AIRS Member Research Atlas

ALLIANCE
O F I NFORMATION A ND R EFERRAL SYSTEMS W HITE PAPER S ERIES
AIRS Research Atlas
May, 2011
Prepared by Integer Research & Consulting, LLC Chicago, IL May, 2011
CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH SERVICES WHITE PAPER SERIES

Executive Summary (January, 2010) Organizations and Workforce (February, 2010) Perceptions of Community Understanding & Public Policy Issues (March, 2010) I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, and Client Needs (May, 2010) I&R Budgets, Funding, and Infrastructure (June, 2010) AIRS Research Atlas (January, 2011)
copyright 2010, 2011, Alliance of Information and Referral Systems and Integer Research & Consulting, LLC
Dear AIRS Member, The Alliance of InformaFon and Referral Systems has been serving the world of I&R since the late 1960s as the pre- mier professional membership organizaFon for a diverse and wonderfully varied range of pracFFoners and organiza- Fons, all of whom strive to provide vital services based on determining the existence of any number of recognizable condiFons and matching them with services catalogued in their respecFve communiFes. In every eort they focus their intent on accuracy and deniFon, and yet they represent one of the most ethereal but tangible professions I have ever seen. The concept of informaFon and referral is understood by those who work in it, but to express it in short bursts for general public appreciaFon and explanaFon seems beyond our collecFve ability. To go even deeper and be able to explain the eld of I&R in all its complexity is like trying to describe art: I dont know what it is, but I know what I like when I see it. The AIRS Board of Directors embarked on a path in 2008 meant to lead to some degree of enlightenment and clarity. Members provided an unprecedented amount of data in responding to a comprehensive environmental scan, and created an opportunity to catalogue aspects of the elds providers, and the people and communiFes they serve. Mark Neuer of Integer Research & ConsulFng conducted the scan, gathered the data, and created a series of white papers, each aimed at dening and clarifying a dierent aspect of the eld, and culminaFng in the 6th and nal edi- Fon presented as a Research Atlas. It is the rst major eort in a decade to dene how I&R has grown and developed into the eld that it is today. The Research Atlas is a tool for dening and expressing what we know about our eld. It is a wealth of informaFon that illuminates every aspect of what we are to those we desperately need to understand us: our communiFes, stake- holders, partners, funders and our clients. I would hope that each and every member will read these white papers, and especially the Atlas, in a diligent aYempt not only to be working in the eld of I&R, but to understand it. Every Fme I have had an opportunity to open the Atlas I have seen something new, useful, and powerful in establish- ing that I do not serve in isolaFon, that my organizaFon has meaning and can be dened and presented alongside the others in the industry in ways that allow understanding, clarity and meaning. The reference informaFon denes I&R as it exists now, as a snapshot of the condiFons of the industry and the idenFty of the providers at the Fme of the environmental scan. And to really know where we might be going, we all need to know where we are. Please take the Fme to honor the eort of this endeavor by reading the Research Atlas and recognizing what it really is: a tool for dening and explaining and understanding the ethereal and wonderful eld of informaFon and referral as a vital industry, crucial community service and most foundaFonal of human uFliFes. Art or notI like it. Sincerely, January 28, 2011
Tim Sylvia Board President
Alliance of Information & Referral Systems

11240 Waples Mill Road, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 703/218-2477 (AIRS): Fax 703/359-7562 www.airs.org
AIRS Research Atlas

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION TO T HE R ESEARCH ATLAS .........................................................1 RESEARCH H IGHLIGHTS A ND C ONCLUSIONS .....................................................3

AIRS M EMBERS O PERATE A S IGNIFICANT E NTERPRISE ................................................................3 I&R D IVERSITY N EEDS TO B E R ECONCILED W ITH U NIFIED I DENTITY .........................................4 COMMUNITY U NDERSTANDING O F I &R N EEDS I MPROVEMENT ................................................5 AIRS M EMBERS P OSSESS A VALUABLE R ESOURCE ........................................................................6 THE T ELEPHONE R EMAINS AT C ENTER S TAGE ...............................................................................7
DETAILED R ESEARCH F INDINGS ..........................................................................8

AIRS M EMBERSHIP ( FIGURES 1 -3) ..................................................................................................8 SURVEY R ESPONSE R ATES ( FIGURES 4 -7) ......................................................................................11 DEMOGRAPHICS ( FIGURES 8 -15) ...................................................................................................16 ORGANIZATIONS ( FIGURES 1 6-19) .................................................................................................21 WORKFORCE ( FIGURES 2 0-23) .......................................................................................................26 INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY I NFRASTRUCTURE ( FIGURES 2 4-29) ...........................................31 BUDGET ( FIGURES 3 0-31) ...............................................................................................................36 FUNDING ( FIGURES 3 2-36) .............................................................................................................39 I&R O PERATIONS ( FIGURES 3 7-43) ................................................................................................45 CLIENT C ONTACT VOLUMES A ND C HANNELS ( FIGURES 4 4-49) .................................................52 CLIENT P ROBLEMS A ND N EEDS ( FIGURES 5 0-51) ........................................................................58 PERCEPTIONS O F C OMMUNITY U NDERSTANDING O F I &R ( FIGURES 5 2-54) ............................61 COMMUNITY D EVELOPMENTS A ND P OSSIBLE P OLICY I NITIATIVES ( FIGURES 5 5-56) .............64 APPENDIX 1 : A IRS M EMBER S URVEY ............................................................................................66 APPENDIX 2 : R EVISIONS O F W HITE PAPER C ONTENT ................................................................82 APPENDIX 3 : S ELECTED P ROJECT B ACKGROUND ........................................................................83 APPENDIX 4 : S ELECTED P ROJECT F INDINGS ................................................................................86 APPENDIX 5 : S ELECTED P ROJECT R ECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................88 APPENDIX 6 : A IRS M EMBER S URVEY R ESPONDENTS .................................................................95 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................98 FEEDBACK A ND Q UESTIONS ...........................................................................................................98
AIRS Research Atlas INTRODUCTION TO T HE RESEARCH ATLAS

About AIRS The Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) is an international association with 1,200 members who facilitate access to services for all people through quality information and referral (I&R). Comprehensive and specialized I&R programs help people in every community and are a critical component of the health and human service delivery system. AIRS provides a professional umbrella for all I&R providers in both public and private sectors. Connec&ng People with Services White Paper Series Late in 2008, the AIRS Board of Directors began considering how research could help AIRS members identify and standardize best I&R practices, quantify and improve process outcomes, and achieve a better understanding of their contributions and value to their communities. As a first step, the Board engaged Integer Research & Consulting of Chicago to conduct an environmental scan of AIRS member organizations, the people they serve, and their communities. Online member survey and demographic research was conducted during 2009 and was reported in detail to the AIRS Board in November of that year. Integer also made recommendations about possible future research directions and projects. The Board determined that the best way to share these research findings would be through a series of White Papers released in the months surrounding the annual AIRS Training & Education Conference in May, 2010. The Research Atlas Five White Papers were distributed to the AIRS membership during the first six months of 2010. These included the Executive Summary; Organizations and Workforce; Perceptions of Commu- nity Understanding & Public Policy Issues; I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, and Client Needs; and I&R Budgets, Funding, and Infrastructure. The Research Atlas is the sixth and final White Paper in the series. It summarizes the most salient findings of the previous papers, adds important new information, and makes several corrections. It contains the most important graphic figures of the study together with detailed commentary. The Research Atlas is intended to serve as a contemporary AIRS and I&R at a Glance. It begins with Research Highlights and Conclusions, which briefly discusses the findings that seemed most striking, meaningful, and important to the researcher. Following this are a detailed review of research findings and a final section of appendices.
copyright 2011 by Alliance of InformaSon and Referral Systems and Integer Research & ConsulSng, LLC. All rights reserved.
AIRS Research Atlas

How to Use the Research Atlas Information for the Research Atlas was developed from member survey responses and demographic data compiled and analyzed during 2009-2010. The Research Atlas is designed to be used like an architectural illustration: it provides a colorful and credible rendering of a buildings structure, features, and surrounding environment. It is, however, a sketch and not a blueprint. Accordingly, the reader should use common sense and keep a reasonable allowance for variance in mind when evaluating or referring to the studys findings. When reviewing the Research Atlas and using portions of it for reporting or presentation purposes, the following factors should be considered. The data is compiled from either calendar year 2008 or from the most recently completed scal year at the `me of the member survey in April, 2009. Informaòn may have changed since that `me. The survey data was drawn from a non-random sample of AIRS members. As a result, certain quan`ta`ve ndings from the respondent data may not be reliably generalizable to the full AIRS membership. The data provides a good general picture. The study employed several quan`ta`ve models to generalize from the data. For example, es`mates are made of the total funding, workforce, and contact volumes of the AIRS membership. These provide a prac`cal, if approximate, way of sketching the larger picture. The survey also collected respondent opinions. For example, respondents were asked to es- `mate how well their cons`tuencies understand the nature and value of I&R. This informa- òn provides a useful star`ng point for thinking about this important subject, but addiònal data is needed to validate survey responses. Some gures in the Research Atlas show data to one or more decimal places. This is helpful for comparing items with fracònal or small values, but the decimal places generally do not represent precision to that level. Important Changes from Earlier White Papers Over the course of the project, a major report was presented to the AIRS Board and five White Papers were issued to AIRS members. The most important corrections and amplifications are documented in Appendix 2. The Research Atlas should be considered the definitive and final reference source for the AIRS Environmental Scan Research Project. The White Papers should be referenced for detailed narrative and descriptive information.
AIRS Research Atlas RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This study provides detailed information on the funding, workforce, and contact volumes of AIRS survey respondents. This naturally leads to the question, how extensive are the I&R operations of the full AIRS membership? To answer this, estimating frameworks were developed, and several key results are illustrated below. AIRS members, taken as a whole, operate a significant information and referral enterprise. The estimates suggest that total funding approaches $226 million, that the workforce in the US and Canada exceeds 10,000 paid and volunteer full-time equivalents, and that contact volumes are in the range of 22 million per year.
AIRS MEMBERS OPERATE A SIGNIFICANT ENTERPRISE
These estimates provide a sense of overall scale: AIRS members operate a significant enterprise for social good in their communities.
AIRS Research Atlas

I&R DIVERSITY NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED WITH UNIFIED IDENTITY
!"#$%&'()*+,-(./
The Research Atlas explores the great diversity among AIRS member organizations in terms of their economic sectors, service missions, and service configurations. Here are several examples that suggest the variety in the I&R landscape: Many respondents that provide crisis intervenòn services began their organizaònal existence as crisis lines or hot lines, and this is part of their ins`tuònal DNA. Crisis interven- òn is a dis`nc`ve feature of organizaònal iden`ty and is considered equal in importance to I&R. Associaòns of local government are public sector en`ès that provide services to the mul`- ple jurisdicòns by which they are funded. They cons`tute a unique organizaònal type that falls outside the usual government and nonprot classicaòns. Aging services organizaòns provide services that may involve more extensive support to the client and which may extend over mul`ple contacts. Consequently, such services are frequently described as informaòn and assistance, in contradis`ncòn to informaòn and referral. A number of AIRS members either contract or manage I&R services. These organizaòns are essenàl actors in the I&R community. The survey suggested that their roles, which are quite dierent from members that provide direct I&R services, need to be befer understood. Diversity, then, is a fact of life in the AIRS and I&R landscape. It presents a major challenge to AIRS in developing a distinctive, unified, and iconic I&R identity. AIRS has been wrestling with this difficult task by developing a clearer and more compelling branding for I&R. Research can provide strategic support for this critical issue of I&R identity. It should be possible, for example, to define an I&R process model that is robust enough to encompass provider and service diversity, and simple enough to supply compelling outcomes data for I&R as a whole.
AIRS Research Atlas

COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING OF I&R NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
The AIRS member survey probed respondents for their impressions of how well four cons`tuen- ciesthe general public, service providers, local government, and non-government fundersun- derstand informaòn and referral, and how much these levels of understanding require improvement. The gure below depicts perceived levels of community understanding on the horizontal axis and perceived need for improvement of understanding on the ver`cal axis. This high-level illustra- òn makes a powerful visual point. Survey respondents rated all constituencies as having only limited to some understanding of the four key features of I&R. Respon- dents believe that improving the the publics understanding of I&R is a task of moderate to higher importance. The question that logically follows is whether this set of i m p r e s s i o n s a c c u- rately reflects the communitys appre- ciation of I&R. A well- executed community survey could validate these important impressions and might suggest what courses of action could be taken in enhancing the understanding of I&R.
AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS MEMBERS POSSESS A VALUABLE RESOURCE
AIRS members are located across the United States and most of Canada. As illustrated by the bar chart below the map, AIRS members are distributed across the counties of the United States in a way that mirrors the the general population. As shown by these simple illustrations, it is possible to envision AIRS members as a network of informaSon-gathering and informaSon-disseminaSng enterprises spread across North America. This network possesses extensive informaòn about the publics demand for human services within and across its local nodes.
The study revealed that the challenges of gathering, compiling, and standardizing such data are sizable. Even more striking, however, is the immense value this information may hold for poli- cymakers, funders, and leaders throughout the public and private sectors.
AIRS Research Atlas

THE TELEPHONE REMAINS AT CENTER STAGE
In 2008, 98% of the publics completed contacts with AIRS survey respondents was via the telephone. The remaining 2% of contact volume was processed through seven other channels.
The preeminence of the telephone in I&R is also underscored by the phone cord on the cover of the AIRS 2009 Annual Report. This is notable in the Age of the Internet, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and it invites a number of questions. Are contacts not being processed because channels other than the telephone are not suf- ciently available? The pie chart (above lei) represents a total of about 8 million contacts. Could the need for help be signicantly larger? What are the trends in public use of informa- òn technologies to search for human services? What access paferns can be expected of the Boomers, Generaòn X, and their successors? For AIRS and its members, what will the pie charts look like one year, two years, and ve years from now? Should AIRS be developing a model that iden`- es complementary and eec`ve uses of all the informaòn and communicaòn technologies for I&R?
AIRS Research Atlas DETAILED R ESEARCH F INDINGS

