Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BC Community Response Networks
2012-2019 CRN Evaluation and Benchmarks
A report on the results of the Ongoing Developmental Evaluation of the expansion of CRNs in British Columbia
May 2020
prepared by:
Emotus Operandi, Inc.
for:
BC Association of Community Response Networks
Any publication, presentation, or news release of these results should include acknowledgement of Emotus Operandi, Inc.
Executive Summary
context and approach● This is the summary report of a developmental evaluation as part of a multi-year effort to increase
the number of CRNs in British Columbia.● The survey focuses on five broad areas: community attitudes, CRN working styles, participation
levels, relationships and networks created, and impact seen as a result of the CRN. ● The first survey was conducted in 2012 to establish benchmarks for subsequent evaluations and
subsequent surveys were conducted each year since then. This report focuses on results of the 2019 evaluation.
findings● At of the end of the evaluation period, there were 80 signed CRNs serving 232 communities.● Almost half (45 percent) report that adult abuse is considered a problem in their community requiring
a community response. This percentage has been relatively consistent over the evaluation years.● Higher levels of engagement are correlated with reports of more effective responses and higher
levels of community coordination. ● Respondents were mostly likely to describe the working style of the CRN as cooperative, informal,
transparent, and fair. It was extremely uncommon for respondents to report the working style as formal, unequal, secretive or combative.
● More engaged respondents were more likely to report the working style being cooperative, informal, transparent, and fair than lower engagement or involvement respondents.
● Respondents continue to report relatively high levels of confidence in their CRN partners and in the CRN approach, with averages hovering around five on a seven-point scale. Confidence in partners is slowly increasing.
● Members of CRNs show a typical “long tail” for involvement, with a relatively small number of participants reporting extremely high levels of involvement and activity while most show relatively low levels of involvement.
● The average for the involvement scale increased consistently over the first five years of evaluation from 6.1 in 2012 to 8.72 in 2016, but has plateaued for the last three years. In 2019, the average was 7.53.
● The personal networks reported by respondents continue to be healthy, with this year’s respondents reporting an average of 3.1 people they could turn to and 3.0 organizations in their community working on the issue.
● Slightly less than half of all respondents reported that they had reached out beyond their usual connections and communities as a result of their work in the CRN. This percentage has varied over the evaluation period.
● More engaged and involved participants were significantly more likely to report reaching out to new communities.
● Over 70 percent of respondents this year reported that they had seen or heard about a positive impact on the community as a result of the work of the CRN. This number has generally remained consistent over the last five years of the study and represents an extremely positive demonstration of CRN impact.
● Almost two-thirds of respondents this year reported increased community awareness of the issue and about half reported increased awareness of community resources, better working relationships feeling more connected, and more public education.
3 | P a g e
● A third of respondents saw more requests for information, and a quarter reported more effective referrals, requests for assistance, or direct responses to potentially abusive situations as a result of the CRN’s work.
● Success stories from local CRNs featured partnering, positivity, persistence, and place as key themes which resonate with the core values of the organization and emphasize the value of relational approaches to addressing adult abuse.
4 | P a g e
conclusions and recommendations● The results of the evaluation continue to be extremely encouraging. Nearly all indicators are in
positive territory and continue to move in positive directions over the course of the study period. ● Perhaps the most important finding is the relatively high percentage of respondents who reported
seeing or hearing about positive impacts on the community as a result of the work of the CRNs. In addition, the descriptions of the kinds of impact seen demonstrated a deepening and broadening of impact from internal to community focused impacts.
● Additionally, evidence of strong and growing professional networks can be seen as a sign of the growing infrastructure of the social network-based approach to abuse prevention and response.
● “Success stories” confirm the core values of the organization and the importance of “the little steps that make a big difference.”
● The only recommendation is to continue to support recent efforts to enhance collaborative learning and facilitated information sharing within the organization to make use of the knowledge already existing (though possibly not widely shared) within the broader network of the organization.
ContentsExecutive Summary.......................................................................................................3
context and approach.................................................................................................3findings.......................................................................................................................3conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................4
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7Context....................................................................................................................... 7Methods...................................................................................................................... 7Analysis......................................................................................................................8
Findings........................................................................................................................ 10Stages of Development............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.Community Attitudes................................................................................................10
Attitudes................................................................................................................10Response and Coordination...................................................................................11Comparison by Level of Involvement and Engagement........................................13Comparison by Stage of Development..................Error! Bookmark not defined.Comparison by Urban / Rural Status.....................................................................13
Working Style...........................................................................................................13Describing the Working Style................................................................................13Trust and Effectiveness.........................................................................................14Comparisons by Level of Involvement...................................................................16Comparison by Stage of Development..................................................................17Comparison by Urban / Rural Status.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participation Levels..................................................................................................17Meetings and Events Attended.............................................................................17Duration of Participation.......................................................................................18Involvement Scale.................................................................................................19
Relationships and Networks.....................................................................................20Average Number of Individuals and Groups..........................................................20Reaching Out........................................................................................................23Seen Impact..........................................................................................................24Comparisons by Level of Involvement...................................................................26Comparisons by Stage of Development................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusions and Next Steps.........................................................................................28Appendix A – CRN Participant Survey...........................................................................33Appendix B - CRN by Urban / Rural Status...................................................................37
7 | P a g e
8 | P a g e
Introduction
ContextCommunity Response Networks aim to increase the health and safety of community elders by growing stronger relationships among the various organizations that serve or impact the lives of elders. As a result, CRNs do not provide direct services to their ultimate focus population. Instead, CRNs focus on the systemic development of relationships and supports necessary for direct providers to do their work more effectively.
