August 2018 Cross sector consulting CCEH Feedback Survey August 2018 Cross sector consulting

Background Developed survey to get feedback from CCEH stakeholders – participants in CCEH trainings and TA; members; local, state and national partners; and funders Requested feedback on CCEH services, communications and stakeholders relationships, understanding of the local and state context, and impacts Pilot-tested and revised survey in June 2018 Administered survey in July 2018 Surveyed stakeholders who only participated in CCEH trainings separately (may have less knowledge of organization) Note: results were not very different between the Training Only and Other Stakeholders groups

Setting the context Survey represents the views of 266 diverse stakeholders, but may not accurately represent the views of all CCEH stakeholders Reported the main differences in responses by sub-group where there were at least 20 respondents/group Coded open-ended comments by theme, included top themes (note small numbers reporting any one theme) Can conduct additional analyses to look at strength of responses (e.g., strongly agree vs. agree) and written responses across questions

Response rate

Respondents

Training Only respondents were less likely to be from housing providers (34% vs. 45%)

All Other respondents were more likely to be senior staff (54% vs. 21%)

Communications and stakeholder relations

Communications & stakeholder relations Differing Perceptions by group Across all items, senior staff “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with 86%, compared with 91% of front-line staff and 92% of supervisors Responses differed by region: Stakeholders serving Greater New Haven CAN, Greater Hartford CAN, and Connecticut (statewide) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with 82% to 85% of items Stakeholders serving Southeast CAN and Waterbury / Litchfield CAN agreed with 95% to 96% of items

Communications & stakeholder relations Written comments (42 responses) Positive comments on CCEH as an organization (11 responses) “Great organization, keep up the good work” “CCEH is a great organization that we have worked with for many years” Does not feel truly collaborative (6 responses) “Feels like they have selected relationships with agencies that agree with them. Doesn't feel like they are truly collaborative.” “It seems as if decisions about strategy are made within a small group of the same players. There doesn't seem to be a way to influence this without committing to be on too many committees.”

Understanding the local and state context

Understanding local & state context Differing Perceptions by group 79% of front-line staff and 81% of senior staff agreed, compared with 94% of supervisors 78% of 82% of stakeholders serving Greater Hartford, Fairfield County and Greater New Haven agreed, compared with 96% of stakeholders serving Southeast CAN Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

CCEh impacts

CCEH Impacts Differing perceptions by group 94% of supervisors agreed, compared with 90% of front-line staff and 88% of senior staff 81% to 84% of stakeholders serving Greater Hartford and Greater New Haven agreed, compared with 95% to 100% of stakeholders serving Waterbury / Litchfield CAN and Southeast CAN Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

CCEH services

188 respondents reported participating

Suggested additional training topics (40 responses) Working with specific populations (10 responses) Young adults Young parents People with multiple challenges (domestic violence, mental health, substance use) Chronically homeless who may be “unplaceable” Deeper dives on topics (diversion, CTI, HMIS, progressive engagement) (3 responses) Landlord engagement / addressing challenges with landlords (3 responses)

176 respondents reported participating

176 respondents reported participating

Open-ended data questions What data has been most helpful? (46 responses) HMIS reports (10 responses) Data dashboards (6 responses) Point In Time (PIT) and/or Youth Counts (5 responses) How can CCEH improve its data work? (43 responses) Better reports / customized reports / ability to extract data from HMIS (9 responses) Improve accuracy of data (4 responses) Allow free / inexpensive access to own data (3 responses)

148 respondents reported participating Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

82 respondents reported using Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

open-ended questions for all respondents

CCEH strengths? (87 respondents) Training / technical assistance (20 responses) Data / communications / website and information (19) Building coalition / collaboration / coordination / engagement (15) Advocacy (13) Leadership / focus on ending homelessness (12) Staff / staff responsiveness (10)

How can CCEH improve? (64 responses) Be willing to listen openly and constructively and/or collaborate with others; not favor certain agencies; focus on members vs. DOH (12 responses) Increase engagement with community partners and/or front-line staff (better understand needs / challenges, local approaches) (11) Different suggestions for strengthening trainings & TA (e.g., expand, address specific topics, evening and weekend options, costs) (10) Improve data accuracy/quality, availability, transparency (8)

CONCLUSIONS

Themes from data Respondents are a diverse group (different organization types, staff roles, regions served) 80%+ respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” on nearly all items Strengths include CCEH services, leadership and staff “Understanding of local and state context” was the lowest rated area (83% agree across all items) Senior staff generally rated CCEH lower than front-line staff or supervisors Respondents from Greater New Haven and Greater Hartford generally rated CCEH lower than respondents serving other regions Critiques included openness to different perspectives / collaboration, and issues related to data accuracy and access