CYBHI NEES Toolkit
agency”, it is impossible to mask the specific name of the agency. In these cases, consider using the agency name to increase clarity and understanding by the reader.
When reviewing findings collaboratively, partners can:
● Confirm whether results resonate with on-the-ground experience ● Identify root causes behind strong or weak connections ● Discuss whether certain gaps reflect missing relationships or simply missing data ● Prioritize relationships or sectors where deeper collaboration would have the greatest impact ● Identify immediate next steps or longer-term strategies to strengthen the system
This shared reflection is often the most valuable part of the NEES process. It transforms the tool from a descriptive snapshot into a catalyst for coordinated action.
Guiding Questions
Overall integration: ● What does the average strength score say about our county’s level of collaboration?
● Are most relationships in the “cooperate”, “coordinate”, or “collaborate” range?
● Do some sectors have notably stronger or weaker relationships?
Identifying hubs:
● Which organizations appear most connected? Least connected?
● Do these patterns align with what you expect? Are there collaborative structures that are working well to enable these hubs?
Identifying opportunities for further connection:
● Where are relationships weakest or missing?
● Are certain sectors or organizations siloed?
Change over time (if the NEES is administered several times):
● Have any relationships grown stronger or weaker?
● Are new partnerships and connections forming? Example takeaways -
“Our strongest connections are between county agencies and LEAs.”
- “County agencies serve as bridges across sectors that otherwise operate separately.”
- “CBO A shows more relationships rated ‘coordinate’ or stronger compared to last year.”
Mathematica ® Inc.
7
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator