected to others who are addressing the issue of child abuse/neglect.
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
14
(50%)
11
(38%)
I have gained valuable information to help me address the issue of child abuse/neglect.
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
3
(11%)
14
(50%)
9
(32%)
I feel more empowered to do what I can to address child abuse/neglect.
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
2
(7%)
13
(46%)
11
(39%)
Note: Due to rounding, some rows do not add up to 100%.
In order to gather baseline information about member knowledge, which can then be compared in
subsequent years as a measure of the achievement of short-term outcomes for CAFCRT,
participants were first asked about how much exposure they have to factual information about
If I have a thought/idea different than others, I can safely contribute my thought during the discussion.
0 1 (4%)
1 (4%)
19 (67%)
7 (25%)
There is an atmosphere of “what can we learn from this” when things do not go as expected.
0 0 3 (11%)
16 (57%)
9 (32%)
Conflict is handled well in this group. 0 0 5 (18%)
17 (61%)
6 (21%)
Communication in our organization is effective.
0 0 3 (11%)
21 (75%)
4 (14%)
We do a good job of recognizing individual contributions.
0 0 1 (4%)
18 (64%)
9 (32%)
We do a good job of recognizing team contributions.
0 0 2 (7%)
17 (61%)
9 (32%)
5
protective factors for child abuse and neglect prevention as well as where they get such information.
The majority of respondents (57%, n=28) reported that they are exposed to such information daily
with another 39% reporting occasional exposure. The majority (79%) report receiving their
information through their jobs with another 18% indicating that CAFCRT is the primary source of
information. See Figures 3 and 4 below for details.
Figure 1. Level of exposure to factual information regarding protective factors
Figure 2. Primary source of information about protective factors
57% 16 11 39.%
1
4%
How much exposure do you have to factual information about protective factors for child abuse and neglect prevention?
I’m exposed to such information almost daily
I’m exposed to such information occasionally
I’m rarely exposed to such information
I’m never exposed to such information
22
79%
5
18%
1
4%
From where do you primarily receive information about protective factors?
Through my job
Through CAFCRT
Somewhere else (pleasespecify)
I don’t receive information on protective factors
6
Participants were then asked about their knowledge of protective factors, data, and issues related to
child abuse and neglect. Most members reported being at least somewhat, if not very,
knowledgeable about protective factors, data, prevention efforts in Kansas, and evidence-based
practices. In general, the majority of respondents indicated being at least moderately knowledgeable
about all of the identified topics. No members reported not being knowledgeable at all about any of
the identified topics/issues. This is somewhat expected given that respondents also reported at least
occasional exposure to information related to child abuse/ neglect and protective factors (see Figure
3). See Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 for more details. It should be noted that respondents
were given specific instructions to provide answers regarding the topics as protective factors, not
about the issue itself (i.e., level of knowledge regarding parent and child development as a protective
factor, not knowledge of parent and child development as a concept in itself).
Figure 3. Level of knowledge of parent resilience as a protective factor
12
43%
11
39%
5
18%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Participant Knowledge of Parent Resilience as a Protective Factor
ExtremelyKnowledgeable
SomewhatKnowledgeable
Not very Knowledgeable
7
Figure 4. Level of knowledge of social connections as a protective factor
Figure 5. Level of knowledge of parenting and child development as a protective factor
14
50% 12
43%
2
7% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Participant Knowledge of Social Connections as a Protective Factor
ExtremelyKnowledgeable
SomewhatKnowledgeable
Not very Knowledgeable
17
60%
10
36%
1 4% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Participant Knowledge of Parenting and Child Development as a Protective Factor
ExtremelyKnowledgeable
SomewhatKnowledgeable
Not very Knowledgeable
8
Figure 6. Level of knowledge of concrete support in times of need as a protective factor
Figure 7. Level of knowledge of nurturing and attachment as a protective factor
13
46% 12
43%
3
11%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Participant Knowledge of Concrete Support in Times of Need as a Protective Factor
ExtremelyKnowledgeable
SomewhatKnowledgeable
Not very Knowledgeable
13
60%
10
36%
1
4% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Participant Knowledge of Nurturing and Attachment as a Protective Factor
ExtremelyKnowledgeable
SomewhatKnowledgeable
Not very Knowledgeable
9
Figure 8. Level of knowledge of current child abuse statistics
Figure 9. Level of knowledge of prevention efforts in Kansas
9
32%
61%
17
2
7%
How knowledgeable are you about current child abuse statistics?
