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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Response rate

5. Respondents

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

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

10. Communications and stakeholder relations

12. 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

13. 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.”

14. Understanding the local and state context

16. 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

17. CCEh impacts

19. 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

20. CCEH services

21. 188 respondents reported participating

22. 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)

23. 176 respondents reported participating

24. 176 respondents reported participating

25. 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)

26. 148 respondents reported participating
Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

27. 82 respondents reported using
Note: no main themes for open-ended comments

28. open-ended questions for all respondents

29. 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)

30. 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)

31. CONCLUSIONS

32. 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