The BC Association of Community Response Networks was awarded a multi-year grant from the BC Provincial Government to expand Community Response Networks throughout the province from 2012 to 2019. BC CRN had already established a number of networks in communities in the province but was tasked with expanding the reach to 100 communities1.
The findings reported here are part of a multi-year developmental evaluation. The results reported
provide a snapshot of current CRNs in 2019 and simultaneously serves as a review of changes in baseline information gathered since 2012 used to track development and change over the multiple years of the project. As of the end of the current evaluation period, there were 69 signed CRNs serving 189 communities and six more CRNs in development.
MethodsThis report includes a discussion of results of the evaluation process in 2019, along with an overall assessment of work done over the past nine years. The evaluation work continued the process initiated in 2012 which has been repeated through 2019. The multi-year surveys provide several snapshots through time which allow us to look at trends. An online survey was developed in collaboration with April Struthers of BC CRN to focus on three main areas: community attitudes, working styles, and relationships. In addition, information about engagement rates were gathered to provide important comparison information. The questionnaire was augmented slightly over time as the focus of the evaluation evolved.
1 Many CRNs serve multiple communities, so the mandate is not to create 100 signed CRNs, but rather 100 served communities.
9 | P a g e
Because CRNs focus on systemic factors,
the positive outcomes they
achieve are more difficult to identify because they are
distributed across a broad network in subtle and time-
delayed ways
In the 2013, two questions were added about the impact of the CRN in the community. The instrument was augmented again in 2014 to add a subjective question about participants’ level of engagement in their local CRN. Respondents who reported that they were “not at all involved” were disqualified from the survey. While this lowered the number of completed responses in the 2014 survey, we believe it improved the reliability and quality of the responses that we received. In 2015, the survey was modified slightly again to include closed-ended questions about the type of impact seen in local areas based on the results of the open-ended question from the previous years. The complete questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The sample for the survey was developed by the Regional Program Mentors working with local coordinators. The goal was to develop a comprehensive list of current and potential members of all existing CRNs or those currently in development. Responses to the survey including the number of bounced emails, and the percentage of “disqualified” respondents was used to calculate the size of the valid sample. The final valid sample in 2019 included 1,186 individuals. The 2019 survey was administered in January and February 2020. Overall, 402 useable responses were gathered with a response rate of 34 percent.
Response Rate
Original Sample 1,558Bad Email / Missing 8%Disqualified 10%Valid Sample 1,186Useable Responses 402 34%
The number of actual responses for each question are included with the statistics.In addition, the 2019 Evaluation gathered “success stories” from affiliates using Zoom video conferencing as a replacement for the online Mentor Assessment done in years previous (with the exception of 2016). The stories were used to gather “lessons learned” about what is working well for local CRNs. This is done to develop a deeper understanding of the lessons learned and useful supports for developing CRNs.
AnalysisThe work reported here includes simple summary statistics for each question, comparisons between this year and results from previous years, crosstabs by levels of involvement and CRN stage of development, and CRN urban / rural status along with a short exploration of the possible implications of the findings. A level of involvement measure was created for each respondent by creating a scale that combined the number of meetings and events attended along with the number of years of involvement in the CRN and then dividing this scale into three relatively even groups representing “low” “medium” and “high” involvement levels. More details
10 | P a g e
about the scale creation are included in the discussion in the level of involvement section. The story gathering process this year took the place of the CRN stage of development assessment of previous years, so no comparisons by stage of development are included in this report. A comparison by urban / rural status which has been part of the analysis since 2014 was also conducted this year to explore potential differences in the nature of the community might affect local CRN operations. Communities were placed into one of three categories by BC CRN: urban centre, town, and rural (see Appendix B for a list of how each community was assessed). The analysis was run comparing all three categories and then again by combining the “town” and “rural” categories to increase the statistical reliability. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences were found in any analysis in 2019, the first time this has happened.
11 | P a g e
FindingsIt is interesting to note that there are no statistically significant differences found for urban / rural status for any questions this year. This has never happened in previous years and no significance should be attributed until the survey is repeated again next year.