AIRS MEMBERSHIP (FIGURES 1-3)
AIRS membership is located almost entirely in North America, with a handful of members overseas at US military installations and in Europe. Within North America, the large majority of members is in the United States (92%), with the remaining members in Canada (Figure 1). Fig- ure 2 shows the membership distribution across the states and provinces. At first glance, it appears that membership in the states and provinces correlates simply with population, but closer examination reveals membership patterns to be more complex. Some states with comparatively small populations have large numbers of AIRS members; in other cases, states with sizable differences in population have the same number of AIRS members. Finally, a substantial number of states, provinces, and territories have few or no AIRS members. These findings suggest that multiple factors influence the membership numbers (Figure 3). A number of interesting membership-related questions arise from the study: What are the desirability and feasibility of expanding AIRS membership in states, provinces, and territories where there is limited or no membership? Is any formula currently in use to dene a desirable rate of membership for states and provinces and, if not, should there be? The research revealed a wide variety of member organizaòns and operaòns. Have these dierent classes of members been explored systema`cally, on a class-by-class basis, for membership expansion possibiliès? What is the status of I&R elsewhere in the world, both in similar industrialized socieès and in developing countries? Are there opportuniès for linkages with, or addiòns to, AIRS membership in those areas?
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 1: AIRS Membership By Country and Type
The gure shows the distribuFon of AIRS members by country and by type of membership (organizaFonal and individual). Membership is predominantly in North America; only a small fracFon of members is located overseas in US military installaFons and in Europe.
Figure 2: Map of AIRS Membership By State and Province
The map shows AIRS members per state or province in size brackets of 20 members. Figure 3 (next page) provides a list of states and provinces, their AIRS membership, and their populaFons.
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 3: Graph and List of AIRS Members by State and Province
1. Most states and provinces have fewer than 40 members. Together, these states and provinces contain 43% of the total AIRS members. 2. Membership to some extent correlates with state and provincial populaFon: heavily populated states tend to have larger numbers of AIRS members. However, some states with smaller populaFons, like Wisconsin, have larger numbers of AIRS members. Other states with an equal number of AIRS members (such as New Jersey and Minnesota) show wide dierences in populaFon. These observaFons suggest that mulFple factors inu- ence the membership numbers, of which populaFon is just one.
10
AIRS Research Atlas

SURVEY RESPONSE RATES (FIGURES 4-7)
Survey ObjecZves and Design With a total of 48 questions in eight subject areas, the AIRS Member Survey was designed to gather information as broadly and as deeply as the respondents were willing to supply it. Com- pleting the survey required considerable effort by the respondent organizations, but it was felt that the high-quality information produced would more than offset the lower response rates resulting from the surveys steep demands. Baseline Response Rate 305 AIRS member organizations filled out the basic identifying information in the survey along with at least one substantive survey section. These 305 respondents, divided by the total of 1,291 organizational members, yielded a baseline response rate of 24%. To provide a context for response rate, a review of the survey literature was conducted. Gener- ally, it was found, response rates for organizational surveys are lower than those for surveys of individuals. This stems from the fact that more time, resources, and collaboration are required for an organization to frame a reply than for an individual. No single exemplary response rate for organizational surveys emerged from the literature. One source suggested that the response rate for an organizational survey might range from 5% to 40%, with 15% as an acceptable rate. The AIRS survey response rates fall within this range. Several additional measures of response rates may also be helpful. Baseline Response Rates by State, Province, and Country (Figure 4) Members in 45 of the 61 states, provinces, and overseas locations completed the basic identifying information and at least one substantive section of the survey. Figure 4.1 lists the states and provinces alphabetically and provides the number of members, respondents, and response rate for each. Figure 4.2 ranks the response rates in descending order, illustrating the results with a bar chart. Excluding non-responding areas, the rates range from a high of 67% to a low of 9%. Figure 4.3 shows that the baseline response rates for US members was 25%; for Canadian members, 11%; and for overseas areas, 13%. Using Membership Rates as a Gauge for State and Provincial Survey ParZcipaZon (Figure 5) Figure 5 offers an approach for evaluating state and provincial survey participation that may be more equitable than a simple comparison of response rates. The analysis establishes what the number of respondents in each state and province would have been if these respondents, as a percentage of total respondents, equalled the states or provinces percentage of the total AIRS membership. These calculated numbers are then compared to the actual numbers of respondents in each state and province.
11
AIRS Research Atlas

As Figure 5 shows, some states or provinces provided a fraction of total respondents that was greater than their respective fractions of AIRS membership. From this perspective, these states or provinces were overrepresented in the respondent group. Other states and provinces responded in fractions that were less than their respective fractions of the membership, and they were underrepresented. Others responded at a rate equal to their fraction of the membership. For example, the state of Tennessee has 26 members which constitute 2% of the AIRS membership. Two percent of 305 respondents is 6 members. The state had 8 respondents; it was overrepresented by 2 organizations. The state of Michigan has 49 members, or 3.8 % of the AIRS membership. At that percentage, the proportional number of respondents would be 12 organizations; since Michigan supplied 12 to the survey, it was represented in the respondent group proportionally to its membership. This approach could be used to project the number of respondents per state or province at any desired response rate, so it could be useful as a gauge of state and provincial participation in future surveys. Response Rates for Eight Survey Subject Areas (Figure 6) Another perspective is supplied by response rates for the eight survey subject areas. These vary between 10% and 24%. It is reasonable for the reader to feel a somewhat higher degree of con- fidence in the subject areas with higher rates of response. Response Rates by Two Demographic Factors (Figure 7) Demographics shed an interesting light on survey response rates. Figure 7.1 segments US county populations into five size brackets and shows the distribution of AIRS members and survey respondents in each of the brackets. In each case, respondent distribution tracks membership distribution to within 5%. The same type of analysis is presented in Figure 7.2, which di- vides the percent of county population of foreign birth into five size brackets. The distributions of AIRS members and survey respondents across the five brackets are, once again, quite close. The two demographic factors in this analysis are helpful in thinking about response rates. It is reasonable to conclude that the congruence between respondent and member distribution suggests that the respondent pool reasonably represents the larger membership. Summary As earlier suggested, the Research Atlas should be used like an architectural illustration of a building. It provides a colorful and credible picture of the buildings structure, features, and the surrounding environment, but it is a sketch rather than a blueprint. The reader should use common sense and keep a reasonable allowance for variance in mind when evaluating or referring to the studys findings. A regular and recurring census of AIRS members would lend greater precision to the information set forth in this study. A logical way to accomplish this would be to build on current vehicles such as membership renewals and annual staffing and salary surveys.
12
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 4: Baseline Response Rates by State, Province, and Country
305 respondents filled out the basic identifying information in the survey along with at least one substantive survey section. The 305 respondents, divided by 1,291 members, yielded the overall baseline response rate of 24%. Figure 4.1 lists states and provinces alphabetically and itemizes members, respondents, and baseline response rates. Figure 4.2 ranks the baseline response rates from high to low; the inset column chart (Figure 4.3) summarizes baseline response rates by country and shows the overall response rate of 24%. The overseas rate is unrealistically in- flated due to the small numbers of members and respondents.
13
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 5: Using Membership Rates as a Gauge for State and Provincial Survey ParZcipaZon
Assuming an overall response rate of 24% for all respondents, a theoretical number of respondents was calculated for each state and province based on each areas percent of total AIRS organizational members. The graph arrays the states and provinces from top to bottom based on whether the number of respondents that they actually supplied to the survey was greater than (top), the same as (middle) or less than (bottom) the number needed for each areas fraction of total respondents to equal its fraction of total organizational members.
14
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 6: Response Rates for Eight Survey Subject Areas
Response rates for individual subject areas of the survey ranged from 10% to 24%, with an overall average rate of 15%. These rates, because specic to parFcular subject maYer, are perhaps of greater pracFcal relevance than the overall baseline response rates.
Figure 7: Response Rates by Two Demographic Factors
Comparing membership and respondent percentages against a demographic background is another way of thinking about response rates. Figure 7.1 segments US response rates across a range of county populaFons. The blue bars show the percent of US AIRS members in each county size bracket; the green bars show the survey response rates within each popula- Fon bracket. Figure 7.2 displays members and response rates as they are distributed across US counFes with different fracFons of foreign-born populaFon. In both analyses, survey response rates closely track AIRS member representaFon in each populaFon bracket. This suggests that the respondent pool is reasonably representaFve of the larger membership.
15
AIRS Research Atlas

DEMOGRAPHICS (FIGURES 8-15)
This study used demographic data to highlight several features of the communities in which AIRS members are located. County-level data is the best common denominator for demographic analysis of US AIRS member locations; the closest comparable unit of analysis in Canada is the community, which may constitute a town, city, or other locality. Three Demographic Features of AIRS CommuniZes in the US and Canada (Figures 8-10) The study analyzed the features of population, population change, and aging population of the communities in which US and Canadian members are located. Each demographic feature was divided into five size brackets, and the member distribution was plotted within these ranges. The analysis produced these general findings: AIRS membership in both countries is distributed across the en`re spectrum of community populaòn sizes (Figure 8), rates of populaòn change (Figure 9), and percentages of aging populaòns (Figure 10). In other words, AIRS members are located across a diverse spectrum of communiès in the United States and Canada. The largest fracòns of AIRS members in both countries are located in communiès of 250,000 or fewer people (Figure 8); in areas where the populaòn increased up to 10% between 2000 and 2006 (Figure 9); and in places where the aging populaòn (age 55 and over) ranges between 20% to 30% (Figure 10). There was a striking resemblance in the distribuòns of Canadian and US members across each of the three demographic features, and these are readily visible in Figures 8-10. One possible interpretaòn is that there are important similariès in I&R across the naònal bor- der. Four Demographic Features of US CounZes in Which AIRS Members Are Located (Figures 11-14) Four demographic features were analyzed for the US counties in which AIRS members are located: county population, aging population, population of foreign birth, and population in poverty (Figures 11-14). As in the previous analysis, the population range for each demographic feature was divided into five size brackets. The distributions of AIRS members and county populations were plotted along the ranges for each demographic feature. The analysis produced these general observa- tions: AIRS members are distributed across the size brackets of each demographic feature, suggesting that they are located along a diverse spectrum of communiès as reected by populaòn size and age, diversity, and economic need. The distribuòn of AIRS members strongly resembles the distribuòn of US county popula- òns in the four demographic features, and the largest fracòns of US members and county populaòns share the same size brackets in each feature. This suggests that the membership mirrors important features of the general populaòn.
16
AIRS Research Atlas

US and Canadian InformaZon Sources (Figure 15) Figure 15 lists the types of US and Canadian demographic and economic data that are publicly available. The inclusion of additional variables of the sort listed here would enrich an understanding of the communities and populations served by AIRS members. AddiZonal ApplicaZons The study showed the feasibility and value of combining local demographic data with AIRS member information. The potential applications are numerous. For example, demographic and AIRS contact data could be combined to produce estimates of service demand, to design human service offerings, and to cost-justify service expansions. Demographic information describing the communities and populations AIRS members serve would undoubtedly be useful for I&R funding requests and identity-related initiatives.
17
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 8: PopulaZon in US and Canadian Member LocaZons
Figure 9: PopulaZon Change in US and Canadian Member LocaZons
Figure 10: Aging PopulaZon in US and Canadian Member LocaZons
Figures 8-10 segment US and Canadian member locaFons on the basis of populaFon size, percent change in the populaFon between 2000 and 2006, and percent of the populaFon age 55 and over. In the US, the general popu- laFon increased 6.4% between 2000 and 2006; the Canadian populaFon increased 5.4%. In 2006, 22.6 of the US populaFon was age 55 and over; in Canada, the aging populaFon was 25.3% of the general populaFon. In all three gures, there are marked similariFes of the US and Canadian member distribuFons across the size ranges.
18
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 11: AIRS Members and PopulaZon in US CounZes
Figure 12: AIRS Members and US County PopulaZon Age 55 & Over
Figure 13: AIRS Members and County PopulaZon of Foreign Birth
Figure 14: AIRS Members and County PopulaZon in Poverty
Figures 11-14 plot the distribuFon of AIRS member locaFons and US county populaFon on the basis of populaFon size, aging populaFon, populaFon of foreign birth, and populaFon in poverty. In 2006, 22.6% of the US popula- Fon was age 55 and over; in 2000, 11.1% of the US populaFon was of foreign birth; in 2004, the US poverty rate was 12.7%. In all four gures, the distribuFon of AIRS members appears to track that of the US county popula- Fons fairly closely, with some notable dierences at the low and high ends of the populaFon ranges in Figure 11.
19
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 15: US and Canadian InformaZon Sources
TABLE
B-1
US CENSUS BUREAU
Area and PopulaFon Total Area in Square Miles, 2000 PopulaFon (1990 and 2000) PopulaFon EsFmates (2006, 2005)
RELEVANT INFORMATION
Rank (1990, 2000, 2006) Persons Per Square Mile (1990, 2000, 2006) Net InternaFonal MigraFon PopulaFon Change 1990-2000 Hispanic or LaFno Origin (Percent) Males per 100 Females Residing in Same House in 1995 and 2000 Workers Who Drove Alone to Work, 2000 Households with Income of $75,000 or More in 1999 Persons in Poverty, 2004 and 2000
B-2 B-3 B-4
Components of PopulaFon Change PopulaFon by Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex PopulaFon CharacterisFcs
Total PopulaFon Change (2000-2006) Natural Increase (Total, Births, and Deaths) Age Ranges in Percent (of Total PopulaFon, 2005) Racial ComposiFon (Percent) Households, 2000 EducaFonal AYainment, 2000 Foreign-Born PopulaFon, 2000 Speaking Language Other Than English at Home, 2000
B-5 B-6
Births, Deaths, and Infant Deaths Physicians, Community Hospitals, Medicare, Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income Housing Units and Building Permits Crime--Number of Oenses Personal Income and Earn- ings by Industries
Births and Birth Rates, 2000 and 2004 Deaths and Death Rates, 2000 and 2004 Physicians and Rates Per 100,000 in 2004 Community Hospitals, Beds, and Rates in 2004 Medicare Program Enrollment, Change, and Rates (2000-2005) Housing Units 1990, 2000, and 2005 Net Change 2000-2005 Units per Square Mile, 1990 and 2005 Violent Crimes, 2004 and Totals for 2000 Total by Place of Residence (2000, 2004, and 2005) Percent Change (2004-2005, and 2000-2005) Per Capita, 2000 and 2005
Infant Deaths and Death Rates Per Live Births (1990, 2000, and 2004) Social Security Program Beneciaries, Rates, Change (2000-2005) Supplemental Security Income Program Recipients and Rates (2005) Owner-Occupied Units & MulF-Unit Structures, 2000 New Private Housing 2004, 2005, and 2000-2005 Property Crimes, 2004 and Totals for 2000 Earnings by Place of Work Percent by Selected Major Industries Private Non-Farm Business Establishments (2000- 2004), Employment (2000-2004), and Payroll (2004) AccommodaFon and Food Services Establishments and Sales, 2002 Federal, State and Local Government Employment, 2000 and 2005 ElecFons, 2004, Votes Cast for President (Republican and DemocraFc Candidates, Percent of Total)
B-7
B-8 B-9
B-10
Labor Force and Private Civilian Labor Force Total 2000, 2006, and 2000-2006 Business Establishments and Number of Unemployed 2000 and 2006 Employment Unemployment Rate 2000 and 2006 Banking, Retail Trade, and AccommodaFon and Food Services Government Expenditures, Earnings, and Employment Banking Oces, Rates, and Deposits (2005) Retail Trade Establishments and Sales (2002) Federal Government Expenditures 2000 and 2004 Federal, State and Local Government Earnings, 2000 and 2005
B-11
B-12
B-13
Local Government Finances Local Government Employment and Payroll, 2002 and ElecFons Local Government Finances 2002 (General Revenue and Total Debt Outstanding) Farm Earnings, Agriculture, and Water Use Manufacturing
B-14
Farm Earnings, 2005 Water Use, 2000 Agriculture, 2002 (Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Farm Products Sold) Establishments, 2002; Change 1997-2002 Employment, 2005 (Total, Percent of Employees) Earnings, 2005 (Total, Percent of Earnings) Value Added, 2002 Capital Expenditures, 2002
B-15
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
LAUCNTY08
DESCRIPTION
Labor force data by county, 2008 annual averages
2008 Unemployment Rate (Percent)
STATISTICS CANADA
Community Proles
DESCRIPTION
Selected demographic characterisFcs of Canadian towns, ciFes, and provinces
Community PopulaFon (2006) Community PopulaFon Change (2001-2006) Age Ranges in Percent (of Community PopulaFon, 2006)
NOTE: DATA THAT WAS IMPORTED INTO THE AIRS RESEARCH DATABASE IS PRINTED IN RED. US Census Bureau data: hYp://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/ccdbstcounty.html Department of Labor data: hYp://www.bls.gov/lau/ Canadian Community Proles: hYp://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E
20
AIRS Research Atlas