Very knowledgeable – I can quote accurate stats without trouble
Somewhat knowledgeable – I know general trends
Not very knowledgeable – I’d have to do some research
Not at all knowledgeable – I don’t have any idea about accurate data or trends
13
47%
32%
9
4
14%
2
7%
How knowledgeable are you about efforts to prevent child abuse/neglect in Kansas?
I‘m very knowledgeable about a wide range of prevention efforts
I’m very knowledgeable about one or two prevention efforts
I’m somewhat knowledgeable about a wide range of prevention efforts
I’m somewhat knowledgeable about one or two prevention efforts
I’m not knowledgeable about any prevention efforts
10
Figure 10. Level of knowledge of evidence-based practices for prevention
Section 2: Social Network Analysis
Thirty-one respondents completed this section of the survey. One response couldn’t be used
because the person didn’t give his/her full name. Therefore the data couldn’t be analyzed
accurately. As a result, all social network analyses were done based on responses from 30 members.
Because social network analysis depends on respondents providing information about other
members in the group, the fact that just over half of the invited members (n=30, 56%) responded to
this section is of moderate concern. Although it is unlikely that those who didn’t respond would
skew the results to a large extent, it is possible that they may have an abundance of connections
amongst themselves and not with those who did respond. If that were the case, analyses related to
who is most highly connected, possesses high levels of influence through communication, and who
is considered to be a primary leader might be altered. However, because those who responded
reported a wide range of connections, with all members being mentioned at least once in the various
categories, it appears that the gist of the results would still be supported given a higher response rate.
Additionally, although it is not always the case that two people within a dyad report reciprocal
relationships (i.e., both person 1 and 2 report knowing each other), it is conceivable that a
discrepancy is a matter of interpretation of the question (e.g., what constitutes a relationship or
“knowing”?) and not related to the lack of any connection. Therefore, it is likely that if non-
responders completed the survey, the current respondents who already have the most connections
would simply show more reciprocal ties (“edges” in social network language) and those with fewer
9
32%
42%
12
5
18%
2
7%
How knowledgeable are you about evidence-based practices for preventing child abuse/neglect?
I‘m very knowledgeable about quite a few evidence-based practices
I’m very knowledgeable about one or two evidence-based practices
I’m somewhat knowledgeable about quite a few evidence-based practices
I’m somewhat knowledgeable about one or two evidence-based practices
I’m not knowledgeable about any evidence-based practices
11
would be recipients of an increased number of edges. Some analyses noted below have been
completed using data for all persons on the list of active members and some include only those who
responded to the survey. Differences between the two data sets are noted where applicable.
In the social network section of the survey, respondents were first asked to give their own name and
the sector they represent. They were then asked to respond, for each active member:
1. Whether they knew him/her (at least as an acquaintance)?
2. How many times they have communicated with him/her in the last 90 days?
3. On how many CAFCRT-related projects they have collaborated with him/her in the last 90
days?
4. Who do you consider to be “primary leaders” in CAFCRT?
The results for each of these questions along with a summary of all social network analyses are
discussed below.
Who Knows Who?
On average, respondents (n=30) knew 21 of the 53 other persons on the list (40%). The maximum
number reported was 40 with the minimum being 1. When controlling for those who didn’t
respond and analyzing only data for respondents (i.e., only data from respondents about respondents),
they reported knowing an average of nine (9.27) other respondents (31%). Among respondents only
(n=30), the maximum number of times a member was mentioned was 19 with the minimum being
once.
An important measure of the connections in a group such as CAFCRT is “density.” Density is a
measure of the proportion of actual ties relative to possible ties. When density was computed for all
members, including those who responded and those who didn’t, density was approximately 22%
(640 ties amongst the 54 members as reported by 30 members) but would presumably be higher
with more respondents. Amongst respondents only, density is 32% (278 ties amongst the 30). This
means that amongst all of the possible ties that could be present between members, approximately
one third currently exist. Although high density is not always best (because it can mean that the
group is too homogenous), moving toward a density of at least 50% is usually seen as positive.
A social network map was created to provide a visual of the web of connections amongst members.
Maps were created using data about all members and with data from respondents about respondents
only. The maps are presented in Figures 1 and 2 below. Due to confidentiality, no names are
attached. However, each “node” (the term for “person”) is represented by a blue circle for
respondents, a blue square for non-respondents, or green triangle for CCSR facilitators.
12
Figure 11. Social network map of connections among all active members (n=54) based on 30
respondents (double lines indicate reciprocity, i.e., both persons listed each other)
13
Figure 12. Social network map of connections among respondents only (double lines indicate
reciprocity)
Connections between respondents were also mapped according to the sectors they represent. To
protect confidentiality of those in sectors with fewer than two persons, the sectors were made more
general (e.g., a response of “SRS” would have been placed into the “social service” sector).
Although there may actually be overlap among the sectors (e.g., some who identified themselves as
being in the child welfare sector work for an organization that might be considered social service),
the sectors included in this analysis are:
Child welfare (n=11)
14
Social Service (n=6)
Early Childhood (n=6)
Health (n=5)
Government (=2)
Although the majority of respondents are from the child welfare sector, the map (Figure 13)
indicates a fairly diverse distribution of connections. Thus, it appears that sectors are not overly
isolated within the group members.
Figure 13. Social network map of connections between 30 respondents by sector (double lines
indicate reciprocity; distances between individuals/sectors are stylistic and not related to data)
15
In addition to mapping the specific connections between individual members and sectors, a measure
known as “in-degree” was also figured for each person. In-degree is a statistical measure of how
much prominence individual members have based on the how many others indicate knowing or
being connected to them. In short, the more times an individual is identified by a respondent as
being known to him/her, the greater that person’s in-degree and the greater the likelihood that
he/she can assert influence and garner resources. For CAFCRT, the in-degree scores were stratified
into five levels: highest, high, mid, low, minimal. Relatively few members received minimal in-
degree scores (n=8, 15%) with another 16 (30%) in the “low” category. Figure 14 below shows the
number of CAFCRT members (n=54) at the various levels of in-degree scores.
Figure 14. Number of members by level of connectedness (i.e., in-degree)
It should be noted that those with low or minimal in-degree scores are not necessarily disconnected or
lacking in influence. They are simply not known by a large number of the respondents, which indicates
fewer connections and opportunities to influence decisions or access resources. This doesn’t necessarily
indicate a serious problem as it may be reflective of the common group dynamic where some
members are less active or vocal. However, this indicates that CAFCRT may want to put some
effort into enhancing connections and relationships between members.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Highest High Mid Low Minimal
3
10
17 16
8
Nu
mb
er
of
Me
mb
ers
Level of Connectedness/In-Degree
Highest
High
Mid
Low
Minimal
16
Communication Among Members
Respondents to the question regarding how often they have communicated with other members
during the last 90 days were given categories of 0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10+ times. Because of the
difficulty for respondents in recalling exact numbers, these categories were provided. For the
purpose of analysis, the midpoint of these categories (i.e., 2, 5, 8) were used along with 0 and 10 for
their respective categories. Although this is inexact, it provides an estimation of the level of
communication between members.
Respondents reported an average of 2.93 communications across all members, with approximately
70% of all responses falling into the categories of zero communications (33.43%) and 1-3 (37.37%).
When data for communication among respondents only was isolated, the average number was 3.67,
with approximately 63% of responses in the categories of zero (28.21%) and one (38.53%)
communication. This does not necessarily indicate that respondents are more communicative than
those who didn’t complete the survey. It simply reflects the fact that without the data from non-
respondents, the number of reports of reciprocal communication (i.e., both person 1 and person 2
report communicating with each other, thus doubling the count of communications across the
group) are fewer. See Table 3 for details.
Table 3. Percent of responses regarding number of communications with other members by
category and all members or respondents only
Number of communications
in last 90 days 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10+
Percent of
responses for
ALL MEMBERS
33.43 37.37 13.28 4.8 12.11
Percent of
responses for
RESPONDENTS
ONLY
28.21 38.53 14.36 4.28 14.61
Social network analysis allows for measurement of influence through communication based on the
flow of information of individuals compared against others in the group. This measure is called
“determination.” The results of the CAFCRT survey indicate that the determination measure for
most individuals supports other data in that those with the highest level of dominance through
communication are also among those who know and are known by the most other members.
Interestingly, three of those with high levels of influence through communication were not among
those who were identified as primary leaders (more information about results regarding primary
leaders is included below). In particular, two members who are not among the “best known” nor
were selected as primary leaders were found to have a fairly high level of influence through
communication. This could be because they communicate with others who are known by many and
may be considered primary leaders. This is an example of the value of coalition when a less
connected person can still have influence through strategic associations.
17
Collaboration Among Members
Participants were asked on how many CAFCRT-related projects they had collaborated with each
person in the last 90 days. The average number of collaborations of respondents across all members
was just under one (.72) with over 53% and 30% reporting zero or one collaboration respectively
(83% total). When including only data regarding those who responded to this section of the survey,
the average number of collaborations increased slightly to .83, with a slightly lower number of zero
collaborations (46.93%) versus one, two, three or four or more combined.
Table 4. Percent of responses regarding number of collaborations with other members by category
and all members or respondents only
Number of collaborations
0 1 2 3 4
Percent of
responses for
ALL MEMBERS
53.94 30.83 6.79 6.42 2.02
Percent of
responses for
RESPONDENTS
ONLY
46.93 35.92 7.44 7.12 2.59
The time frame of 90 days may have been too brief to accurately capture the typical level of
collaboration within this group. However, the results regarding which individuals had the greatest
number of collaborations were generally consistent with other measures, with more collaboration
among those who know and are known by the most and have higher levels of communication.
Primary Leaders of CAFCRT
As a final question, participants were asked to identify the “primary leaders” of CAFCRT. They
could choose as many people as they wished. No definition of leadership was provided so that
respondents could use their own judgment as to whom they perceive as “primary leaders.” Based
on selections from 22 respondents who completed this question, 40 out of the 54 members on the
list (74%) were chosen at least once as a primary leader with Vicky Roper being mentioned most
frequently by 18 respondents (82%). Others who were mentioned by at least 25% of the
respondents were: Cyndi Chapman, BJ Gore, Kerri Meyer, Rhonda O’Neill, Tina Peck, Sarah
Robinson and Chief Tom Stolz. Amy Delamaide, one of the CCSR facilitators for CAFCRT, was
also mentioned by at least 25% of the respondents.
18
Summary of Social Network Findings
Figure 15 below provides a visual model of 1) the level of connection of all members of CAFCRT
(based on data from 30 respondents), with the circles at the center representing those who have the
most connections and those at the edges having the fewest, 2) those who have influence through
communication (identified by a “c” in the circle), and 3) those who are identified as primary leaders
(those with an “L” in the circle). Each circle corresponds to an actual member. The green circles at
the top represent the CCSR facilitators, Amy Delamaide and Steve Williams.
Figure 15. Diagram of who has the most connections, highest influence through communication,
and is identified as primary leader by at least 25% of respondents
The graphic above illustrates that, based on responses from just over half of the group, there are
relatively few members (n=8) with minimal connections to others (the small circles on the outside of
the diagram) and nearly ¼ of the group (n=13) that are highly connected (the three large circles and
10 slightly smaller circles near the center). Interestingly, those who are considered “primary leaders”
are somewhat scattered among those who are highly connected and those with a lower number of
connections. This is likely due to the fact that some members, while not connected or known by the
19
majority, are very visible and connected to others in the same sector. Additionally, those who have
high influence through communication (denoted by a “c” in the circle) are also scattered across the
various levels of connections. This is likely a reflection of the concept of “it’s who you know that
matters” because, even though some of these persons may not be connected to a large number,
they’re connected to those who are highly connected. Although it’s difficult to draw conclusions
from this finding, this may be a positive indication that the influence within this group doesn’t reside
solely among those who are most connected or considered leaders.
