Network Effectiveness in Education

Name	File Type	Size	Last Modified
CC_MS.xlsx - Continuous calibration Net size resource munificence.csv	text/csv	627 bytes	02/13/2023 09:08:AM
CT_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	6.3 MB	06/11/2020 11:43:AM
FL_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	15.3 MB	04/08/2021 02:28:PM
IA_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	2.2 MB	02/13/2023 08:53:AM
MA_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	18.6 MB	04/08/2021 02:48:PM
MD_CInetworks_data_clean.dta	application/x-stata-dta	226.2 KB	02/14/2023 05:53:AM
ME_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	4.8 MB	06/11/2020 02:41:PM
MI_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	41.5 MB	06/08/2020 01:55:PM
NC_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	27.6 MB	04/08/2021 02:47:PM
NY_combined_IDed.csv	text/csv	20.1 MB	04/08/2021 02:48:PM

Project Citation:

Shumate, Michelle, and Doughtery, Shaun. Network Effectiveness in Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-02-14. https://doi.org/10.3886/E184824V1

Project Description

Summary: Interorganizational partnerships often emerge as a strategy for responding to complex social problems in a community, such as improving educational outcomes. There are two strategies for organizing such partnerships. At one end of the spectrum are highly organized, networks operated by network administrative organizations. In education, one example of this approach is collective impact networks. Collective impact represents a structured approach to inter-organizational collaboration in which partners share a common goal and common approach to measurement, coordinate their activities, and are convened by a supporting organization. At the other end of the spectrum are self-organized networks operating with participant-led, shared governance. In education, one example of this approach is self-organized networks based around common activities (i.e., early childhood coalitions, and school service provider networks). Some of these networks wax and wane based on the cyclic availability of grant funding. Although a more structured network approach is theorized (Provan & Kenis, 2008) to be beneficial in improving outcomes at the community level, empirical research has yet to study a large set of these networks in comparison.
The goals of this research were to:1) examine differences in the structures of planned and emergent inter-organizational networks,
2) determine how planned and emergent networks inform the diffusion of information across a community, and
3) explore the influence of planned and emergent networks on organizational, network, and community-level outcomes, including whether planned networks result in different community outcomes than emergent networks.

Funding Sources: Army Research Office (W911NF1610464)

Scope of Project

Subject Terms: Network Effectiveness; Education Outcomes

Geographic Coverage: North Carolina, New York, Iowa, United States, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, Florida, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan

Time Period(s): 2000 – 2019 (Time varies based on state availability)

Collection Date(s): 2018 – 2020 (Two rounds of interviews)

Data Type(s): administrative records data; other; program source code

Collection Notes: This data is derived from three different sources.

1) Interview Data (not archived)

2) Survey Data (not archived)

3) Administrative Data on Educational Outcomes and Community Differences (archived)

Survey data will be added to this archive in the coming months. Interview data are summarized for qualitative comparative analysis, and the calibrated QCA file is included in this archive. JPART article includes the calibration table.

Methodology

Response Rate: We collected longitudinal data on 26 cross-sector education networks in the United States. Networks were matched within states so that one network was a more formal network and the second a more emergent network. The average size of these networks was 36 organizations, ranging from networks with 8 organizations to 121 active organizations (n = 920 organizations). These networks served 1,313,178 students. We conducted two interviews, two years apart, with network leaders. In addition, we surveyed all organizations in the networks with a response rate of 62.7%.

Data Source: Variable - Source - Years
Persons in poverty, Percent - American Community Survey, County 5-year averages 2015-2019 - 2015-2019 averages
4th and 8th grade ELA Scores (school level) - School District Measures (individual state websites) - Latest available as of 2019
4th and 8th grade Math Scores (school level) - School District Measures (individual state websites) - Latest available as of 2019
High School graduation rates - School District Measures (individual state websites) - Latest available as of 2019
Share of Black students enrolledNational Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data - 2018-2019
Share of Hispanic students enrolled - National Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data2018-2019
Share of students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch - National Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data - 2018-2019

Collection Mode(s): telephone interview; web-based survey

Related Publications

Download this project

Published Versions

V1 [2023-02-14]

Export Metadata

Dublin Core

DDI 2.5

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.