ORGANIZATIONS (FIGURES 16-19)
Survey respondents characterized their organizations from several perspectives, including economic sector, status as a free-standing entity or departmental unit, and organization type. This section of the Research Atlas reviews and synthesizes their responses. Four ClassicaZon Axes (Figure 17) Classifying AIRS organizations was challenging, given the notable organizational diversity of the membership: survey responses identified 29 types of organizations (Figure 16). Four classification axes were used to classify these member organizations: economic sector; organizational service domain; I&R service configuration; and service function (role as a direct I&R service provider or as a contractor). The multiple classification frameworks described here were used throughout the study to or- ganize and analyze the data. AIRS would benefit by continuing to develop systems that characterize and better serve groups of members within the larger membership. Sector (Figure 19) More than two-thirds of the membership (71%) are in the private sector, almost all of which are nonprofit organizations. The remaining 29% of the members are in the public sector, being either government entities or collaborative associations of local governments. Service Domains (Figures 17-18) The service domain classification axis identifies the segment of society that an organization is chartered to serve. Three major groups were identified and were classified into four service domains: Organizaòns serving specic populaòns, subdivided into two service domains: - Those serving the aging population (34% of respondents) and - Those serving all other designated populations (13%). Organizaòns providing diversied services to the community (33%). Organizaòns whose principal charter is to provide informaòn to the community (20%). Service ConguraZons AIRS members serve society through multiple configurations of I&R services. These are covered extensively later in the Research Atlas in the I&R Operations section and are illustrated in Figure 37. Service FuncZon The AIRS membership is dominated by direct I&R service providers but also includes organizations that contract and manage I&R services. For example, Area Agencies on Aging may function as I&R contractors, and statewide 2-1-1 offices function as management entities. Both are essential parts of the I&R landscape, and their roles, functions, and needs must be understood as completely as those of direct service providers.
21
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 16: Respondents Listed by OrganizaZon Type
The table is compiled from survey responses to a preliminary pick list of organizaFonal types to which respondents could add their own deniFons. A small number of organizaFonal types (such as the United Way Agencies and Area Agencies on Aging) form a large fracFon of respondents; a wide variety of other organizaFonal types makes up the balance. Figure 18 below shows how this iniFal list can be congured into four groups of organizaFons based on their service domains.
22
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 17: Four Axes for Classifying OrganizaZons
1. Economic Sector: An organizaFon is classed based on whether it is a government enFty or funded by public monies, or whether it is a private enterprise of a non-prot, for-prot, or religious nature. 2. Service Domain: All AIRS members provide or contract InformaFon and Referral services, but their formal or- ganizaFonal mission, characterized by the Service Domain classicaFon, diers. Some members are chartered to serve specic popula\ons such as the aging, disabled, and mentally ill, and provide an array of services including I&R. Others are focused on serving the community through mulFple services, of which I&R is one. A third group also serves one or more communiFes, but its principal service oering is informa\on-related. 3. I&R Service Congura\on: AIRS members were segmented into those that serve the public at large (comprehensive) and those that serve specic populaFons (specialized). Each segment may oer dierent congura- Fons of services, including 2-1-1, crisis intervenFon, disaster-related I&R services, and a variety of other services. Greater detail is provided in the I&R OperaSons secFon of this Research Atlas. 4. Service Func\on: Member organizaFons may be classied based upon whether they provide I&R services di- rectly, contract such services, or serve as an administraFve oce for direct service providers.
23
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 18: Respondents Compiled by Service Domain
24
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 19: Respondents Shown by Sector and Service Domain
1. Public and Private Sector: The majority of respondents (71%) is from the private sector, but a substanFal frac- Fon (21%) is from the public sector. Public-sector respondents are from all branches of government and from collaboraFve associaFons of local governments. Private sector organizaFons are almost enFrely nonprots, with a small fracFon of faith-based organizaFons. No for-prot organizaFons were among the respondents. 2. Sector and Service Domain: The public- and private-sector respondents are segmented further by service domain. In the public sector, the largest fracFon of respondents provides aging services; in the private sector, community services is the largest segment. 3. Service Domain: All respondents, across public and private sectors, are shown by service domain. 4. Standalone Organiza\ons vs. Departments: About one-third of the respondents are free-standing, standalone organizaFons, all of which are from the private sector. About two-thirds (68%) of the respondents are departments or units of larger organizaFons.
25
AIRS Research Atlas

WORKFORCE (FIGURES 20-23)
Study findings suggest that that AIRS members employ more than ten thousand paid and volunteer workers in their I&R operations. The survey provided detailed information on the composition and concerns of the workforce. Paid Workforce Size (Figure 20) Respondent I&R staff ranged broadly from less than one full-time equivalent to more than 100. Overall, I&R staff was comparatively small: about two-thirds of the respondents had a workforce of ten full-time equivalents or less (Figure 20.1). The data revealed workforce size differences based on service domain: median FTEs for Aging Services, Community Services, and Serv- ices to Other Populations were in the 6 -7 FTE range; in contrast, the median for Information Services was 10.8 (Figure 20.3). Paid Workforce EducaZon, Service, and Issues (Figure 21) The respondent workforce is well-educated, with nearly three-quarters holding a post- secondary degree or higher (Figure 21.1). More than two-thirds of the management ranks have 5 years or more of experience; conversely, about two-thirds of I&R Specialists and Resource Specialists have less than five years of service (Figure 21.2). The length of service findings may reveal potential concerns about retirement in the management ranks and turnover in technical staff. Respondents considered the issues of better career paths and improved retention to be somewhat less important than other factors such as competitive salaries, training, and reduction of burnout. But, if ratings of moderate importance and higher importance are combined, no single issue received less than two-thirds of responses (Figure 21.3). Impact of Budget (Figure 22) The data reveals an apparent threshold of operational scale at budgets of $500,000. The median staff for organizations with budgets larger than this, 15.2, is more than three times the median for those with $500,000 or less, and more than twice the overall median of 6.0 (Figure 22.1). When budget size and service domain are analyzed together (Figure 22.2), the phenome- non is even more pronounced. For example, the median for Information Services respondents with budgets of more than $500,000 is 25.3 FTEs, more than four times the overall median. Volunteer Workforce (Figure 23) AIRS members in all service domains use volunteer help. Overall, 63% use volunteers, with the highest use in the Information Services and Community Services domains (Figure 23.1). Volun- teer workforces in full-time equivalents (Figure 23.2) are small, with an overall average of 2.0 FTEs. Volunteer workforce size for the Information Services domain is higher, at 4.0 FTEs. Respondents deploy volunteers within information and referral functions to different extents, ranging from occasional to essential. The most essential use of volunteers is answering the telephone (17.2% of respondents), with the other functions at markedly lower rates (Figure 23.3).
26
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 20: Paid Workforce
1. Paid Sta in Full-Time Equivalents: Respondent I&R sta sizes range from less than 1 FTE to 150. The majority of respondents (65.3%) has an I&R sta of 10 FTEs or less; the largest segment (42%) has a sta of 5 or less. 2. Full-Time Equivalents by Service Domain: The largest fracFons of all four service domains are in the smallest workforce size bracket. The Services to Other PopulaFons domain has the largest fracFon in the middle workforce size bracket; InformaFon Services has the largest fracFon in the highest workforce size bracket. 3. Median FTEs by Service Domain: Except for InformaFon Services, with a median of 10.8 FTEs, median sta ranges between 6 and 7 FTEs with an overall median of 6.1 FTEs.
27
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 21: Paid Workforce EducaZon, Length of Service, and Issues
1. Educa\onal Acainment: 73% of respondent personnel have an associates, bachelors, or graduate degree and 23% have a high school degree. The most widely-held educaFonal credenFal is the bachelors degree (48%). 2. Length of Service by Posi\on: 68% of managers have 5 or more years of service, compared with 38% of I&R Specialists and 35% of Resource Specialists. A majority of I&R Specialists and Resource Specialists (62% and 65%, respecFvely) have less than 5 years of service. 3. Sta Issues: No single issue overshadows the others in importance, although the respondents considered better career paths and improved retenFon to be somewhat less important than the other factors. If raFngs of moderate importance and higher importance are combined, no single issue received less than two-thirds of responses.
28
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 22: Paid Workforce Segmented by Budget Size
1. Quar\le FTE Values Segmented by Budget Tier: The graph segments FTE quarFles for respondents with budgets of $500,000 or less, for those with more than $500,000, and for all respondents. QuarFles 1, 2, and 3 are represented with dierent colors, and the median values are shown beside each of the three bars. The median for budgets of more than $500,000, 15.2 FTEs, is more than three Fmes the median for those with $500,000 or less (4.5), and is more than twice the overall median of 6.0. The highest quarFle, QuarFle 4, is not shown because at this scale it would extend o the graph. 2. Median FTE Values Segmented by Budget Tiers, Service Domains, and Service Types: The graph quanFes median FTE workforce size relaFve to budget Fer and specic I&R domain or service type. For each I&R domain or service type, the graph shows the median values for budgets of $500,000 or less, for budgets of more than $500,000, and for all respondents. The analysis suggests that budget size, in conjuncFon with service domain or service type, has an important relaFonship to workforce size.
29
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 23: Volunteer Workforce
1. Volunteer Use in Any Func\on, by Service Domain: OrganizaFons in all service domains use volunteer help. Overall, 63% of all respondents use volunteers in some funcFon, with the highest use in the InformaFon Serv- ices and Community Services domains. 2. Volunteer Full-Time Equivalents by Service Domain: This gure shows variaFons of median volunteer FTEs by service domain. 3. Extent of Volunteer Use in Four I&R Func\ons: This gure shows how respondents deploy volunteers within informaFon and referral funcFons and the extent of their use, ranging from occasional to essenFal. The most essenFal use of volunteers is answering the telephone (17.2% of respondents), with the other funcFons at markedly lower frequencies.
30
AIRS Research Atlas

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE (FIGURES 24-29)
Information technologies play crucial roles in the day-to-day I&R operations of AIRS members. Respondents appraised the performance of six components of their information technology infrastructure, reported on plans for replacing them, and listed their technology vendors. InformaZon Technology Performance (Figure 24) More than half of the responses indicated that the technologies fully met or exceeded the needs of the respondents, and only a small fraction stated that respondent needs were rarely met. Respondents viewed the performance of software-related components (I&R software, websites, and online resource databases) somewhat less favorably than hardware related components (telephone systems, computers, and internet connectivity). InformaZon Technology Replacement Plans (Figure 25) Slightly more than half of the respondents (56%) had no plans to replace components of their infrastructure. Of the remainder, about one-quarter (23%) wanted to replace at least one component but had failed to secure funding; 9% wanted to initiate replacement and had requested funding at the time of the survey; and 12% had successfully secured funding to replace one or more infrastructure components. Respondents were most interested in replacing their I&R software, websites, and online resource databases. Vendor Analysis and LisZng Figures 26-29) Vendor diversity varies significantly by technology: respondents listed 56 telephone system vendors, 22 I&R/resource database vendors, and 11 computer vendors, including proprietary and custom-built technologies. In the case of I&R/resource database software vendors and computer vendors, installations are concentrated among a comparatively small number of vendors (Figure 26).
31
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 24: Infrastructure Performance
1. Infrastructure Performance for Six Components: Respondents appraised the performance of six components of their informaFon technology infrastructure using a four-point raFng scale (shown in the graphs key and in the tables rst column). The bar chart and table display the raFngs for each infrastructure component. The pie chart shows a summary of the raFngs for all six components. Fixy-seven percent (57%) of the responses indicated that the technologies fully met or exceeded the needs of the respondents. 2. Infrastructure Performance Scores for Six Components: The gure shows that computers (average score of 92), Internet connecFvity (92), and telephone system components (88) are rated more highly than the average for all components (86). The components that scored lower than the average were I&R soxware, (82), website, (81), and online resource database, (78).
32
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 25: Infrastructure Replacement Plans
Infrastructure Replacement Plans for Six Components: Respondents reported their plans for replacing infrastructure components. The leading candidates for replacement (based on secured funding) are I&R soxware (18%), online resource database soxware (16%), and the organizaFons website (15%). The pie chart summarizes plans for all six components. Slightly more than half (56%) of the respondents had no plans for replacement. About one-quarter (23%) wanted to replace at least one component but had failed to secure funding; 9% wanted to iniFate replacement and had requested funding at the Fme of the survey; 12% had successfully secured funding to replace infrastructure components.
33
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 26: Vendor InstallaZons
1. Vendors Segmented by Number of Installed Sites: Respondents listed their telephone system, I&R/resource database soxware, and computer system vendors. The gure segments the vendors by the numbers of their installed sites. There are large numbers of vendors with smaller numbers of installed sites, as well as a small number of vendors with large numbers of sites. 2. Analysis of Telephone System, I&R/Resource Database, and Computer Installa\ons: The three pie charts show that installaFons of these three technologies are concentrated among a comparaFvely small number of vendors. This is parFcularly so in the case of I&R/resource database soxware vendors (top 5 account for 71% of installaFons) and computer vendors (top 4 account for 68%). In the much more diverse eld of telephone vendors, the concentraFon is smaller (top 5 vendors account for 31% of installaFons).
34
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 27: Respondent Telephone Vendors
3Com Aastra Technologies Limited All-Mode Communications AltiGen Communications AT&T AT&T (Bellsouth) Atlantic Telecom Avaya Bridgecom Systems BSB Communications Inc. CenturyTel CenturyTel (Embarq) Cisco Systems Comdial Corporation Comporium Communications DeltaCom Inc. FairPoint Communications FiberNet, LLC Firstline Voice and Data Frontier Communications Government-Supplied Heartland Business Systems inContact, Inc. Inter-Tel Iwatsu Voice Networks Lore Systems, Inc. McCleod USA (PAETEC) Meridian (Nortel) Mitel Networks Corporation Morefield Communications NEC Corporation NICE Systems Nortel NuVox Optimum Lightpath Panasonic Corporation Ritter Communications Rolm (Siemens) Samsung ShoreTel Inc. Smithville Telephone Smoothstone IP SNOM Technology AG Sovernet Communications Sprint TDS Telecommunications TeleCourier Communications Teltek Communications, Inc. TELUS Communications Time Warner Cable Inc. Toshiba UCN (Voice Mobility, Inc.) Vendor In Transition Verizon WiLine Networks, Inc. Custom-built systems
Figure 28: Respondent I&R/Resource Database Soeware Vendors

BMC Software Bowman Systems Bowman Systems (Suncoast) CH Mack, Inc. Charity Logic Inc. Community Information Community Tech Knowledge Government-Supplied Harmony Information Innovative Data Systems, Inc. Northlight Software, Inc. Office Productivity Software Proprietary RTM Designs RTZ Associates Senior Navigator Social Solutions, Inc. Trilogy Integrated Resources, VisionLink WebInform Xuma Technology Proprietary software packages
Figure 29: Respondent Computer Vendors

Acer Apple Asus Custom-Built Dell Computer Gateway Hewlett Packard IBM Lenovo Custom-built systems
35
AIRS Research Atlas

BUDGET (FIGURES 30-31)
Respondents reported on their budgets in the last complete fiscal year and the changes those budgets showed from the previous year. The data may suggest that the economic turbulence experienced by the nation had not yet impacted respondent I&R budgets at the time the survey was taken. Budget Ranges (Figure 30) The survey gathered budget information in eight size brackets (Figure 30.1). For the purposes of analysis, this continuum was segmented into tiers of three sizes (Figure 30.2) and two sizes (Fig- ure 30.3). The majority of AIRS members operate on comparatively small I&R budgets. Slightly more than half of respondents (55%) have annual I&R budgets of $250,000 or less; nearly three-quarters (72%) have budgets of $500, 000 or less. There may be correlations between organizational service domain and budget size (Figure 30.2). The majority of Aging Services respondents (75%), for example, is in the lowest budget tier; In- formation Services respondents are more heavily represented in the highest tier than organizations from the other service domains. An annual budget size of $500,000 appears to demarcate significant differences in workforce size and annual contact volumes. Respondents with budgets of more than $500,000 have a median paid workforce of 15.2 FTEs, which is more than three times the median of 4.5 FTEs for those with $500,000 or less. The median annual contact volume for respondents with budgets of more than $500,000 is 67,295, more than eight times the median of 8,000 contacts for organizations with budgets of $500,000 or less. Detail on workforce size and budget correlations is provided earlier in the Research Atlas (Figure 22); Figure 47 reviews the relationship between budget and annual contact volumes. Budget Changes (Figure 31) Respondents with year-over-year budget decreases and budget increases were about the same (24% and 25%, respectively) and, together, equalled the segment of respondents (50%) in which little or no budget change was experienced (Figure 31.1). There may be a relationship between budget size and whether the budget increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Organizations with larger budgets sustained a larger percentage of decreases (Figure 31.2).
36
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 30: Budget Ranges
1. I&R Budget Ranges: Respondents specied their I&R budget range for the last complete scal year. Slightly more than half of respondents (55%) have budgets of $250,000 or less; the remainder extend across the budget spectrum to $5 million or more. 2. I&R Budget Data in Three Tiers: Budgets have been ploYed against three budget Fers to highlight dierences in distribuFon by service domain. The majority of Aging Services organizaFons (75%) have budgets of $250,000 or less. InformaFon Service organizaFons are evenly distributed across the budget spectrum in three nearly equal porFons. 3. I&R Budget in Two Tiers: The pie chart shows the division of respondent budgets into two Fers based on a threshold of $500,000. OrganizaFons above this amount have markedly larger work forces and annual contact volumes than those below it. See Figure 22 (Workforce) and Figure 47 (Contact Volumes) for detailed analysis.
37
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 31: Budget Changes
1. I&R Budget Changes: The gure illustrates year-over-year changes in budgets. Across all respondents, those who sustained budget decreases equalled those who enjoyed budget increases. The remaining half of the respondents experienced liYle or no change. 2. I&R Budget Changes by Budget Size: The composiFon of budget changes diered based on overall budget size. The largest fracFon of respondents with budget decreases is in the budget Fer of $1 million or more (37% of respondents in the Fer). The middle range of budgets ($250,000 - $1 million) had the largest fracFon of respondents with budget increases (36% of respondents); respondents in the Fer of $250,000 or less had the highest fracFon with liYle or no change (56% ).
38
AIRS Research Atlas

FUNDING (FIGURES 32-36)
Respondents provided information on the composition and amount of their funding sources, and reported whether they had experienced changes in their sources over the last two completed fiscal years. Funding Sources (Figure 32) Slightly more than one-quarter of the respondents (27%) have single-source funding. The remainder relies on multiple sources, up to as many as eight (Figure 32.1). More than half of the respondents received funding from state/provincial governments and the United Way (53% of respondents from each source). One-third of the respondents received federal funding and county funding (33% of respondents). Estimates of funding dollars suggested that the United Way and state/provincial sources contributed the largest shares of funding dollars to the total funding of the respondents. Estimated respondent funding was close to $100 million (Figure 32.2). Changes in Funding Sources (Figures 33-34) About half of the respondents (49%) experienced no net funding change over the two-year period, taking into account all changes in their funding sources. Nearly one-third (32%) experienced a net decrease in funding; the remaining 19% enjoyed a net increase (Figure 33). The dollar value of funding changes was estimated for each funding source and totaled for all sources. The estimating model showed the largest increase was in federal funding and the largest decrease was in individual support; the net decrease across all sources was less than 1 percent, or roughly $798,000 (Figure 34.2). While a small number of respondents were heavily affected by funding decreases, overall the impact of funding changes appears to have been minimal. It would be useful to compare this information with subsequent funding experience to determine whether the prolonged economic downturn has taken a more substantial toll since the survey period. EsZmaZng Models (Figures 35-36) The models for estimating funding dollars (Figure 35) and changes in funding dollars (Figure 36) are provided to illustrate how survey responses were converted into high-level dollar estimates. Because the models use range midpoints and constants, the results are approximations that give an idea of scale. The values thus derived were also used to estimate the total funding dollars for the full AIRS membership (see AIRS Members Operate a Significant Enterprise on page 1 of the Research Atlas).
39
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 32: Number and Analysis of Funding Sources
1. Number of Funding Sources: Slightly more than one-quarter of respondents (27%) are funded by sole sources. The remaining 73% are funded by two to eight sources. 2. Analysis of Funding Sources: The blue bars in the graph represent the percent of the respondents that is receiving funding from each of the nine specied funding sources. The top two rows of the table beneath the bar chart, Ftled Respondents, correspond to the blue bars on the graph. The paired cells in these rows specify the number of respondents that receives funding from a parFcular source and the corresponding percent of the total respondents (169) this number represents. The totals for all sources exceed 100% because many respondents receive funding from mulFple sources. The green bars in the graph represent the esFmated fracFon that each funding source consFtutes of the total dollar funding of all sources. The percentages of esFmated dollars sum to 100%. The two boYom rows of the table (EsFmated Funding) correspond to the green bars in the graph. They show the dollar esFmates, in mil- lions, for each funding source, and the percent each source consFtutes of the total esFmated funding of $97.4 million. Note: These esFmates provide a general scope of funding; they are not precise quanFcaFons. The method for deriving the esFmates is documented in Figure 35.
40
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 33: Reported Ranges of Funding Change
The gure illustrates the impacts on respondents of funding changes across all sources. As shown by the pie chart, nearly half (49%) of the respondents experienced no net change across all their sources of funding. About one-third (32%) of the respondents sustained net decreases in funding, and about one-xh (19%) enjoyed net increases. Note: These esFmates provide a general scope of funding; they are not precise quanFcaFons. The method for deriving the esFmates is documented in Figure 36.
41
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 34: Changes in Funding by Source
1. Changes in Funding by Source, as a Percent of Respondents: The bar chart illustrates the changes in funding by source. Each set of three bars shows the percent of respondents receiving funding from a parFcular source that experienced a decrease of more than 5% (red bars), an increase of more than 5% (green bars), or liYle or no change (gray bars) from that source. Each set of three bars sums to 100%, with allowances for rounding. 2. Es\mated Net Changes in Funding by Source, as a Percent of Es\mated Funding Dollars: The gure provides a high-level esFmate of the net dollar impact of funding source increases and decreases. As shown in the rightmost column of the bar chart and table, across all funding sources the net esFmated change was a reduc- Fon of about 0.8%, or an esFmated dollar decrease of $798,200. Note: These esFmates provide a general scope of funding; they are not precise quanFcaFons. The method for deriving the esFmates is documented in Figure 36.
42
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 35: EsZmaZon of Funding Dollars
The gure shows how es\mates were derived for funding sources and total funding. 1. All respondents that provided a budget range in their surveys were idenFed. 2. For each such respondent, a budget range midpoint was specied. 3. The funding source percentages specied by each respondent in the survey were mulFplied by the respondents budget range midpoint. 4. This yielded the dollar esFmate for each respondents funding sources. 5. Such dollar esFmates were totaled for all respondents by source. 6. The funding source totals were added together to yield a grand total of esFmated funding for all respondents and all sources.
43
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 36: EsZmaZon of Dollar Amounts of Funding Changes
The gure shows how es\mates were derived for dollar amounts of funding changes. 5. Respondents reported whether funding decreased, increased, or stayed the same for each funding source. The degree of change was specied using a ve-point scale. 6. Based on the respondents choice, a decimal fracFon was mulFplied by the respondents esFmated funding source dollars (in No. 4). 7. The funding source changes were then totaled to provide the net dollar change, by source, for all respondents. 8. The funding source change totals were added together to yield a grand total of esFmated funding changes for all respondents and all sources.
44
AIRS Research Atlas

I&R OPERATIONS (FIGURES 37-43)
Respondents characterized the structure and content of their I&R service offerings and defined the scope of their service territories. They provided a vivid impression of the diverse, complex, and numerous services AIRS members offer to society. Service ConguraZons (Figure 37) Half the respondents provides I&R services designed to serve the public at large (comprehensive service providers) and the other half provides I&R services for specific or designated populations (specialized service providers). All blended services, and the majority of 2-1-1 and crisis-related services, are supplied by the comprehensive I&R providers (Figure 37.2). Overall, 44% of the respondents supply 2-1-1 services, 19% supply crisis intervention services, and 57% provide disaster-related services (Figure 37.3). Specialized I&R Services (Figure 38) Respondents offer an array of specialized I&R services, the majority of which are related to the aging population. Other specialized services are provided to youth, families, and other designated populations (Figure 38.1). The largest fraction of providers of specialized services (70%) is in the Aging Services domain (Figure 38.3). Contracted I&R Services (Figure 39) Respondents supply more than 30 categories of I&R services under contract (Figure 39.1). To- gether, respondents in the Community Services and Information Services domains make up the majority (73%) of contract I&R service providers (Figure 39.3). Contracted Non-I&R Services (Figure 40) Most of the non-I&R services provided under contract are direct program services such as emergency food and legal services, and coordinating functions such as case management. A smaller number of contract services are technical offerings that grow out of the skills, information, and technologies deployed by the respondents in their mainstream I&R work. I&R Services in Disaster (Figure 41) The respondents assume a range of responsibilities serving the public in disasters. Many are chartered to serve as information gateways either to the general public or to specific populations. Other functions include collaboration with government agencies and human service organizations during disasters, disaster planning, and personnel and data management. Areas Served (Figure 42) The vast majority of respondents (80%) provides I&R services to one or more counties, although other respondents provide services locally, statewide, and nationally. The predominance of counties in the service profile fostered the decision to use them as the unit of demographic analysis (see Demographics and Figures 8-14 earlier in the Research Atlas).
45
AIRS Research Atlas

Other I&R OrganizaZons in the Area (Figure 43) Nearly 85% of the respondents reported between one and three I&R organizations in their locations. It seems likely that some of these are not AIRS members and might benefit from in- volvement in the Alliance. Summary The experience of processing I&R operations data revealed the need to improve the frameworks used to define I&R service offerings. In several cases, survey data was extended and corrected by incorporating data from the provider websites. The enhanced data set led to a restatement of respondent ratios in comprehensive/specialized services, 2-1-1 services, and crisis intervention services (see Appendix 2 for details).
46
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 37: Service ConguraZons
1. Organiza\ons Oering Comprehensive and Specialized Services: The pie chart shows an even division between respondents providing comprehensive services and those providing specialized services. Four types of service oerings were specied for organizaFons oering comprehensive and specialized services. The bar chart and table below the pie chart show the number of respondents, their percent of all respondents, and their percent of comprehensive or specialized service providers, that provide these types of services. 2. Comprehensive and Specialized I&R Service Organiza\ons - Service Congura\on: The three pie charts show, for comprehensive service organizaFons and for specialized service organizaFons, what fracFons oer 2-1-1 services, crisis intervenFon services, and services related to disaster. 3. All Organiza\ons - Service Congura\on: The three pie charts in this gure show the conguraFons of the three services for all respondents. The bar chart shows the way these conguraFons are combined across all respondents (combining data for comprehensive and specialized I&R service providers).
47
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 38: Specialized I&R Services
1. Specialized I&R Services: The largest respondent segments provide specialized I&R services to meet the in- formaFon needs of older adults (54 respondents), and older adults/people with disabiliFes (12). Together, these 66 responses account for nearly 73% of the total. 2. Primary vs. Secondary Service Oerings: Only a small fracFon of the respondents (6%) that oer specialized I&R services operate I&R as their primary and only service. The much larger fracFons of respondents oering specialized services are those operaFng I&R as either a primary service with other services (45%) or as a secondary service (49%). 3. Providers of Specialized I&R Services by Service Domain: The majority of organizaFons oering specialized services (70%) is from the Aging Services domain, mirroring the content of service oerings shown in the bar chart in Figure 38.1.
48
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 39: Contracted I&R Services
1. Contracted I&R Services: The bar chart displays the variety of I&R services provided under contract. 2. Primary vs. Secondary Service Oering: The majority of contract I&R providers oers I&R as either their primary service (26%) or as a primary service with other oerings (45%). The bar chart shows that providers with I&R as their primary and only service supply an average of about three services under contract. Those oering I&R as a primary service in conjuncFon with other services, and as a secondary service, provide fewer contracted services on average (1.9 and 1.6, respecFvely). 3. Service Domains of Contract I&R Providers: The pie chart shows that respondents in the Community Services (37%) and InformaFon Services domains (36%) together comprise nearly three-quarters of those that provide I&R services under contract. The bar chart shows average contracted services segmented by service domain. OrganizaFons from the InformaFon Services domain provide about three services on average, and Community Services respondents average about two services.
49
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 40: Contracted Non-I&R Services
Program Services (61 Respondents) Technical Services (7 Respondents)
Benets Counseling Caregivers Services Case Management DomesFc Violence Services Emergency Food/Shelter Homeless Services Legal Services NutriFon & Food Services Ombudsman Services Telephone Reassurance Volunteer OpportuniFes Community Voice Mail Grant Management Technical Training Data Entry Data Leasing Database Development HMIS OperaFon Program EvaluaFon SaFsfacFon Surveys Training DocumentaFon Web ApplicaFon Development
Respondents provide a variety of non-I&R services under contract, the largest group of which comprises program services. A smaller group of non-I&R services comprises technical offerings that grow out of the skills, information, and technologies deployed by the respondents in their mainstream I&R work.
Figure 41: I&R Services in Disaster
1. Organiza\ons with a Current Role in Disasters: At the Fme of the survey, 54% of the respondents had a role in disaster situaFons, 41% did not, and 5% had a role that was under development. 2. Organiza\ons with a Disaster Role Segmented by Service Domain: Forty-two percent (42%) of respondents with a role in disasters are from the Community Services domain and 30% are from InformaFon Services. Smaller fracFons are from Aging Services and from OrganizaFons Serving Other PopulaFons. 3. Disaster-Related Func\ons Performed by I&R Organiza\ons: In the event of disaster, 40% of the respondents are chartered to serve as the informaFon gateway to the general public, and 17% to provide informaFon perF- nent to special needs and populaFons. Twenty-ve percent (25%) of the respondents collaborate with government agencies and human service organizaFons to support the public. Smaller fracFons are responsible for disaster planning, training, managing disaster personnel, and for managing resource data required for emergency response.
50
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 42: Areas Served
Respondents serve geographies that range from towns and ciFes to an enFre country. Respondents that serve a single county, or a group of counFes, account for 80% of the respondents.
Figure 43: Other I&R OrganizaZons in the Area
Two-thirds of respondents have one or two other I&R organizaFons operaFng in their service areas.
51
AIRS Research Atlas

