The survey consisted of 29 questions, including questions from the widely-used PARTNER Tool survey, which identifies, characterizes, and describes organizations and relationships (Varda & Sprong, 2020). Questions characterizing organizations in the network included roles they play in serving children and families and awareness and engagement in ACEs-related work (e.g., “To what extent are you aware of the term ACEs – Adverse Childhood Experiences?” with a four-point scale from not at all aware to very aware). We identified network relationships using a name generator question with a roster of 59 organizations in the SLV that engage in ACEs-related work (“From the list, select all of the organizations with which your organization has an established relationship (either formal or informal).”). Participants characterized their relationships with questions asking about activities (“What activities does your relationship with this organization include?”), and measures of network health: the intensity of their relationships and a validated scale of trust and value in relationships (Varda & Sprong, 2020). Each of the questions that characterized participant relationships were populated with the names of organizations that participants selected in the name generator question (for example, a question about the activities partners engage in together would give participants an opportunity to name activities they engage in as part of each relationship they identified from the name generator question). The project team recruited participants via email and phone from May-June, 2020. Data were collected using the PARTNER CPRM (Community Partner Relationship Manager) platform, which included the PARTNER survey questions, bounded list management, email system, and network visualization tools. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete, and participants were offered a $20 incentive.

Of the 59 organizations included in the network, 45 (76.27%) participated in the survey. Participants reported about 637 relationships involving all 59 members of the network. On average, organizations had 10.80 relationships (range: 1–44). All organizations in the network were either public (n = 37, 62.7%) or nonprofit (n = 22, 37.3%) and reflected a range of sectors, most commonly including early childhood education centers (n = 15, 25.42%), health clinics (n = 13, 22.03%), and schools (prek-12) (n = 9, 15.25%). Organizations in the network also reflected a wide service area in the SLV, with at least 10 organizations in the network serving each zip code in the SLV.

Connectedness, measured as degree centrality, varied; the most connected organization had relationships with 74.14% of network members and the least connected organization had relationships with 1.72% of network members. No organizations were isolated. Six organizations reported relationships with more than 60% of network members. Four of the six were nonprofits, one was a health clinic, and one was a local, state, or federal government organization. On average, nonprofits had relationships with a greater percentage of network members than other types of organizations. See Figure 1 for a map of the full network, with nodes colored by organization type and sized by degree centrality. Nodes with the highest centrality have gray haloes to highlight them.

Participants rated their awareness of ACEs on a four-point scale (1 = Not at all aware, 2 = Slightly aware, 3 = Somewhat aware, and 4 = Very aware). Overall, network members reported an average score for ACEs awareness of 3.20 (SD = .88). Nonprofit organizations (M = 3.75, SD = .463) and governmental organizations (M=3.75, SD = .5) reported the highest level of ACEs awareness, while health clinics reported the lowest level of ACEs awareness (M = 2.75, SD = .707). All other sectors reported an average ACEs awareness score between 3.00 and 3.75.

Network members engaged in various activities with partners. Information sharing and meetings/events are the most popular activities. Health clinics more frequently engaged in partnerships that involve client assessments, service provision, and sharing tools. Although these activities occur infrequently in the network, early childhood education centers were more frequently involved in relationships where they received funding and technical assistance than other types of organizations. Local, state, or federal government members of the network were more frequently involved in providing funding to partners. See Table 1 for an overview of each organization type and the percentage of their relationships dedicated to different types of activities.

Average scores across trust and value dimensions were above 3 (range: 2.14–3.83), which is advantageous for a network’s health. This indicates members are in relationships characterized by a high level of trust and perceive value from those relationships. See Table 2 for a breakdown of each dimension. Participants characterized their relationships in four ways: awareness (knowing about each other), cooperation (informally sharing information), coordination (synchronizing activities for mutual benefit), and integration (having a formal shared work arrangement). Most commonly, relationships among network members were at the cooperative (n=252, 42.5%) or integrated (n = 157, 26.5%) levels.

This study builds the knowledge base on rural ACEs networks and has two limitations. This study focused on a single time point. Future work can observe how ACEs networks change over time and in response to intervention with multiple time points. This study also focused on a case study of one region. Although network analyses commonly use case studies of single networks, continuing to explore ACEs networks across rural communities can unpack partnership patterns and inform work to improve ACEs service networks. Future work can also explore additional characteristics of partners in these networks, for example, through questions about how staff members in organizations within the network talk about ACEs across roles and specific ACEs-related supports they provide to community members and each other. Asking these questions qualitatively can help unpack the characteristics of positive relationships in an ACEs service network.