SNH Maturity Model

Summary

We have developed a multiplicative maturity model for social network health as a conceptual guide to evaluating social network aspects of community health. We believe a multiplicative model to be appropriate for this type of implementation because in many cases, if key action findings are ignored entirely in an implementation of a social network approach (the current community implementation progress is 0 for that actionable finding), then the approach is likely to have no effect or a negative effect on community health (zero times anything is zero, and resources are lost, along with voltage drop).

Status

ALPHA: This is only a theoretical model at this time. This is not to be used in an implementation setting until it has been peer reviewed and studied. However, we do believe, at this time, that this model is worth thinking through and discussing when evaluating an approach to social network health.

Notes

Definitions: We should define what a "Maturity model" model and a "mature approach" are, possibly linking out to that information. We also need to account for the fact that some key action findings are not valid in some contexts - so the calculation done need to first identify which findings are ecologically valid, and then multiply out.

Actions v. Outcomes: The proposed model asks about the developmental status of Key Action Findings - this is more of an "implementation status". Another approach would be to ask about the Key Outcome Findings - that is a more of a "health status".

The Social Network Health Maturity Model

For each question, rate the current state of your program on a scale of 0 to 5, where:

• 0 = No Development
• 1 = Initial Development
• 2 = Basic Development
• 3 = Intermediate Development
• 4 = Advanced Development
• 5 = Perfected Development

1. Prevention

1. How effectively does your program identify and address mental health issues before they become severe?
   • 0: No preventive measures in place.
   • 1: Minimal preventive measures; reactive approach.
   • 2: Basic preventive measures; inconsistent application.
   • 3: Established preventive measures; moderately effective.
   • 4: Advanced preventive measures; consistently applied.
   • 5: Comprehensive preventive measures; highly effective and integrated.

2. Consistency

1. How consistent is the implementation of your program across different times and situations?
   • 0: No consistency; sporadic efforts.
   • 1: Minimal consistency; some efforts are made.
   • 2: Basic consistency; regular efforts but not integrated.
   • 3: Moderate consistency; efforts are fairly integrated.
   • 4: High consistency; efforts are well-integrated and ongoing.
   • 5: Full consistency; efforts are seamlessly integrated into the school culture.

3. Whole Community Involvement

1. How well does your program involve the entire school community (staff, students, parents, etc.)?
   • 0: No community involvement.
   • 1: Minimal community involvement; few stakeholders engaged.
   • 2: Basic community involvement; some stakeholders engaged.
   • 3: Moderate community involvement; many stakeholders engaged.
   • 4: High community involvement; most stakeholders engaged.
   • 5: Full community involvement; all stakeholders are actively engaged.

4. Evidence-Based Methodology

1. To what extent does your program use evidence-based practices?
   • 0: No use of evidence-based practices.
   • 1: Minimal use of evidence-based practices; some awareness.
   • 2: Basic use of evidence-based practices; inconsistent application.
   • 3: Moderate use of evidence-based practices; fairly consistent.
   • 4: High use of evidence-based practices; consistently applied.
   • 5: Full use of evidence-based practices; rigorously followed and updated.

5. Ecological Validity

1. How well does your program adapt to the specific cultural and demographic needs of your school?
   • 0: No adaptation to cultural and demographic needs.
   • 1: Minimal adaptation; some general efforts.
   • 2: Basic adaptation; partially tailored efforts.
   • 3: Moderate adaptation; fairly well-tailored efforts.
   • 4: High adaptation; well-tailored and effective efforts.
   • 5: Full adaptation; completely tailored and highly effective efforts.

6. Peer Influence

1. How effectively does your program utilize peer influence to promote mental health?
   • 0: No use of peer influence.
   • 1: Minimal use of peer influence; limited peer involvement.
   • 2: Basic use of peer influence; some peer involvement.
   • 3: Moderate use of peer influence; significant peer involvement.
   • 4: High use of peer influence; strong peer involvement and impact.
   • 5: Full use of peer influence; peer involvement is integral and highly impactful.

7. Active Learning

1. How well does your program incorporate active learning techniques?
   • 0: No use of active learning techniques.
   • 1: Minimal use of active learning techniques; passive learning dominates.
   • 2: Basic use of active learning techniques; some activities.
   • 3: Moderate use of active learning techniques; regular activities.
   • 4: High use of active learning techniques; frequent and effective activities.
   • 5: Full use of active learning techniques; central to the program and highly effective.

8. Mentoring

1. How effectively does your program use mentoring to support mental health?
   • 0: No mentoring in place.
   • 1: Minimal mentoring; few mentors available.
   • 2: Basic mentoring; some mentors available and active.
   • 3: Moderate mentoring; several mentors available and active.
   • 4: High mentoring; many mentors actively involved.
   • 5: Full mentoring; mentors are integral and highly effective.

9. Deep Conversations

1. How well does your program facilitate deep conversations for problem-solving?
   • 0: No facilitation of deep conversations.
   • 1: Minimal facilitation; occasional efforts.
   • 2: Basic facilitation; some regular efforts.
   • 3: Moderate facilitation; fairly regular and effective efforts.
   • 4: High facilitation; regular and very effective efforts.
   • 5: Full facilitation; central to the program and highly effective.

10. Discovery

1. How effectively does your program foster the discovery of individual strengths and group cohesion?
   • 0: No efforts to foster discovery.
   • 1: Minimal efforts; sporadic activities.
   • 2: Basic efforts; some regular activities.
   • 3: Moderate efforts; fairly regular and effective activities.
   • 4: High efforts; regular and very effective activities.
   • 5: Full efforts; central to the program and highly effective.