CLIENT CONTACT VOLUMES AND CHANNELS (FIGURES 44-49)
Client contact volumes were analyzed extensively, revealing important relationships with service domains, types of service offerings, and budget size. The channels through which AIRS members are contacted, and member Internet presence, were also examined. Contact Volumes (Figures 44-46) Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (64%) process annual contact volumes of 25,000 or less. The remaining respondents posted volumes as high as 360,000 (Figure 44). Respondents reported significant increases in contact volumes in 2008 from 2007, noting that these occurred in the face of staff reductions and hiring freezes (Figure 45). Respondents were organized in five different groupings of service domains and service types, and the contact volumes within each grouping were determined. The analysis shows clear differences in contact volumes based on these factors (Figure 46). Impact of Budget Size, Service Domain, and Service Oering (Figure 47) The relationship of budget size to contact volumes was investigated (Figure 47.1). The data revealed striking and consistent differences of contact volumes related to budget size. For example, the median volume for organizations in the lower budget tier ($500,000 or less) was 8,000; the median for those in the higher budget tier was more than eight times larger (67,295). The influence of budget size, in conjunction with service domains and service offerings, was also analyzed (Figure 47.2). Once again, the differences in contact volumes are striking. For example, the median volume for organizations offering 2-1-1 services in the higher budget tier (more than $500,000) was 83,000. By contrast, organizations in the Aging Services domain in this budget tier had an annual volume of 44,000. Contact Channels (Figure 48) Respondents quantified the volume of contacts they received through seven communications channels. All of the respondents are contacted via telephone, and substantial fractions of respondents are contacted through other traditional channels such as walk-ins and postal mail. Considerable fractions of respondents are contacted by more contemporary communications channels like e-mail and voice mail (Figure 48.1). The contact volume per channel was also analyzed (Figure 48.2). The telephone is clearly pre- eminent, accounting for 98% of the volume; all the other channels account for 2%. The pie charts in the graph show the channel volumes. Internet Presence (Figure 49) The Internet has opened up a new channel for information and referral. The vast majority of respondents (84%) have their own websites (Figure 49.1); many of these supply information about the I&R provider and a searchable database (Figure 49.2). Traffic volume to the websites appeared to vary by service domain (Figure 49.3). It seems possible that current traffic is light compared to the potential use of these websites.
52
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 44: Contact Volumes in 2008, All Service Domains
Forty-three percent (43%) of respondents processed a volume of 10,000 or less contacts during 2008; an addi- Fonal 20% processed between 10,000 and 25,000 contacts. This consFtuted nearly two-thirds (64%) of the responses; the remaining 36% reported processing volumes of more than 25,000 contacts, with a high of 360,000.
Figure 45: Contact Volume Changes from 2007 to 2008
The bar graph and table show the 2007 to 2008 changes in contact volumes reported by the respondents. As shown by the pie chart, overall 17% reported decreases in volume; 6%, no change; and 77%, increases in volume. The data mirrors narraFve survey responses describing increased public demand in the face of sta reducFons and freezes.
53
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 46: Client Contact Volumes by Service Domains and Service Oerings
The gure shows ve dierent groupings of respondent contact volumes. Each grouping provides a parFcular segmentaFon of the total universe of 176 responses. The graphs show the median for each segment within a grouping; the middle 50% of each segments contact volume values is shown in turquoise. The graphs are drawn to scale of contact volumes, arrayed on the Y axis. At this scale, the highest values (QuarFle 4) extend o the graph (doYed lines). The tables below the graphs supply the key values for each grouping. The analysis suggests that service domain, service conguraFons, and specic service oerings have an important relaFonship to contact volumes.
54
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 47: Impact of Budget Size, Service Domain, and Service Oering
1. Quar\le Contact Values Segmented by Budget Tiers: This gure shows annual contact values segmented by the two budget Fers. OrganizaFons with budgets of more than $500,000 have markedly larger annual contact volumes than those below this amount. The highest quarFle, QuarFle 4, is not shown because at this scale it would extend o the graph. 2. Median Contact Volumes Segmented by Budget Tiers, Service Domains, and Service Types: This gure quan- Fes median contact volumes for the two budget Fers in conjuncFon with specic service domain or service types. The analysis suggests that budget size, in conjuncFon with service domain or service oering, has an important relaFonship to contact volume.
55
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 48: Contact Channels
1. Contact Channel Use in 2008: This gure depicts the percentage of respondent organizaFons that are ac- cessed by each channel. Clearly, the telephone is sFll the universal medium of access, with all respondents contacted through this channel. 2. Contact Channel Volumes in 2008: This gure analyzes contact volumes by channel. The lex-hand pie chart shows that 98% of the volume ows through the telephone, with the remaining 2% of volume owing through all the other channels. The right-hand pie chart depicts the fracFons of all the other channels within the 2% of total volume.
56
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 49: Internet Presence, Website Content, and Website Visitors
1. Internet Presence: The vast majority of respondents have their own websites (84%). Links on personal, government, and other organizaFon websites also provide an Internet presence. 2. Website Content Segmented by Service Domain: The majority of respondents provides both a searchable resource database and organizaFonal informaFon on their websites, with appreciable variaFon between the service domains. A sizable fracFon of respondents (23%) does not oer a searchable database to the public. 3. Website Visitors, Showing Median by Service Domain: The graph and table depict Internet trac reported by the respondents. InformaFon Services shows a much higher median than the other domainsnearly 42,000 hits per year (115 hits per day).
57
AIRS Research Atlas

CLIENT PROBLEMS AND NEEDS (FIGURES 50-51)
The survey highlighted problems and needs that had the greatest importance and urgency in respondent communities in 2008. The survey used two different approaches for identifying and assessing the importance of these problems and needs, but the results were strikingly similar. Problems and Needs (Figure 50) One survey question invited respondents to describe, in their own words, up to five problems and needs that they considered most important during 2008. Their narrative responses were matched to the sixteen-category AIRS problems/needs framework. The results, compiled in Fig- ure 50.1, place housing/utilities, income support/assistance, food/meals, and health care in the top four places. In a second survey question, respondents ranked the sixteen AIRS problem/needs categories based on their 2008 contact volumes for each category. The result, shown in Figure 50.2, placed the same four problems/needs at the top, with income support/assistance and food/meals jux- taposed in second and third place. Changes in Problems/Needs (Figure 51) In a third question, respondents were asked whether their 2008 contacts, in comparison with 2007, had increased, decreased, or stayed about the same for each of the sixteen categories (Figure 51). Most of the categories reflected significant increases to some extent, averaging 35% across all categories. The problem categories identified as the four most important in the two preceding survey questions headed the list in this question as well, reflecting the four highest levels of significantly increased need.
58
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 50: Client Problems and Needs
1. Ranking of Client Problems and Needs Based on Narra\ve Responses: Respondents dened the problems and needs of their consFtuencies in their own words. Each response was matched with one of the sixteen AIRS problem/needs categories. The top 4 of the 16 AIRS problem/needs categories accounted for two-thirds of responses. 2. Ranking of Client Problems and Needs Based on Contact Volumes: Respondents ranked the AIRS problem/ need categories based upon their 2008 contact volumes. The gure displays the average score of each category, with the lowest number being the highest in rank and importance.
59
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 51: Changes in Client Needs
Respondents were asked to characterize changes in client needs, based on contact volumes, from 2007 to 2008. Each bar in the graph represents a problem/need category, and the segments within the bars show the percent of responses for that need that indicated a signicant increase, stayed about the same, or showed a signicant decrease. 35% of the total responses armed a signicant year-over-year increase in needs. The top four categories of increased need match the top four categories of need idenFed in Figure 50 (housing/uFliFes, food/meals, income support/assistance, and health care).
60
AIRS Research Atlas

PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING OF I&R (FIGURES 52-54)
Five survey questions focused on how well AIRS members think I&R is understood by the general public, service providers, local government, and non-government funders. For each evalua- tion they provided, respondents specified the importance of improving understanding in that particular feature of I&R. Survey responses showed that: Respondents considered community understanding of I&R to be rather limited. Overall, the need to improve understanding ranged from moderate to high. Respondents believe that there are dierent levels of understanding among the cons`tuencies on key I&R features, and they place dierent levels of importance upon improving these levels. Respondents see service providers as having a befer understanding, and a less acute need of improvement, than the general public, local government, and non-government funders. Respondents think that the community is least-well informed about the I&Rs role in disaster situaòns. The survey questions were intended to provide the respondents impressions of key constitu- ents and their understanding of I&R. The studys findingsthat community understanding re- quires significant and differential improvement among key constituentswould best be tested by systematic outreach to the communities themselves.
61
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 52: EsZmaZng Community Understanding of I&R and Need for Improvement
Respondents were asked to evaluate how well the General Public, Service Providers, Local Government, and Non- Government Funders understand four key features of informaFon and referral. Three of the four key I&R features are common across the consFtuents. The fourth key feature, InteracFon with the I&R OrganizaFon, is specic to each consFtuency: how well the General Public understands how to access services; how well Service Providers understand the I&Rs need for cooperaFon; how well Local Government understands the I&Rs need for collabo- raFon; and how well Non-Government Funders understand the I&Rs need for support. Respondents were asked to characterize each consFtuencys level of understanding of each key feature according to the scale shown in the third column. They were then asked to specify, for each evaluaFon of consFtuent understanding, how important it is to improve that level of understanding. They used the scale shown in the fourth column. When data was compiled, the numbers shown in parentheses in columns 3 and 4 were applied to each response and developed into weighted averages.
Figure 53: Perceived Community Understanding and Need for Improvement (Scores)
Scores for Level of Understanding were computed by mulFplying the number of responses for No Understanding by 0; for Limited Understanding by 1; for Some Understanding by 2; and for Good Understanding by 3. The sum of the scores was divided by the total number of responses for that quesFon, yielding a weighted average. Scores for Need for Improvement were computed by mulFplying the number of responses for Lower Need by 1; for Moderate Need by 2; for Higher Need by 3; and for CriFcal Need by 4. The sum of the scores was divided by the total number of responses for that quesFon, yielding a weighted average.
62
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 54: Perceived Community Understanding and Need for Improvement (X-Y Chart)
The gure displays all sixteen key I&R features in an X-Y chart. Each items score for perceived level of understanding is ploYed on the horizontal (X) axis, and its score for perceived need for improvement is ploYed on the verFcal (Y) axis. Each item has been labeled using abbreviaFons for the consFtuency: GP for General Public, SP for Service Providers, LG for Local Government, and NGF for Non-Government Funders. The table below the graph shows the scores for each key I&R feature within each consFtuency.
63
AIRS Research Atlas

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS AND POSSIBLE POLICY INITIATIVES (FIGURES 55-56)
Respondents were asked to rank the importance of developments in the community such as the economy, education, and employment (Figure 55). They were also asked to describe, in their own words, concerns or issues which they thought warranted a public policy initiative (Figure 56). Consistent with the client problems/needs ndings earlier in the survey, respondents ranked employment, the economy, housing, and health care at the top of the higher-impact community developments (Figure 55). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of responses concerning a policy inià`ve suggested measures to benet the health and welfare of the community, individuals, and specic populaòns. The remaining 35% focused on inià`ves suppor`ng the prac`ce and profession of informaòn and referral (Figure 56). Survey respondents provided a vivid picture of issues that are impacting their communities, and voiced clear preferences for policy initiatives to improve the well-being of their public and the sustainability of their I&R operations. With respect to the latter, funding was certainly the most commonly-voiced concern, but legislation, collaborative efforts, knowledge-sharing, and systematic promotion of the role and value of information and referral were also seen as very important.
64
AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 55: Impact of Community Developments
Respondents quanFed the impact of nine community developments on the publics well-being. The lex-hand graph illustrates the percentage of respondents that rated each factor as higher, moderate, or lower impact. The right-hand graph shows average scores computed on the basis of 1 point for a raFng of lower impact, 2 points for moderate impact, and 3 for higher impact.
Figure 56: Possible Policy IniZaZves
Respondents were asked to describe, in their own words, concerns or issues which they thought might warrant public policy iniFaFves. 1. Concerns That Might Warrant Policy Initiatives: the table and bar chart rank the initiatives suggested by the respondents. About two-thirds of the responses suggested initiatives that would benefit the health and welfare of the community; 75 responses (the remaining 35.4% of the total) suggested policy initiatives that would benefit the practice and profession of I&R. 2. Possible I&R Policy Initiatives: The larger pie chart at left explodes the responses in Figure 56.1 suggesting I&R- related policy initiatives into categories. The smaller pie chart at right explodes the funding pie slice into possible funding sources suggested by the respondents.
65
Appendix 1: AIRS Member Survey APPENDIX 1: AIRS MEMBER SURVEY

SecZon 1: Welcome to the AIRS Member Survey
Thank you for participating in this survey, which is a key component of the AIRS Environmental Scan Research Project. This research project, chartered by the AIRS Board of Directors, is intended to provide a high-level overview of the environment in which AIRS members serve the public. The project will help illuminate: Key organizational features of AIRS members; Salient characteristics of the I&R services that members offer; General information about clients and their needs; and Public perception and valuation of I&R. Information gathered in this survey will be combined with data gathered from external sources such as census data and presented in a report to the AIRS Board. Research findings will subsequently be shared with AIRS members. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS SURVEY The first half of the survey covers basic features of your organization: contact information, organizational characteristics, staff, infrastructure, and budget and funding. The second half covers basic information about your I&R operations, your clients, and your presence in the community. COMPLETING THE SURVEY This survey should be completed by a management-level employee with access to your organization's budget and operations information and who possesses a strong awareness of important trends in your service environment. In some cases, estimates are requested. These rely on the management experience and judgment of the person completing the survey. Wherever possible in the survey, questions are posed in a yes/no or multiple choice format. In some cases, however, a longer narrative answer is necessary and appropriate. In these cases, please keep your remarks clearly-focused and brief. Please complete the survey as fully as possible. If you find a question impossible to complete, please provide a brief explanation at the end of the survey. You can also provide suggestions about the content and design of future surveys. ENTERING AND SAVING INFORMATION IN YOUR SURVEY Once you have entered your name and other basic information on page 2 of the survey, be sure to advance to page 3 of the survey using the next button at the foot of the survey form. This will permanently save your survey file in the survey database. Your individual answers are saved every time you advance to the next page using the next button or return to a previous page using the prev button at the foot of the survey form. If you want to enter information in subsequent sessions, you may exit by closing your browser or clicking on "Exit this survey" at the top right of the survey page. Be sure to save your most recent responses by using the next or prev buttons at the foot of the survey form. You will be able to access your saved information by following the link you used for entering your earlier responses. How- ever, you MUST use the same computer you used for entering your earlier responses. When you have finished entering all information into the survey, press the "done" button on the final page. Please do NOT press this button until you are truly finished with your response. GETTING HELP Please ask for help if you are uncertain about the meaning of any survey questions or about how to best complete them. The most efficient way to do this is by itemizing your questions in a brief e-mail. Specify Questions About Research Sur- vey as your message subject, and send your questions to: info@AIRS.org. ONCE AGAINTHANK YOU! Tim Sylvia, President, AIRS Board of Directors Charlene Hipes, AIRS Chief Operating Officer
AIRS Research Atlas
66
Appendix 1: AIRS Member Survey

Survey SecZon 2: Basic InformaZon
Please ll in the rst three elds (Your Name, OrganizaFon, and AIRS Member ID). These are mandatory elds. The other informaFon will automaFcally be drawn from the AIRS member database, unless you wish to update it here. If you do not know your membership ID, please contact Clive Jones at clivemjones@gmail.com. 1. ABOUT YOU
Your Name (mandatory) OrganizaFon (mandatory) AIRS Member ID (mandatory) Title E-mail Website Street Suite City/Town County (US) Regional Government (Canada) State/Province Zip/Postal Code Country Phone
AIRS Research Atlas
Survey SecZon 3: Your OrganizaZon

QuesFons in this secFon and subsequent secFons concern your InformaFon & Referral operaFon. Unless otherwise specied by a quesFon, informaFon is requested about your specic I&R operaFon, and not about the larger government or private organizaFon of which you may be a part. For example, if you are the I&R funcFon of a United Way agency, informaFon is requested on your I&R operaFon and not on the larger United Way agency. If you are an I&R funcFon of a government department or oce, the same applies: informa- Fon is requested only about the operaFon that provides the I&R services, and not the enFre department or oce. In QuesFons 2 and 3 below, you are asked to dene your I&R operaFon as either a government (public) or a private enFty. These choices are mutually exclusive: your organizaFon is EITHER a public OR a private enFty; it cant be both. If you have arFcles of incorporaFon, yours is a private organizaFon, even if you work as a partner to a government enFty in a public- private partnership. 2. Are you a GOVERNMENT organiza\on?
Yes: Municipal government Yes: County government Yes: State/Provincial government Yes: Federal government Yes: Branch of the Military Yes: Other (specify below) NO: Proceed with survey
67

3. Are you a PRIVATE organiza\on?
Independent, standalone organizaFon without a parent enFty. Department, unit, or program of a government organizaFon. Department, unit, or program of a private organizaFon. Other (specify below)
AIRS Research Atlas
4. Are you an INDEPENDENT, standalone organiza\on or are you a DEPARTMENT, UNIT, or PROGRAM of a larger government or nonprot organiza\on?
Independent, standalone organizaFon without a parent enFty. Department, unit, or program of a government organizaFon. Department, unit, or program of a private organizaFon. Other (specify below)
5. Select the TYPE of ORGANIZATION that your I&R is, or of which your I&R is a part. If your type of organiza\on is not listed, please select "other" and specify the type in the area provided.
2-1-1 Service OrganizaFon American Red Cross Community AcFon Program Faith-Based OrganizaFon Military Family Services/Support United Way 3-1-1 Municipal/Govt. Organization Area Agency on Aging Community InformaFon Centre Family Services/Resources Organization Neighborhood Association/Organization Volunteer Center Aging & Disability Resource Center Center for Independent Living Community Social Planning Council Library State Unit on Aging Other (specify below)
Survey SecZon 4: Your Sta

Please provide a general picture of your staff in this section. In general, you are asked to provide your answers in terms of the number of paid employees or volunteers. In several questions, you are asked to provide your answer in "Full-Time Equivalents" or "FTEs." Full-Time Equivalents is a measure that converts full- and part-time employees to a single number that accurately reflects your organization's workforce in a typical 40-hour work week (see full explanation below). QUESTION 7 asks you to convert the number of paid employees to full-time equivalents in the job functions or categories listed in each row (Management, Information & Referral Specialists, Resource Specialists, Trainers, Other Professional Staff, and Administrative Staff). The purpose of the question is to determine how your resources are allocated from your total paid workforce to these job functions. This is particularly important if, for example, you have a supervisor that splits her time equally between management functions and I&R functions. Allocating her time as .5FTE to the management function and .5FTE to the Information & Referral function captures this important allocation. Example: Suppose that you have 4 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees. Of the full-time employees, 1 person works as a manager 40 hours per week [this equals 1.0 FTE in the management category]; 1 person works as an I&R specialist 40 hours per week [this equals 1.0 FTE in the I&R specialist function]; 1 person works a resource specialist 40 hours per week [this equals 1.0 FTE in the resource function] ; and 1 person works 20 hours per week on supervisory duties and 20 hours per week in the I&R specialist function [this equals .5FTE in the management function and .5 FTE in the I&R specialist function].
68

Survey SecZon 4: Your Sta (contd)
Of the part-time employees, 1 person works 20 hours per week in administrative duties [this equals .5 FTE in the administrative function] 1 person works 10 hours per week on the resource database [this equals .25 FTE in the resource function] and 1 person works 30 hours per week in the I&R function [this equals .75 FTE in the I&R function]. In this example, this is how your organization's paid staff, in FTEs, would be recorded: Management Function (Executives, Managers, Supervisors): [1.0 FTE + .5 FTE = 1.5 FTE] Information & Referral Specialist Function [1.0 FTE + .5 FTE + .75 FTE = 2.25 FTE] Resource Specialist Function [1.0 FTE + .25 FTE = 1.25 FTE] Training Function [0.0 FTE] Other Professional Function (Public Relations, Fundraising) [0.0 FTE] Administrative Function [.5 FTE] QUESTION 8 asks for information on your volunteers in an average week. Please provide estimates: while overall accuracy is desirable, precision is not. The first line asks for the average number of volunteers in whole numbers. If you average about 6 per week, specify 6. The second line asks for you to convert the number of volunteers into an FTE figure. To do this, take the total number of volunteer hours in an average week and divide by 40. That will be the number of volunteer FTEs. For example, suppose that volunteers provide you with a total of about 30 hours of help per week. The total hours, 30, divided by 40, equals .75 FTEs. QUESTION 10 asks for your paid staff's highest level of educational attainment. To answer this question, determine the highest educational degree of each person among your paid staff. Then sum your findings into each category of educational degrees. Example: 3 paid staff hold High School Diplomas and no higher degree 1 paid staff holds an Associates Degree and no higher degree
AIRS Research Atlas
2 paid staff hold a Bachelor's Degree and no higher degree 1 paid staff holds a Master's Degree and no higher degree 1 paid staff holds a Ph.D. Degree
In this example, this is how your paid staff's highest level of educational attainment would be recorded: No degree [0] High School Diploma [3] Associates Degree [1] Bachelors Degree [2] Graduate Degree [2] (includes both Master's and Ph.D.) 6. HOW MANY PAID STAFF work for your organiza\on? (Total NUMBER of paid full-\me and part-\me employees.)
Full-Time Employees: Part-Time Employees:
7.
HOW MANY PAID STAFF, in FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTEs), perform these job func\ons?
Management FuncFon (ExecuFves, Managers, Supervisors) InformaFon & Referral Specialist FuncFon Resource Specialist FuncFon Training FuncFon Other Professional FuncFons (e.g., Public RelaFons, Fundraising) AdministraFve FuncFons TOTAL FTEs
69

8. HOW MANY PEOPLE serve as VOLUNTEERS each week? (Provide both average NUMBER of people and average number of FTEs)
Management FuncFon (ExecuFves, Managers, Supervisors) InformaFon & Referral Specialist FuncFon Resource Specialist FuncFon Training FuncFon Other Professional FuncFons (e.g., Public RelaFons, Fundraising) AdministraFve FuncFons TOTAL FTEs
AIRS Research Atlas
9. TO WHAT EXTENT DO VOLUNTEERS perform these FUNCTIONS?

Function Answer Telephones (I&R Functions) Work on Database (Resource Function) Other Professional Functions (e.g., Outreach) Administrative Functions Other Functions Use Occasionally User Frequently Play Essential Role Dont Use
10. What is your PAID STAFFs HIGHEST LEVEL of EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT?

Number of people with no degree Number of people for whom a High School Diploma is the highest degree Number of people for whom an Associates Degree (2-year) is the highest degree Number of people for whom a Bachelors Degree (4-year) is the highest degree Number of people for whom a Graduate Degree is the highest degree
11. What is the average LENGTH OF SERVICE of your PAID STAFF? (Estimated FULL YEARS)
Component Management (Executives, Managers, Supervisors) Information & Referral Specialists Resource Specialists 1 year or less 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 years or more N/A
70

12. How IMPORTANT are these ISSUES with respect to your PAID STAFF?
Issue Provide more competitive salaries Provide better career path Provide better/more training Improve employee retention Reduce employee stress/burnout Other (specified below) Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance N/A
AIRS Research Atlas
Survey SecZon 5: Your Infrastructure

The objective of this section is to provide a general overview of the functionality of your infrastructure, and your plans and capability for replacing components. Help text for Question 15 appears below. QUESTION 15 below asks for information on the vendors or manufacturers that produce your telephone system, your I&R Database, and your computers. If you have more than one vendor (this is probably true for computers) just list the top few. For example, suppose that you have computers manufactured by Acer, Dell, HP, LeNovo, and Apple, and that the majority of your machines are made by Dell and HP. Your answer could be: "Dell, HP, and various others." 13. HOW WELL do these infrastructure components MEET YOUR NEEDS?
Sometimes Rarely Meets Does Not Meet Our Needs Our Needs Fully Meets Our Needs Exceeds Our Needs
Component Telephone System I&R Software/Resource Database Computers Organizations Website Online Resource Database Internet Connectivity/Bandwidth
N/A
14. Do you PLAN TO REPLACE or UPGRADE these infrastructure components?

No plans to replace or upgrade Want to, but no funds available Want to, and funds have been requested Plan to, and funds have been secured
Component Telephone System I&R Software/Resource Database Computers Organizations Website Online Resource Database Internet Connectivity/Bandwidth
N/A
71

15. Please identify the VENDORS of your telephone system, your I&R resource database software, and your computers.
Telephone System Vendor(s): I&R/Resource Database Software Vendor(s): Computer Manufacturer(s):
AIRS Research Atlas
16. Do you have any additional comments about infrastructure?

Yes (briey comment below) No (conFnue with survey)
Survey SecZon 6: Your Budget and Funding

The objective of this section is to provide a general overview of your budget and funding. These questions are concerned with your TOTAL budget for ALL I&R and resource-related functions. Please do NOT include the budget for other operations unrelated to I&R and resource functions, or for any larger organization or system of which your operation is a part. The base period for Questions 16-19 is your last complete fiscal year. Where information is requested concerning the current fiscal year, it is understood that estimates may be necessary. 17. WHAT WAS YOUR TOTAL I&R OPERATING BUDGET for the last complete fiscal year? Include ALL I&R and resource- related functions in your answer.
$50,000 or less $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 $2,000,001 to $5,000,000 More than $5,000,000 Other (specify below)
18. HOW MUCH DID YOUR TOTAL I&R OPERATING BUDGET CHANGE from the last complete fiscal year to the current fiscal year? Include ALL I&R and resource-related functions in your answer.
Decreased 10% or more Change in Total I&R Operating Budget: If you consider any of these changes especially important, please briefly describe them and their impact. Decreased 5-10% Changed 0-5% Increased 5-10% Increased 10% or more
19. What PERCENT of your I&R FUNDING came from these FUNDING SOURCES during the last complete scal year? Include ALL I&R and resource-related func\ons in your answer. Es\mate and round to the nearest 5 percent.
% Federal funding % State/Provincial funding % County funding % Municipal funding % Other public funding % United Way funding % Individual support
% Private foundations (not United Way) % All Other
72

20. HOW MUCH DID YOUR I&R FUNDING CHANGE from the last complete scal year to the current scal year? Include ALL I&R and resource-related func\ons in your answer. (It is understood that some entries may represent es\mates.)
Funding Source Federal funding State/Provincial funding County funding Municipal funding Other public funding Private foundaFons (not United Way) United Way funding Individual support All Other If you consider any of these changes especially important, please briey describe them and their impact. Decreased 10% or more Decreased 5-10% Changed 0-5% Increased 5-10% Increased 10% or more
AIRS Research Atlas
21. Are there any sources of public or private funds that you think would be of poten\al value to other members of AIRS? If so, provide the names of funding organiza\ons and programs.
Yes (specify below) No (conFnue with survey)
Provide the names of funding organizations and programs.
Survey SecZon 7: Your InformaZon and Referral OperaZons

The objective of this section is to provide a general overview of your Information & Referral operations. I&R operations vary in composition and complexity. Many of the questions aim to more precisely define the following: (1) Is the primary purpose of your organization to provide I&R services? (2) Is the I&R service you provide primarily a comprehensive offering intended to serve all populations, or is it primarily a specialized service that focuses on particular populations or needs? (3) Does your organization operate a variety of service contracts, both related to I&R services and to non-I&R services? Because there are many variations on these themes, each question provides several answer options. Choose the option that accurately represents your operation. 22. Is INFORMATION & REFERRAL the PRIMARY SERVICE of your organiza\on? (Choose ONE)
Yes: Our PRIMARY and ONLY Service is InformaFon & Referral. Yes: Our PRIMARY Service is InformaFon & Referral AND we oer other non-I&R services. NO: InformaFon & Referral is a SECONDARY service that we oer in addiFon to our primary service(s). (explain below).
If necessary, please explain your response above.
73

23. Is your PRIMARY Informa\on & Referral service oering a COMPREHENSIVE service? (Choose ONE)
Yes: Comprehensive 2-1-1 service WITH formal crisis intervenFon services ("blended" I&R) Yes: Comprehensive 2-1-1 service WITHOUT formal crisis intervenFon services Yes: Comprehensive NON-2-1-1 service WITH formal crisis intervenFon services Yes: Comprehensive NON-2-1-1 service WITHOUT formal crisis intervenFon services NO: Our our primary service oering is NOT comprehensive (conFnue with Survey)
AIRS Research Atlas
Please provide appropriate details (if any).
24. Is your PRIMARY Informa\on & Referral service oering SPECIALIZED? Specify your PRIMARY focus below. (Choose ONE)
Yes: Our primary focus is older adults Yes: Our primary focus is people with disabiliFes Yes: Our primary focus is child care services Yes: Our primary focus is on crisis intervenFon Yes: Our primary focus is on military personnel and their families Yes: Our primary focus is volunteer opportuniFes Yes: Our primary focus is 3-1-1 municipal/government services Yes: Our primary focus is specied below NO: (conFnue with Survey)
Please provide appropriate details (if any).
25. Do you provide addi\onal I&R services UNDER CONTRACT? (check all that apply)
Yes: I&R related to older adults Yes: I&R related to people with disabiliFes Yes: I&R related to child care services Yes: I&R related to crisis intervenFon Yes: I&R related to military personnel and their families Yes: I&R related to volunteer opportuniFes Yes: I&R related to 3-1-1 municipal/government services Yes: Another type of I&R service, specied below NO: (conFnue with Survey)
Briey list other I&R services you provide under contract.
26. Do you have a FORMAL ROLE in assis\ng the community during disasters?
Briey describe the formal disaster-related services you are prepared to provide.
74

27. Do you provide addi\onal NON-I&R services UNDER CONTRACT?
AIRS Research Atlas
Briey list the addiFonal Non-I&R services you provide under contract and the organizaFon(s) funding such services.
28. What GEOGRAPHIC AREA do you serve? Please give brief details.
We serve an AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY in which our operaFon is located. We serve the ENTIRE COUNTY in which our operaFon is located. We serve MULTIPLE COUNTIES in addiFon to that in which our operaFon is located. We serve the ENTIRE STATE OR PROVINCE. We serve a MULTI-STATE or MULTI-PROVINCE region. We serve the ENTIRE NATION. We serve ANOTHER KIND OF AREA as described below.
Please give the names of the counFes (or other area types) that your operaFon serves.
29. What is the CONFIGURATION OF I&R ORGANIZATIONS in your community? Please give brief details.
There are other I&R providers that operate in this area (briey describe below). We are not aware of any other I&R providers operaFng in this area.
Please name and briey describe the other I&R provider(s) serving the area that you serve.
30. Do you have any addi\onal comments about your I&R opera\ons? Please keep your comments clearly-focused and brief.
Yes: (briey comment below) NO: (conFnue with survey)
AddiFonal comments about your I&R operaFons. Please keep your remarks clearly-focused and brief.
Survey SecZon 8: Your Clients

The objecFve of this secFon is to produce a general impression of your clients, the "channels" they follow to contact your I&R operaFon, and the types of service needs that they present. To answer the quesFons in this secFon, you will need to access your overall CONTACT staFsFcs for the past two years. Detailed informaFon is requested for 2008 (and in some cases, the past 12 months) only. As specied in the AIRS Standards, CONTACTS are the Total number of I&R contacts/inquiries from calls and other sources in which inquirer problems or needs are addressed. Includes: transacFon calls; face-to-face contacts (walk-ins or I&R interac- Fons in other sengs such as community faciliFes); e-mail contacts; voicemail contacts; IM contacts; text message contacts, [and] regular mail contacts. Help text for QuesFons 36, 37, and 38 is provided below. QUESTION 36 asks you to idenFfy and describe the most important problems or needs your organizaFon has observed and documented over the past 12 months. Up to ve problems or needs (or a lesser number, as you see t) may be idenFed and described. The key is to idenFfy problems or needs that you think are especially signicant and which should be brought to the aYenFon of AIRS members and other important audiences. A problem or need may be important because of the sheer volume of contacts, because it reects a new or emerging need in your community, because it is largely unmet by your community's infrastructure, or a combinaFon of these or other factors.
75

Survey SecZon 8: Your Clients (contd)
IdenFfy one problem or need per text box and describe it clearly and briey. Explain clearly and briey why you think the problem or need is important. There is a limit of 100 characters (including spaces) per text box. To answer QUESTIONS 37 and 38, you will need to translate your contact volumes for 2008 to the AIRS NaFonal Problem/Needs Categories. The aim of these quesFons is to idenFfy high-volume contact categories and contact trends with reasonable accuracy. REASONABLE accuracy is important, but precision is not. QUESTION 37 asks you to "force rank" the categories of contacts. To do this, sum your contacts for 2008 within each AIRS category. In arriving at your numbers within each category, it is OK to esFmate and round. The exact number is not important; the overall ranking is important. In doing the ranking, the number "1" should be given to the category with the highest number of contacts; the number "2" to the category with the next highest number of contacts, and so forth. No two categories may share the same rank; each must have a unique rank. More informaFon on the Problems/Needs Categories may be downloaded from the AIRS website. Paste the following URL into your browser and navigate to the web page: hYp://www.airs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3378. Click on the hyper- link for "AIRS NaFonal Problem/Needs Categories," which will download the document. Please e-mail any quesFons you may have to: info@AIRS.org 31. HOW MANY I&R CONTACTS did you COMPLETE? (Es\mate to nearest hundred; do not punctuate with commas)
Past Year (2008) Prior Year (2007)
AIRS Research Atlas
32. HOW did your CLIENTS CONTACT you in 2008? (Es\mate the NUMBER of CONTACTS for each category to the nearest hundred; do not punctuate with commas.)
Walk-in to main facility Walk-in to community locaFon Telephone call Voicemail E-mail Instant Messaging Text message Regular mail
33. Does your I&R opera\on have an "INTERNET PRESENCE?" (mark all that apply.)
Yes, we have one or more websites Yes, we are menFoned (or have links) on personal websites (such as social networking sites) Yes, we are menFoned (or have links) on government websites Yes, we are menFoned (or have links) on other organizaFonal websites Yes, other (briey describe below) No, we don't have an Internet presence (proceed with survey)
Other (briey describe)
76

34. IF your I&R opera\on has a WEBSITE, WHAT INFORMATION does it provide?
Provides informaFon on our organizaFon AND provides searchable online database Provides informaFon on our organizaFon; does NOT provide searchable online database Provides searchable online database; does NOT provide informaFon on our organizaFon Other (briey describe below) We don't have a website
AIRS Research Atlas
Other (briey describe)
35. IF your I&R opera\on has a WEBSITE, provide the es\mated NUMBER OF VISITORS in the past 12 months (do not punctuate with commas).
Estimated number of visitors in the past 12 months
36. Iden\fy and describe THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS/NEEDS your organiza\on has observed and documented over the past 12 months.
Problem/Need #1 Problem/Need #2 Problem/Need #3 Problem/Need #4 Problem/Need #5
37. RANK the AIRS PROBLEMS/NEEDS CATEGORIES based on your volume of CONTACTS in 2008.
Arts, Culture and RecreaFon Clothing/Personal/Household Needs Disaster Services EducaFon Employment Food/Meals Health Care Housing/UFliFes Income Support/Assistance Individual, Family and Community Support InformaFon Services Legal, Consumer and Public Safety Mental Health/AddicFons Other Government/Economic Services TransportaFon Volunteers/DonaFons
38. TO WHAT EXTENT did CONTACTS in these AIRS PROBLEMS/NEEDS CATEGORIES CHANGE in 2008?
Importance Lower Moderate Higher Lower Importance Moderate Higher
Arts, Culture and RecreaFon Clothing/Personal/Household Needs Disaster Services EducaFon Employment Food/Meals Health Care Housing/UFliFes
Income Support/Assistance Individual, Family and Community Support InformaFon Services Legal, Consumer and Public Safety Mental Health/AddicFons Other Government/Economic Services TransportaFon Volunteers/DonaFons
Did you think that some of these changes in volume were particularly striking or important? If so, please use the comments box to briefly describe the most important changes and their possible causes. copyright 2010 by Alliance of InformaSon and Referral Systems and Integer Research & ConsulSng, LLC. All rights reserved.
77

39. Do you have any addi\onal comments about your clients and/or their problems and needs? Please keep your comments clearly-focused and brief.
AIRS Research Atlas
AddiFonal comments about your clients. Please keep your remarks clearly-focused and brief.
Survey SecZon 9: Your OrganizaZon and the Community

The objecFve of this secFon is to provide a general impression about how your organizaFon and its services are understood and valued by various segments of the community. All of the quesFons require your judgment as a manager. We recognize, as you do, that there is no "average" ciFzen or "average" local government ocial. Rather, the point here is to gather your strongest overall impression of dierent consFtuencies in the community. How well and how completely do these people understand what your organizaFon IS and what it DOES? You are in a unique posiFon to make this assessment, and to illuminate areas where public understanding needs to be enhanced. 40. HOW WELL does the GENERAL PUBLIC UNDERSTAND the following, and HOW IMPORTANT is it to improve this level of understanding?
Key I&R Factor What your organization does What is the Level of Understanding?
None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps
How Important to Improve This Understanding?

Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance
How your services can help them
How to access your services
If there is another key aspect of understanding, please briefly describe and rate it here.
41. HOW WELL do SERVICE PROVIDERS UNDERSTAND the following, and HOW IMPORTANT is it to improve this level of understanding?

How your services can help the community
Cooperation you need from Service Providers
78

42. HOW WELL does LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND the following, and HOW IMPORTANT is it to IMPROVE this level of understanding? ("Local government" includes municipal and county government, and special tax districts.)
None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps
AIRS Research Atlas

CollaboraFon you need from Local Government None
43. HOW WELL do NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDERS UNDERSTAND the following, and HOW IMPORTANT is it to IMPROVE this level of understanding?

Support you need from the Funders
44. HOW WELL do these cons\tuencies UNDERSTAND your organiza\on's role in COMMUNITY DISASTERS and HOW IMPORTANT is it to IMPROVE this level of understanding?
Key I&R Factor The general public What is the Level of Understanding?
None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps None Limited Understanding, Many Gaps Some Understanding, Some Gaps Good Understanding, Few Gaps

Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance Lower Importance Moderate Importance Higher Importance CriFcal Importance
Service providers
Local government
Non-government funders
Brief comments (if any)
79

45. How would you explain "Informa\on & Referral" to someone not familiar with the profession and prac\ce?
AIRS Research Atlas
46. Do you have any addi\onal comments about your community? Please keep your comments clearly-focused and brief.
AddiFonal comments about your community. Please keep your remarks clearly-focused and brief.
Survey SecZon 10: Public Aairs and Public Policy

If you have concerns about current developments in your community and their impact on its ciFzens, they may be briey idenFed in this secFon. If you think these or other issues warrant some form of public policy iniFaFve, you may comment on these as well. 47. Iden\fy DEVELOPMENTS in the COMMUNITY that have impacted the well-being of ci\zens over the past 12 months. Use the comments area to iden\ty developments that are not listed.
Development Economy (e.g., deterioration of local business and industry) Education (e.g., educational access and quality) Employment (e.g., job loss, unemployment, income loss) Health Insurance (e.g., loss of insurance) Healthcare (e.g., availability, cost, and related issues) Housing (e.g., housing costs, mortgage foreclosures) Government Services (e.g., access, availability, cost, funding) Local Government (e.g., effectiveness, financial integrity, deficits) State Government (e.g., effectiveness, financial integrity, deficits) Other (specify below) Additional Developments Lower Impact Moderate Impact Higher Impact N/A
48. Suggest and briey describe CONCERNS or ISSUES that you think warrant some form of public policy ini\a\ve. These may include funding, legisla\ve, or communica\ons ini\a\ves at the state/provincial level or the federal level.
Concern or Issue #1 Concern or Issue #2 Concern or Issue #3 Concern or Issue #4 Concern or Issue #5
80

Survey SecZon 11: Your SuggesZons (OpZonal)
Use this secFon for idenFfying specic problems you encountered with this survey and for making recommendaFons for improvement (QuesFon 47). If there are specic subjects that you think should be explored in future surveys, please briey note them (QuesFon 48). THANK YOU! 49. Iden\fy any ques\ons that gave you trouble, and explain why.
AIRS Research Atlas
50. Suggest any area, ques\on, or issue that you think should be included in future surveys.
81
AIRS Research Atlas

Appendix 2: Revisions of White Paper Content APPENDIX 2: REVISIONS OF WHITE PAPER CONTENT
The Research Atlas incorporates several revisions since the earlier white papers were released, and these are briefly noted below. The material presented in the Research Atlas is to be considered the more definitive version.
Material In:
White Paper 1, Execu\ve Summary Figure 4, AIRS Member Survey (response rates) White Paper 1, Execu\ve Summary Figure 9, Volunteer Use by Service Domain White Paper 1, Execu\ve Summary Figure 14, I&R as a Comprehensive Service White Paper 1, Execu\ve Summary Understanding of InformaFon & Referral, pp 14-15
Updated or Replaced By:

Research Atlas Figure 4.3, Survey Response Rate by Country Research Atlas Figure 23.1, Volunteer Use in Any FuncFon, by Service Do- main Research Atlas Figure 37.1, OrganizaFons Oering Comprehensive and Spe- cialized Services, table data Research Atlas PercepFons of Community Understanding of I&R, pp. 61-63. See Also White Paper #3, Perceptions of Community Under- standing & Public Policy Issues (published March 2010) Research Atlas Figure 37.1, OrganizaFons Oering Comprehensive and Spe- cialized Services Research Atlas Figure 37.3, Service ConguraFons for All OrganizaFons Research Atlas Figure 37.3, Service ConguraFons for All OrganizaFons Research Atlas Figure 37.1, OrganizaFons Oering Comprehensive and Spe- cialized Services, table data and pie chart below.
White Paper 4, I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, & Client Needs Exhibit 1, Graph 2 (Comprehensive vs. Specialized Service) White Paper 4, I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, & Client Needs Exhibit 1, Graph 3 (I&R is a 2-1-1 Service) White Paper 4, I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, & Client Needs Exhibit 1, Graph 4 (Services Include Crisis IntervenFon) White Paper 4, I&R Operations, Contact Volumes, & Client Needs Exhibit 1, Graph 5 (Comprehensive I&R Service Segmenta- Fon)
82
Appendix 3: Selected Project Background APPENDIX 3: SELECTED PROJECT BACKGROUND