Community AttitudesThe community attitudes section asked three questions: what is the community’s attitude towards adult abuse; what is the community’s response to adult abuse; and, how well-coordinated has that response been. (See Appendix A for exact question wording and response options.)
ATTITUDES
Forty-five percent of respondents in 2019 reported that the community felt that adult abuse was a problem requiring a community response. This percentage is comparable to previous years which have all been slightly lower than the 2012 and 2013 responses. About half of the respondents indicated that they felt that adult abuse was only an isolated problem. Very few respondents reported that the community felt that adult abuse was not a problem in their community.
There is no problem
Adult abuse is an isolated problem
Adult abuse is a problem requiring response
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Community Attitudes towards Adult Abuse
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
2019 Values Count Percent
There is no problem with adult abuse in our community. 19 5.5
12 | P a g e
Adult abuse is an isolated problem not requiring a community response. 172 49.6
Adult abuse is a problem in our community, requiring a community response. 156 45
RESPONSE AND COORDINATION
In 2019 just under half of the respondents reported taking action and addressing adult abuse, while about a fifth reported being in the early stages. Under twenty percent report having no community response.
No coordinated response
We are in the early planning stages
We have started to respond
We have an effective response
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Community Response to Adult Abuse
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
When asked to rate how well-coordinated the community response is currently, on a seven-point scale where 1 meant “not at all coordinated” and 7 meant “very well coordinated”, ratings looked relatively normally distributed, with the average hovering
13 | P a g e
2019 Value Count Percent
There has been no coordinated response that I know of. 63 17.9
We are in the early planning stages. 78 22.16
We have started to take action to prevent / address adult abuse. 174 49.43
We have developed an effective response to prevent / address adult abuse. 37 10.51
just above the mid-point at 3.77 which has remained consistent over time. In other words, most people felt the current response is moderately well coordinated, and in general the feeling of coordination is stable.
Not at all coordinated
2 3 4 5 6 Very well coordinated
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Coordination of Response
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Value Count Percent
Not at all coordinated 19 5.41
2 46 13.11
3 89 25.36
4 89 25.36
5 72 20.51
6 24 6.84
Very well coordinated 12 3.42
14 | P a g e
COMPARISON
1 2 3 4 5 6 70.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
How well coordinated is community response by Engagement
Only slightly Moderately Extremely
There were no significant statistical differences by level of engagement or involvement for community attitudes. There were, however, differences in how well coordinated the community response was for both, with those with higher levels of engagement or involvement rating coordination levels somewhat higher.
Working Style An important goal of BC CRN is to create a different kind of working style among community professionals and stakeholders. The value of the network depends not simply on knowing other people in the network but understanding and trusting them. To gather more information about the working style of the CRN, respondents were asked to describe the working style of the group by selecting words from a list. They were also asked about their confidence in fellow members of the network to fulfill their commitments and their confidence in the CRN as an effective tool for addressing adult abuse.
DESCRIBING THE WORKING STYLE
Just as in the previous evaluations, the most commonly mentioned words were ‘cooperative, transparent, formal and fair’. Very few respondents described their local CRN as formal, unequal, secretive or combative. In general, this provides strong evidence that the local CRNs are operating in alignment with the overall values of the
15 | P a g e
BC CRN. Over the years of the evaluation there has been a trend with more respondents consistently reporting that CRNs are cooperative, fair, transparent.
Cooperative Fair Informal Transparent Formal Secretive Unequal Combative0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Working Style
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2019 Value Count PercentCooperative 255 75
Informal 175 51.47
Transparent 179 52.65
Fair 157 46.18
Formal 34 10
Unequal 4 1.18
Secretive 4 1.18
Combative 4 1.18
TRUST AND EFFECTIVENESS
Respondents were asked to indicate how confident they were on their partners fulfilling commitments to the CRN on a seven-point scale, where 1 meant “not at all confident” and 7 meant “very confident.” In general, the distribution is positively skewed towards confidence in their local partners and the positive skew appears to be growing over time. That is, there is evidence that people are growing more confident in their partners. In 2019, the average was 5.04, the highest of any evaluation period and similarly the percentage reporting to be “very confident” was at 20 percent, the highest it has ever been.
16 | P a g e
Not at all confident
2 3 4 5 6 Very confident0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Confidence in Partners
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Not at all confident
2 3 4 5 6 Very confident0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Confidence in CRN Approach
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Similar results were found when respondents were asked to indicate their confidence in the CRN as an effective tool for dealing with adult abuse (using the same scale as above). The results are again positively skewed, with an average response at 4.99. While there is some evidence that the positive skew is increasing, it is a subtle improvement.
17 | P a g e
COMPARISONS BY LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
There were interesting differences in assessments of CRN working styles by level of engagement, but not involvement. Generally, higher levels of self-reported engagement and objective involvement were reflected in more positive assessments of the working style of the CRN. Those with more engagement or more involvement were more likely to see the CRN as “transparent” and “cooperative.” In addition, those with both higher levels of engagement were more likely to see the CRN as “informal”, while those with higher levels of involvement are more likely to see the CRN as “fair.”
Transparent Cooperative Secretive Formal Informal Combative Fair Unequal0.00%
10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%
100.00%
Working Style by Level of Engagement
only slight moderate extreme
1 2 3 4 50.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Confidence in Partners by Engagement
Only slightly Moderately Extremely
18 | P a g e
1 2 3 4 50.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Confidence in CRN Approach by Engagement
Only slightly Moderately Extremely
Likewise, confidence in both CRN partners and the CRN approach also increased with self-reported engagement and with objective involvement levels.
Participation LevelsRespondents were asked three questions to assess their level of involvement in the local CRN: how many meetings they have attended in the last year; how many events they have attended; and how many years they’ve been active with the CRN.
MEETINGS AND EVENTS ATTENDED
The results for both meetings and events attended in the last year show that the majority of respondents have very limited involvement with the local CRN. For example, almost half have reported attending only one or no meetings and two-thirds report attending only one or no events this year.
19 | P a g e
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Events Attended
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Perc
ent
Table: How many events have you attended in the last year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Mean 1.16 1.12 1.2 1.48 1.91 1.66 1.49 1.68
Std Dev 1.72 1.47 1.47 1.91 2.57 2.06 2.11 2.42
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum 10 9 12 10 22 12 15 15
DURATION OF PARTICIPATION
Respondents were asked to indicate how many years they have been involved with their local CRN. In the early years of the evaluation, we found duration of participation increasing, but this seems to have peaked in 2016 at 4.2. Since then average number of years has been decreasing slightly, currently at 3.17 in 2019. This is probably a sign of the number of newly engaged affiliates. Recall that the sample size and number of responses captured in the evaluation has doubled since the original evaluation in 2012.
20 | P a g e
Table: Years involved in the CRN2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Mean 2.64 3.17 3.22 3.36 4.20 3.72 3.21 3.17Std Dev 3.65 3.96 3.93 3.78 4.33 4.91 3.67 3.6
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maximum 15 20 20 15 25 34 23 25
INVOLVEMENT SCALE
A total involvement scale was created by simply adding the total number of meetings and events attended to the number of years active in the CRN. The scale ranged from 0-31. In 2019 the average involvement scale number is 7.53. A categorical variable was created by dividing the scale into roughly equal thirds, with about a third of participants with an involvement scale below four categorized as “low involvement,” another third with scores ranging from four to less than eight categorized as “medium involvement,” and the final third with involvement scores of eight or more categorized as “high involvement.”
Table: Involvement Scale – 2012 - 2019
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019N Valid 121 177 147 150 151 193 229 306Mean 6.1 6.86 7.23 7.51 8.72 7.58 6.94 7.53Std Dev 6.72 5.67 6.12 5.54 6.92 7.37 6.09 6.28Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maximum 29 31 34 26 37 44 35 36
21 | P a g e
Relationships and NetworksOne of the prime indicators of the effectiveness of a network is the number and quality of relationships, especially functional relationships that can help to address the issue of adult abuse. Respondents were asked “who would you turn to if you had questions or concerns about adult abuse in the community” and “what organizations do you know of who are working on adult abuse issues?” Respondents were able to list up to five names for each question. The following analysis looks at the overall number of groups or individuals mentioned by each respondent.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS
Most respondents have at least one connection in the community. Nine out of ten respondents reported at least one person and 85 percent report at least one group working on the problem. Nearly a quarter provided five names of individuals and almost 20 percent provided five names of organizations. Overall respondents who provided answers to this question averaged 3.1 individuals and 3.0 groups working on the problem.
Zero 1 2 3 4 50%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Who would you turn to?
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
22 | P a g e
Zero 1 2 3 4 50%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Groups Working on the Issue
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
A more detailed analysis of the kinds of responses given to the first question was conducted. In particular, responses were coded into six categories: references to the RCMP or police agencies, references to a specific health authority, references to named community organizations, specific reference to BC-CRN or the local CRN, references to specifically named individuals, references to generic roles (such as “banker” or “doctor”), and a miscellaneous category. The most common references were to specific individuals, indicating a high level of specificity and maturity of network. This percentage has been steadily increasing, though slowly, over time.