It should be noted that the social network analysis was performed with responses from just over half
of the active group members. While the findings above provide evidence of a group with diffuse
leadership (i.e., the leadership of the group doesn’t appear to depend on just one or two individuals),
it is not known what effect, if any, data from those who didn’t respond would have on this picture.
As mentioned previously, it is likely that additional data would simply strengthen the evidence of a
high number of connections for those who already show this and increase those for members
currently having a low number. However, it is important to view the findings from the social
network analysis as an approximation of the connectedness of the group and not a complete picture.
Conclusions/Recommendation
In order to bring additional insight to the interpretation of the findings noted above, the CAFCRT
Leadership Team met to review them and provide input on the conclusions below. Overall, they
felt that the findings provided a fairly positive view of the group and supported impressions they
held regarding the knowledge and expertise within the group, diffusion of leadership, inter-
connectedness, and overall satisfaction with the processes and products of CAFCRT. Some specific
insights are:
Based on findings from the questions regarding the knowledge of members, CAFCRT
Leadership Team members suggest providing more opportunities to learn about child abuse
data and trends, parent resilience, and evidence-based practices.
Based on findings related to familiarity with protective factors, they felt it may be useful for
CAFCRT to make the protective factor survey more available to members to increase
knowledge.
The finding that members get most of their information on relevant issues from their jobs
indicates that 1) information regarding child abuse and neglect is being disseminated widely
in the sectors represented in CAFCRT and 2) members come into CAFCRT with a good
knowledge base.
While there are few members who are minimally connected, the CAFCRT leadership team
would like to work toward a higher density of connections to enhance communication and
collaboration.
20
CAFCRT leadership team members were encouraged to see that there appear to be multiple
connections among the various sectors represented (child welfare, social service, early
childhood, health and government). The social network analysis findings helped relieve
concerns that there are strong ties between members of certain sectors but not across them.
CAFCRT leadership team members were also encouraged to see that a wide variety of
persons are considered to be primary leaders. Various sectors are well represented among
leaders as are community volunteers (versus just those whose jobs revolve around child
abuse and neglect).
Recommendations
Given CAFCRT’s history and cohesiveness of mission, it is not surprising to see that relatively few
members are minimally knowledgeable or connected. CAFCRT represents a very meaningful and
visible issue that draws passionate and committed people. Many of the results of this survey support
the impression that members are knowledgeable and connected to others who share their passion.
In order to leverage these strengths, CCSR suggests the following based on the findings above:
Provide continuing reinforcement of the meaning of the various protective factors,
particularly parent resilience, to increase understanding of these foundational elements.
Provide regular updates on child abuse/neglect trends and data. This will be especially
helpful in building the knowledge and connection of those who may not work in this field.
Provide information/updates on evidence-based practices as these become more available.
Because density is somewhat low for a coalition-type organization, provide purposeful
opportunities for members from diverse organizations, fields, or sectors to interact and/or
collaborate. This is likely already happening to some extent but possibly not for the purpose
of building cohesion and connection.
Continue to cultivate leaders among those who aren’t currently on the Leadership Team. A
number of persons are highly connected, or are connected to others who are highly
connected, but are not currently identified by many as primary leaders.
Both the anonymous outcomes survey and social network analysis can be repeated in coming years
to measure the impact of implementation of these recommendations or other interventions to
increase group connectedness and effectiveness. The findings in this report provide a starting point
for continuous enhancement of this vital and committed group.
Wichita State University's Center for Community Support & Research (CCSR) is dedicated to creating and sustaining
positive change within organizations and communities across the state of Kansas. CCSR’s skilled teams work directly with community
coalitions, non-profit health and human services organizations, and self-help groups from an interdisciplinary perspective. Serving Kansas for
over 25 years, CCSR staff are Kansans who truly care about Kansas communities.
Want to know more about this report? Contact Tara Gregory, Ph.D. at [email protected].