Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of human connection has come center stage, especially for underserved and resource-limited communities. For those without access to stable housing, food, and social services, systems of connection can often open doors to community resources that ease urgent individual challenges. In the past decade, federal policy efforts have recognized this need and pushed for resource-sharing systems to build healthier communities. These Systems of Care provide services like mental health support, employment matching, and housing assistance to help folks find sustainable solutions to social barriers.
These systems make up part of my research wheelhouse. For the past 4 years, I’ve been working closely with referral networks and studying their development. I’ve published environmental scans and reports that describe some of their key features. While these systems are always unique, they tend to share some operation strategies.
Systems of Care are usually network-based, technology-driven, and data-informed. Take, for example, United Way’s 2-1-1 referral program. Since 1997, United Way has leveraged its nationwide network to expand its call center format to 99% of North America, refining services according to location and needs. Another example is AmericaServes, a care network dedicated to social programs for service members and their families. These Systems of Care receive and transfer service requests through referral technologies to track information, connect with partners, and deliver necessary services.
Like non-referral nonprofit networks, Systems of Care faces unique challenges in making an impact. Whether you are a network leader or policymaker, consider how some of the challenges (and solutions) below impact your goal for community resilience.
What challenges do Systems of Care face?
Especially in trying times like COVID-19 or recessions, many Systems of Care struggle with fragmented delivery. Social workers and scholars Frank and Baumohl (2021) argue that those in most need can get “lost” on the long winding paths to care in fragmented systems. My research with Miles et al. (2023) outlines some causes of system weakness for leaders to consider for network resilience:
- Lack of capacity.
All nonprofit networks know the battle of capacity. The same goes for Systems of Care, especially when demand for services increases; Systems of Care can begin to stall without the capacity to accommodate.
Often, though, it can be challenging to know the root cause of your capacity issues. In my work, I’ve found that capacity can be broken down into eight facets: financial management, strategic planning, external communication, board leadership, operational capacity, mission orientation, staff management, and adaptive capacity. Your network has a complex capacity profile, as each partner organization has its own capacities it brings to your mission.
If you’d like to measure your network organization’s capacity to better contribute toward a System of Care, check out my Nonprofit Capacity Instrument. Measure your capacities against 1,000 other organizations and get tips on building them further—all for free.
- Technology barriers.
Referral technology and case management platforms provide the foundation for Systems of Care services. Delivery can be challenging for networks without access to advanced options or the training to use them. This problem gets tougher when partner organizations are not aligned on the technology’s use. From referral best practices to data tracking, all network members must be aligned with and have the capacity for the system’s common goal.
A technology strategy can help your network harness and maximize available technology. By auditing your tech capacity, prioritizing particular projects, and collecting the same data, you can better understand how to budget, staff, and evaluate your System of Care. A system will succeed when the network captures and analyzes how the member organizations’ services work together, revealing which populations or programs might need more attention.
Policymakers and municipalities should also take this issue seriously when working toward Systems of Care. By mandating the collection of four key evaluation metrics—quality control, demand metrics, supply metrics, and process metrics—policymakers can leverage their data systems and support to improve and grow systems of care.
- Over-reliance on existing partners.
When Systems of Care were pushed to their limits during COVID-19, Miles et al. observed that social service providers tended to send referrals to those services they believed would deliver best. However, this caused a bottleneck issue, as too many service requests queued for one provider, leaving other providers out of the solution. Diversifying the referral network can help your System of Care tackle complex community issues without overbearing certain network members.
Again, policymakers could play a key role in this issue. Providing those data technologies and mandating evaluation metrics could help networks identify problems early on. With a more technologically connected and audited System of Care, community members could receive more and higher-quality services.
Systems of Care can be resilient.
When care isn’t delivered, your network must work toward a data-informed approach to fill in the cracks. Looking at your quality control, demand, supply, and process metrics can help you best understand how to tackle the challenges outlined above. Try looking for patterns across service accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness to evaluate your network’s success in care delivery.
Taking a step back to evaluate your System of Care may be beneficial, too. For example, look at my recent post on theories of change. Consider if your network’s theory of change needs revamping using the evaluation strategies I provide. Sometimes, zooming out on your efforts can help you see where your network has gaps.
Systems of Care are robust social impact networks that can mobilize resources toward community health. With the proper precautions and practices, you can practice resilience in the face of hardships and limited capacity to deliver quality service to those who need it most.