Category N PercentNamed Individuals 383 43%Community Organizations 221 25%RCMP / Police 82 9%Health Authority 59 7%Generic Roles 102 11%CRN 35 4%PGT 6 1%Total 888
23 | P a g e
A word cloud of responses provides an interesting overview of patterns of responses. A word cloud looks for repeating words in text and makes those words relatively larger, based on the frequency that they were mentioned. The first word cloud looks at responses to “who would you turn to” and shows very clearly that most respondents turned to health and community services. A number of individuals, especially CRN mentors, appear frequently. The RCMP shows a prominent position because it serves the whole province and therefore shows up in responses from different regions while most nearly all other partners, including the health authority, will only serve specific regions.
The second word cloud looks at responses to “groups working on the issue.” Similar patterns can be seen, but more organizations appear in the cloud.
24 | P a g e
REACHING OUT
BC CRN is interested in the ability of local CRN to inspire partners to reach beyond their usual connections and communities to create broader response networks. A question was asked of all respondents to see if they had reached out to a new organization or community as a result of their involvement in the CRN. Between 2012 and the present, the percentage of respondents who report reaching out has hovered around the halfway point, though numbers vary from year to year. Over the study period, it has ranged from a high of 58 percent in 2013 to a low this year of 42 percent, almost identical to responses in 2017. Generally, there seems to be a downward trend in percentages over time but variations from year to year make it hard to identify a clear pattern. Variations may be due to CRNs reaching a level of maturity that makes outreach less of a priority or it may be a signal to re-energize outreach efforts if this remains an important goal.
25 | P a g e
No Yes0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Reached Out
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SEEN IMPACT
A set of questions about seen impact was added to the 2013 survey. Respondents were asked if they had seen or heard of any examples of positive impact in the community coming from the local CRN. If they said yes, they were asked to describe the impact they have seen in an open-ended question. In 2015, based on the results of the previous open-ended questions, a set of closed-ended questions was added. (See Appendix A for the precise question wording.) Generally, we are seeing consistently high reports of impact. In 2019, 71 percent reported seeing an impact. These responses represent a consistently impressive track record of tangible impact.
No Yes0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Seen Impact
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
26 | P a g e
Similar to previous years, most of the impact seen is at the level of awareness and community understanding. In 2019, almost two-thirds of respondents reported increased community awareness of the issue and over half saw increased awareness of resources in their community. Similar numbers reported more educational events, better professional working relationships and feeling more connected.
Awareness of issues
Awareness of resources
Education events
Better working relations
Feeling connected
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Type of Impact Seen - Part 1
Requests for info
Effective referrals
Requests for assistance
Direct response
Better policy0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Type of Impact Seen - Part 2
27 | P a g e
However, a significant percentage also report seeing impact on a more direct or individual level. A third reported direct requests for information and around a quarter of respondents reported direct results around specific potentially abusive situations (referrals, direct responses or specific requests for assistance). These impacts indicate successes at all levels of intervention, from improved personal and professional networks, to greater public awareness, to direct responses to potentially abusive situations.
COMPARISONS BY LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
There is a clear and dramatic correlation between the level of involvement and engagement and reports of reaching out to a community or group you would not have otherwise encountered. About a quarter of low engagement respondents said that they had reached out to new groups in the community while two-thirds of high engagement respondents did so. This pattern was very similar when looking at differences in involvement (activity-based) levels.
No Yes0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Reached Out by Engagement
Only slightly Moderately Extremely
28 | P a g e
No Yes0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Reached Out by Involvement
Low Medium High
29 | P a g e
There are also significant differences in having seen impact by level of engagement and involvement with the CRN. Around 90 percent of highly involved and highly engaged respondents reported seeing impact, while slightly less than two-thirds of low engagement and half of low involvement respondents did (still an impressive statistic in its own right).
No Yes0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Seen Impact by Engagement
Only slightly Moderately Extremely
No Yes0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Seen Impact by Involvement
Low Medium High
30 | P a g e
Local CRN Success Stories
BackgroundIn mid-October Mentors were invited to participate in the annual Mentor Assessment to collect stories of challenges that CRNs had successfully faced. Interviews by Mentors of coordinators or CRN members were held by ZOOM video conferencing to get examples, which might be of interest to or duplicated by other CRNs.Story telling was selected as an approach due to the recent Provincial Conference having that as its central focus. Seven Mentors volunteered to interview Coordinators or CRN members for their stories. Of a commitment of 15 stories, a total of 10 stories were received (5 interviews were unable to be conducted due to illness, travel plans, scheduling or political action).The CRNs involved were from rural, town and urban location, with two unique CRNS with issue related boundaries volunteering (Chinese and LGBQT2S).Stories covered events, campaigns, training, awareness raising, capacity building around coordination and individuals’ situations which resolved positively because of the CRN presence. It was clear that interviewees welcomed the opportunity to tell their stories and the recognition of their efforts.The stories were analyzed with a view to emerging themes and issues. We can learn from these about how CRNs operate, what are most important and sometimes universal factors for success, and to get a notion of the ‘secret sauce’ of social change.
MethodologyThe overarching methodology was one of qualitative, appreciative inquiry using an open-ended interview. The process was carried out through virtual technology, which allowed interviews to be recorded and saved in a central location. BCCRN Mentors were asked to identify and make appointments with CRN coordinators or members in their areas. Interviews were overseen and coordinated by April Struthers. The questions were developed and provided by Ben and April and followed the arc of the classic storytelling process – what was the challenge, how did you respond and what were the results? Mentors were trained in the use of Zoom by Ben and April. The virtual platform recorded the 20 minute interviews as they were conducted.
31 | P a g e
Locations of the CRNs varied and the interviews included 2 demographic (i.e. not geographically defined) groups. The stories covered instances within the typical range of CRN activities. Stories were analyzed for themes and issues, through 3 layers, and with a number of techniques (including multiple readings/listening, theory directed theme finding, ‘pawing,’ cutting and sorting). Themes were coded, noted for frequency and sub themes and then issues emerged for each theme. These were ordered for importance. Emergent themes were discussed by the evaluators.Key learnings were extracted. The body of material was then compared with espoused values and mission and principles to see if the values were expressed in activity and approaches.
Summarized ThemesThe emergent themes and issues under each are shown in Appendix 2. For the purposes of the SUMMIT presentation, themes were summarized under four headings:
o Partneringo Positivityo Persistenceo Place
These Themes covered the ‘essentials’ in developing success according to interviewees.Key learnings under each theme heading were extracted, along with summarizing quotes
Partnering - ‘ feed them and they will come’
Partnering of one sort or another was seen as a key to extending the reach of the CRN towards providers and the community - a way of bolstering resources and credibility. Participation was named as a challenge in most interviews and partnering increased participation. Building relationship at all levels, but particularly in influential groups made a network stronger and convened providers who craved and rarely got – ‘connection’.
Food was seen as a universal attraction – and if food did not attract, then taking food out to a ready built audience was a successful strategy.
Positivity - ‘people won’t come if you talk about abuse up front’
Remaining positive in the face of a difficult situation was woven throughout the stories. Stories provided a variety of ways to find the positive including hope for solutions to a difficult topic, the ability of everyone to belong, (basic human rights), bringing lightness in the midst of heavy issues
32 | P a g e
and the enduring thought that over time change can happen. Hearing people’s stories and the necessity of giving messages in a way that people can hear was also a theme.
Persistence - ‘little steps make a big impact’
Interviewees recognized that little steps, when added up, make a big impact. However, it takes persistence to keep making those little steps and knowing that seeds planted now will not grow immediately. It takes time to build, and to be seen. Community culture is adaptable and can move towards positive action but norms will persist. Trust and relationship must be genuine – and depend on consistent repeated action over time. Social marketing for behaviour change also needs to be continual.
Setbacks were common to CRNs as groups experimented to see what activities match their community. These CRNs did not let setbacks determine the course of the group and overcame them collectively (also key to development of each CRN)
Designing approaches and then adapting to reality after testing them out (action learning) was the process implied by many.
Place - ‘they know we aren’t going away’
Place refers to the size of the community, to its location within a region, whether it is urban, town or rural, its geography, the nature of its social economic position (boom and bust cycles in resource rich areas) and people’s feeling about the land and where they live and the welfare of their neighbours (understanding of interdependence).
Coordinators hold space within place for the issue, for those impacted by the issue. Their ‘persistent presence’ enhances the conviction of the importance of this work.
Coordinators who recognize all that and can use their insider knowledge to be effective and create social power and cohesion; pulling these placeholders together regionally can amplify the impact.
Mentor Support
A sub theme emerged where there was the perception of the usefulness of the resources provided by the Association and in particular the Mentor services. Encouragement, transferring learning, understanding the issue, employing community development principles, knowing how to use Coordinators and members’ talents, knowing when to step in and when to back off are critical Mentor skills.
Connection to principles and valuesBC CRN Guiding Principles
33 | P a g e
• Inclusion.
• Meaningful participation.
• Sharing leadership and influence.
• Assumption of capability and building capacity.
These are the core values of the BC CRN: Love, respect, kindness and generosity
As well as:
Equity Fairness InclusionIntegrity Non-judgemental RelationshipsReflective Sharing TrustCollaboration Diversity Empowering
The actions which bring these values to life were reflected clearly in the stories related by the Coordinators and CRN members. Values like relationship building and developing trust were fundamental to initial and growing stability and capacity in CRNs themselves. Individuals would not bring their family and life experiences around the issue without there being inclusion, non-judgementalness, and trust, and an approach that was empowering.Equity, sharing, using diversity and being reflective allows greater collaboration over time.
34 | P a g e
Conclusions and Next StepsIn general, the 2019 results of the evaluation continue to show signs of on-going signs of impact and improvement. We have ample evidence of positive results of CRN efforts throughout the Province over the whole 2012 to 2019 study period. Nearly all indicators moved in positive directions or remained at positive levels. The consistent trends that are emerging over the multiple years of the study significantly increases our confidence in the results. Of primary interest is the reported impact overall. There were differences in the engagement level around impact and reaching out, and continued improvements in trust with increased confidence shown in partners doing what had been agreed, and in trust in the CRN and networked approach. Positive evidence continues to be seen in the maturation of networks, changes in community attitudes and awareness, and positive work styles of the local CRNs. It appears there is a trend in use of certain words to describe CRN working style – ‘cooperative, transparent, formal and fair’ have been consistent descriptors.There may be a negative correlation showing up in a slight diminishing of numbers of CRNs reaching out; which might be explained by maturity of the CRN practices, or might be an indicator of Mentors needing to focus on re-invigorating outreach efforts in individual CRN activity.The themes identified in the success stories we gathered - partnering, positivity, persistence, and place resonate with the core values of the organization and the long-term value of “little steps that make a big impact.” The fundamentally relational quality of the CRN approach underscores the importance of taking the long view of capacity building. The Association should be proud of the reported results of the strategy and work done over the years of the evaluation and to have confidence of taking the CRN approach forward. Our only recommendation is to continue the emerging focus on collaborative learning and facilitated information sharing within the organization. There is a wealth of actionable knowledge available within the broad network of the organization, but this information is as easily accessible and useable as it could be. It is simply a matter of unearthing what is already there.
35 | P a g e
Appendix A – CRN Affiliates’ Survey
Welcome!Thank you for being a part of the [Local] CRN. The following survey is designed to help us monitor the effectiveness of our efforts in the community.Your responses are completely confidential. Information from all responses will be collected by Emotus Operandi, Inc. and only summary responses will be released to the local coordinator or Provincial association. The survey takes most people less than 5 minutes to complete.
Community AttitudesIn general, which statement best describes the attitude of the community towards adult abuse:
( ) There is no problem with adult abuse in our community.( ) Adult abuse is an isolated problem not requiring a community response.( ) Adult abuse is a problem in our community, requiring a community response.
How would you describe the community response to adult abuse:( ) There has been no coordinated response that I know of.( ) We are in the early planning stages.( ) We have started to take action to prevent / address adult abuse.( ) We have developed an effective response to prevent / address adult abuse.
On a scale from 1 to 7, how well-coordinated is the community response to potential adult abuse?
Not at all coordinated ----- Very well-coordinated( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 6 ( ) 7
36 | P a g e
Working Style
Which words best describe the working style of the [contact("organization")] CRN? (Select all that apply.)[ ] Transparent[ ] Cooperative[ ] Secretive
[ ] Formal[ ] Informal[ ] Combative
[ ] Fair[ ] Unequal
On a scale from 1 to 7, how confident are you that your partners in the CRN will complete the commitments they make to the CRN in a timely and effective way?
Not at all confident ----- Very confident( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 6 ( ) 7
On a scale from 1 to 7, how confident are you that the CRN is an effective way to prevent and respond to adult abuse?
Not at all confident ----- Very confident( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 6 ( ) 7
How many meetings of the CRN have you attended in the past year? _______
How many CRN events have you participated in during the past year? _______
How long have you participated in the [Local] CRN? _______
37 | P a g e
Relationships
Who would you turn to if you had questions or concerns about adult abuse in the community?(List as few or as many names of individuals as you would feel confident turning to. Your answers are completely confidential and we will not contact these people in any way as a result of your answers.)1:: _________________________2:: _________________________3:: _________________________4:: _________________________5:: _________________________
What organizations do you know of in the community who are working on adult abuse issues?(List as few or as many names as you would feel confident turning to. Your answers are completely confidential and we will not contact these organizations in any way as a result of your answers.)1:: _________________________2:: _________________________3:: _________________________4:: _________________________5:: _________________________
Have you reached out to a new community and/or organization as a result of your involvement in the CRN that you wouldn't have been in touch with otherwise?( ) Yes ( ) No
38 | P a g e
The goal of community response networks is to create stronger relationships among key stakeholders so that we can have a positive impact on adult abuse as a community. It often takes time for the positive impact to be seen and the initial impact can be subtle. Have you seen or heard of any examples of positive impact coming from the work of the [local] CRN?( ) Yes ( ) No
What kinds of impact have you seen as a result of the work of the CRN? (Check all that apply.)[ ] Greater community awareness and understanding of the issue
[ ] Better working relationship with others within the network
[ ] Feeling connected
[ ] Effective referrals
[ ] Direct response to potential abuse
[ ] More educational events
[ ] Greater awareness of community resources
[ ] Requests from community for more information
[ ] Improved policy development
[ ] Requests for assistance from individuals aware of abusive situations
Please describe the impact you've heard of or seen:
Thank You!Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. The responses will be combined and used by the BCCRNS and [local] CRN to help us track the progress we are making in the community.Please contact April Struthers ([email protected]) or Sherry Baker ([email protected]) or 604-513-9758 if you have any questions.
39 | P a g e
40 | P a g e
Appendix B - CRN by Urban / Rural Status
Major Urban Centre Town Rural
Abbotsford 100 Mile House AshcroftAgassiz Harrison Campbell River Beaver ValleyChilliwack Castlegar Bella CoolaKamloops Comox Valley ChetwyndKelowna Cranbrook Cowichan ValleyLangley Dawson Creek Cowichan LakeMaple Ridge Fort St. John CrestonNanaimo Golden Gabriola IslandNorthern Okanagan Kitimat Haida GwaiiNorth Shore Ladysmith HazeltonPrince George Mission HopeRichmond Nelson HoustonSouth Surrey / White Rock Penticton KasloSquamish Prince Rupert McBrideSurrey / Newton Quesnel Mt. WaddingtonTri Cities Revelstoke Robson ValleyVancouver Salt Spring Island SalmoVancouver (Combined) Shuswap Secwepemc
Victoria Smithers Smithers Terrace Summerland Williams Lake Sunshine Coast
41 | P a g e
Appendix C – “Success Story” Synopses
CHILLIWACK CRN (COORDINATOR)
Coordinator knew about BCCRN from Vancouver Island groups Connect Café for seniors established by non profit; BCCRN helps with funding
small but significant items which provide information and refreshments for group; grown from 2 – 50 who meet regularly; and also has sent speakers / presentations
Serving rural and urban residents (community split by freeway).
LADYSMITH CRN (COORDINATOR)
WEAAD event where whole town got involved-smaller events inside large one Partnered with municipal government and ceremony Engaging citizens and services in issue and providing information in a not ‘sit
down’ meeting is an effective thing to do
KASLO CRN (COORDINATOR)
In operation since 2001 with same format – Drop In with coffee and info at Seniors Branch Hall near regional bus stop (it took time to attract people initially)
CRN must reorient when something doesn’t work Real small towns / villages are a challenge to get awareness out to, the region
values support of BCCRN
SUNSHINE COAST (MEMBER)
People really need this information on abuse and neglect Concentrate on neighbours, friends, and families in North of Coast as little
service coverage there Roundtable format for service providers for coordination even in remote places
works well
SUNSHINE COAST (COORDINATOR)
Service providers are craving contact with each other Roundtable type event needs large outreach front end effort to get the right
people in room at same time - across professions and communities. There is no other place this happens.
Mentors are helpful
42 | P a g e
HOUSTON CRN (COORDINATOR)
Outside economic and social circumstances affect the energy people have to look at this issue
It takes time to build presence and to figure out what works Partnering works well
HOPE (CO-COORDINATOR)
Got businesses and town involved to shine lights (literally) on the issue Squirrels ate the tree lights and BCCRN gave a grant to replace them Grants help to sustain and build a voice-‘we are not going away’
HOPE (CO-COORDINATOR)
‘Little steps make big impact’ Awareness raising takes persistence, there needs to be constant promotion There needs to be personal response to people’s stories and then targeted
referrals
CHINESE CRN (COORDINATOR)
Culturally unique population served Coordinating for services and matching for direct prevention versus
coordinating for focus on abuse High level collaboration amongst variety of partners - for potential greater
impact (and collective impact)
LGBTQ2S (LIVING OUT VISIBLY AND ENGAGED MEMBER)
Serving unique population and combatting discrimination Model regional and Provincially for how to provide training in residences where
older LGBTQ2S individuals may be experiencing misunderstanding and discrimination
Works with health authorities and other partners
43 | P a g e
Appendix D – “Success Story” Themes
PARTICIPATION EFFORT (ENGAGEMENT OF TARGET MEMBERS AND AUDIENCE)
reaching vulnerable adults and engagement reaching service providers and key responders and engagement feed them-they will come go to audience use social media all about relationships non-profits already overwhelmed
GETTING ATTENTION FOR THIS ISSUE economic background to issue in community (s.d. of h.) time it takes (short term = events, long term = impact and
persistence resistance of audience to naming / talking about issue marketing and promotion need to be continual in a way it can be heard
PARTNERSHIPPING urban / rural effectiveness different large network outside (crn for instance) or lone circle of crn
members
BCCRN RESOURCES APPRECIATED AND USED
COORDINATOR SUCCESS ATTRIBUTES community knowledge of coordinator – character, skills,
approaches, pragmatism = type of connection the power of community insider and trustworthiness in community some understanding of trauma ability to build relationships at different levels
TIME FOR DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT, REGION, OTHER ISSUES
44 | P a g e