EXTRACT FROM WHITE PAPER #1, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (JANUARY, 2010)
AIRS Research Atlas
83
Appendix 3: Selected Project Background
AIRS Research Atlas
84
Appendix 3: Selected Project Background
AIRS Research Atlas
85
Appendix 4: Selected Project Findings APPENDIX 4: SELECTED PROJECT FINDINGS

AIRS Research Atlas
86
Appendix 4: Selected Project Findings
AIRS Research Atlas
87
Appendix 5: Selected Project Recommenda\ons APPENDIX 5: SELECTED PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
AIRS Research Atlas
88
Appendix 5: Selected Project Recommenda\ons
AIRS Research Atlas
89
AIRS Research Atlas
90
AIRS Research Atlas
91
AIRS Research Atlas
92
AIRS Research Atlas
93
AIRS Research Atlas
94
AIRS Research Atlas

Appendix 6: AIRS Member Survey Respondents APPENDIX 6: AIRS MEMBER SURVEY RESPONDENTS
2-1-1 Big Bend, Inc. 2-1-1 Brevard, Inc. 2-1-1 Broward 2-1-1 East Texas, United Way of Tyler/Smith County 2-1-1 Helpline - Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa 2-1-1 Hotline, Trident United Way 2-1-1 MD at United Way of Central Maryland (Formerly First Call for Help) 2-1-1 of Southeastern Oklahoma 2-1-1 Susquehanna River Region/First Call For Help 2-1-1 Tampa Bay Cares, Inc. 2-1-1 Texas/Middle Rio Grande Development Council 2-1-1 VIRGINIA Northwest Region (the Family Resource & Referral Center) 2-1-1 VIRGINIA/the Planning Council 2-1-1/LIFE LINE, a program of ABVI-Goodwill 211 Charlotte 211 Mississippi 211 New York 211 North Texas 211 Oklahoma 211 Palm Beach/Treasure Coast 211 Racine 211 San Diego 211 SLO Hotline 211 Southwest Oklahoma (United Way of Lawton Fort Sill) 211 Windsor-Essex 211/First Call For Help AADD: All About Developmental Disabilities ADRC-Central Wisconsin Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. Aging & Disability Resource Center of Broward County (ADRC) Aging & Disability Resource Center of Jefferson County Aging and Disability Resource Center of Columbia County AGING AND DISABILITY RESOURCE CENTER OF THE NORTH Aging and Disability Resource Center of Western Wisconsin Aging Resources of Central Iowa Alamo AAA Allen Community Outreach Allen County Council on Aging Area 10 Agency on Aging Area 12 Agency on Aging Area Agency on Aging for North Florida, Inc. Area Agency on Aging for SWFL Area Agency on Aging of the Capital Area Area Agency on Aging PSA 9 Area Agency on Aging, 10B Inc. Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs, Inc. Area XIV Agency on Aging Army Community Service ASCOG Area Agency on Aging Ashtabula County Community Action Agency - 2-1-1 Ashtabula County Atlanta Regional Commission, Area Agency on Aging Atlantic County Division of Intergenerational Services Call Center BAMSI HELPLINE Boone County Council on Aging Boulder County Aging Services - A Division of Community Services Brain Injury Association of Vermont Branch-St. Joseph Area Agency on Aging Region 3C Brown County United Way Bureau of Aging & Disability Resources Cajun Area Agency on Aging, Inc. Care Connection for Aging Services Catawba Area Agency on Aging Catholic Charities, Diocese of Joliet Catholic Charities' Answers for the Aging Catholic Social Services / PASSPORT Center For Siouxland Centerpoint Community Services/ 2-1-1 Central AL Aging Consortium (CAAC) Central Michigan 2-1-1 (United Way of Jackson County) Central Midlands Council of Governments/ Area Agency on Aging Central Vermont Council on Aging Central Virginia Area Agency on Aging Champaign County Regional Planning Commission Champlain Valley Agency on Aging Chesapeake HELPS Children's Mercy Hospital CICOA Aging & In-Home Solutions City of Falls Church Clearfield County Area Agency on Aging, Inc. /INFO-LINK Community Care Management Corp. Community Council of the Rio Grande Valley Community Development Support Association Community Information & Referral Community Information Centre of Ottawa Community Resource Centre (Killaloe) Inc. Community Services Planning Council/2-1-1 Sacramento Connect Wyoming Connect2Help CONTACT Altoona CONTACT Helpline CONTACT Ministries 211 Contra Costa Crisis Center Council for Senior Citizens Council of Community Services Council on Aging for Southeastern VT, Inc Council on Aging of Southwestern Ohio Covenant House International Crisis 211 Center ( Clarksville Crisis Intervention Center) Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, Inc. - 2-1-1 Tampa Bay
95
AIRS Research Atlas

Appendix 6: AIRS Member Survey Respondents
Crisis Clinic Crisis Services of North Alabama CrisisLink CSI Office on Aging City of Rockland, Dept. of Social Services, Information Rockland-NY Connects DeKalb County Office of Senior Affairs Distress Centre Calgary (DCE1002) DuPage County Community Services East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission East Arkansas Area Agency on Aging East Central Illinois Area Agency on Aging Elder Options/Elder Helpline EOEA Epilepsy Foundation - National Office Episcopal Children's Services Erie County Dept. Senior Services Family Counseling Center Family Enrichment Network, Inc. FCFH-Iowa, Inc. First Call for Help / United Way First Call For Help, Inc. First Call for Help, Piedmont United Way First Call of Richland County FL Department of Elder Affairs Franklin County Office on Aging Frederick County Hotline Friendship Centers of Emmet County--Council on Aging Great Rivers 2-1-1 Greater Twin Cities United Way Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources, Inc Gryphon Place Gwinnett County Senior Services HandsOn Battle Creek Heart of Florida United Way Heart of West Michigan United Way Heartline Help Hotline Crisis Center, Inc. Helpline Inc, Monroe County HelpLine Information & Assistance Henderson County Health Department Homelessness Prevention Call Center Howard Co. Office on Aging Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc. Hunterdon Helpline, Inc. Illinois Department of Employment Security Illinois Department on Aging IMPACT, Inc. Indiana Association of United Ways Indiana County Department of Human Services Indiana State Department of Health - Indiana Family Helpline Info Line of Middlesex County Info Line, Inc. INFOline of Gregg County InfoLink Information & Referral Services of Fairfield County Information Helpline Information Sarnia Lambton Information Services Vancouver Interface Children Family Services Iowa Association of Area Agencies on Aging Iowa COMPASS Kaufman County Senior Citizens Services, Inc. Kenosha Human Development Services Klickitat County Senior Services Knoxville-Knox County CAC - 2-1-1/SCIRS Lafayette Crisis Center Lake County Public Library Lane Council Of Governments, Senior & Disabled Services Langlade Co. Dept. on Aging LifeSpan, Inc, Hamilton OH LINC/2-1-1 Dept., Memphis Public Library Loudoun County Area Agency on Aging Louisiana 2-1-1/NE LA - United Way 2-1-1 Monroe Louisiana Association of United Ways Lowcountry Council of Governments Area Agency on Aging Madrone Hospice, Inc. Manitowoc County Aging & Disability Resource Center Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging Michigan Association of United Ways Mid-East Commission Area Agency on Aging Middle Georgia Regional Commission/Area Agency on Aging Midland Area Agency on Aging Milwaukee County Department on Aging Monroe County Area Agency on Aging Mountain Empire Older Citizens, Inc. MS Department of Mental Health- Office of Constituency Services Multnomah County Aging & Disability Services Municipality of Anchorage National Runaway Switchboard NC 2-1-1 Nevada 211 New Mexico Aging & Disability Resource Center Newberry County Council on Aging NJ Division of Aging and Community Services North Carolina Family Health Resource Line North Idaho College Area Agency on Aging Northern Virginia Regional Commission Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging Oakville Public Library OASIS Information & Referral Old Colony Elder Services Older Kansans Information and Referral Services Association Oneida County Department on Aging Onslow County Senior Services, Onslow County NC Orange County Government 311
96
AIRS Research Atlas

Appendix 6: AIRS Member Survey Respondents
Parallel Justice for Victims of Crime PATH, Inc. Pathways of Central Ohio PHOENIXVILLE AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES Pierce County Aging & Long Term Care Pocono Healthy Communities Alliance Prevent Child Abuse New York Private Industry Council of Butte County, Nevada County office Project Concern Putnam County Achievement Reachout of St. Lawrence County, Inc. Region 2 Area Agency on Aging Resource Genesee Rock County Council on Aging San Joaquin County Information and Assistance Senior Connections, the Capital Area Agency on Aging Senior Services Senior Services Center of Will Co SeniorNavigator Seniors First SETRPC 2-1-1 Area Information of Southeast Texas Shelby County Office of Early Childhood and Youth South Plains Association of Governments Southwestern Vermont Council on Aging SOWEGA Council on Aging State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyer Referral & Information Service Stettler Information and Referral Centre Switchboard of Miami, Inc. TARCOG Texoma Area Information Center The Center of Concern The Institute for Human Services, Inc. The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington's JConnect (formerly JIRS) The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society the Montgomery County Foundation, inc The Support Network TN Commission On Aging & Disability Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre Transition Projects Tri-City Area United Way United Way 2-1-1 United Way 2-1-1 for North Central Florida United Way 2-1-1 in Rhode Island United Way 2-1-1 of Greater Kansas City United Way 2-1-1: Midland Call Center United Way 211 of Pasco United Way Association of SC United Way Fox Cites UNITED WAY LINC United Way of Allegheny County United Way of America United Way of Central MN 2-1-1 United Way of Central Virginia United Way of Central WV Information & Referral United Way of Clark, Champaign & Madison Counties, Inc. United Way of Fresno County United Way of Greater Chattanooga United Way of Greater Houston United Way of Greater Richmond & Petersburg United Way of Greater St. Louis - 2-1-1 Missouri/Illinois United Way of Greater Toledo 2-1-1 United Way of Howard County Information & Referral/2-1-1 United Way of Lake County, Inc. - 2-1-1 United Way of Long Island United Way of Metro. Atlanta - 211 United Way of Olmsted County United Way of Portage County, Inc. United Way of Southwest Michigan United Way of Southwestern Indiana 2-1-1 United Way of Tarrant County United Way of the Bluegrass United Way of the Brazos Valley United Way of the CSRA United Way of the Plains United Way of Volusia-Flagler Counties, Inc. United Way of Wayne & Holmes Counties/InfoLink United Way Silicon Valley United Way's 2-1-1 of WNC United Way's 2-1-1, United Way of Marathon County UPCAP Services, Inc./U.P. 2-1-1 Call Center Upper Cumberland Development District Upper Savannah Area Agency on Aging US Army Garrison Kaiserslautern, Germany US Coast Guard Utah Food Bank Services/2-1-1 UWAC 2-1-1 Texas Vermont 2-1-1 Vermont Protection & Advocacy, Inc. VIA LINK, Inc. Vigo County Lifeline/211 Call Center Vilas County Commission on Aging Volunteer Action Center Volunteer Center of Sonoma County Volunteer Center of Southwest Louisiana Volunteer Florida Volunteer Services of Iroquois Co Volunteers of America Western Washington, North Sound 2-1-1 Warren County Community Services Waushara County ADRC West Central Florida Area Agency on Aging, Inc. WV Mt AIRS/WV 211
97
Acknowledgements, Feedback, and Ques\ons ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AIRS Board of Directors and Sta
The researcher extends his warmest thanks to Tim Sylvia, President of the AIRS Board of Directors, and to his many supporFve colleagues on the Board. Tim developed the iniFal vision for the research project and spon- sored its progress over its two-year duraFon. Present and former Board members devoted substanFal Fme and eort throughout the project, with parFcular thanks due to to Mona Freels, Faed Hendry, Cathleen Kelly, Jamie Moore, Randy Nicklaus, Joan Phelps, John Plonski, Georgia Sales, Maureen Strickland, John Thompson, Micki Thompson, and Debby Thornton. Charlene Hipes and Clive Jones of the AIRS sta worked with Freless dedica- Fon in every phase of the project.
AIRS Research Atlas
AIRS Survey Respondents

The informaFon gathered by the AIRS Member Survey was extensive. The researcher is very grateful to the survey respondents who rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work of data compilaFon and analysis and the painstaking formulaFon of survey responses. Without their intelligence, eort, and dedicaFon, the research project could not have produced the abundance of valuable informaFon that appears in the White Papers and the AIRS Research Atlas.
Integer Research & ConsulZng, LLC

Based in Chicago, Integer is an independent management consultancy that focuses on enhancing knowledge worker producFvity through the strategic use of informaFon and informaFon technology. The research, analysis, and documentaFon for the AIRS Environmental Scan was produced by Mark H. Neuer, President of Integer Research & ConsulFng, LLC. Invaluable help in reviewing the Atlas manuscripts was provided by colleagues Jim Schad, ScoY Sederstrom, and Tim Weidmann. Mark H. Neuer, M.A. is a researcher and consultant with more than 30 years of experience in the nonprot, higher educaFon, and business sectors. He is a graduate of Yale University and holds a masters degree in Social Service AdministraFon from the University of Chicago. As a researcher at the University, Mark developed and led a three-year project funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundaFon to survey Chicago South Side community resources and to develop an electronic directory of human services. Marks current pracFce focus is the strategic use of informaFon technology to deliver human service informaFon to the American public. In late 2008, he worked with the AIRS Board to develop a preliminary research agenda, a col- laboraFve eort that has produced the AIRS Environmental Scan Research Project, the AIRS White Paper Series, and this Research Atlas over a two-year period. For more informaFon on Integer Research & ConsulFng, please visit: hYp://integerconsult.com/Home/Main.html or call 312-454-1982.
FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS

You are welcome to contact us with your feedback or questions about this White Paper. Please feel free to send us an e-mail at: info@airs.org. Thank you.
98

AIRS Member Research Atlas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIRS Member Research Atlas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALLIANCE

O F I NFORMATION A ND R EFERRAL SYSTEMS W HITE PAPER S ERIES

AIRS Research Atlas

Prepared by Integer Research & Consulting, LLC Chicago, IL May, 2011

CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH SERVICES WHITE PAPER SERIES

Tim Sylvia Board President

Alliance of Information & Referral Systems

AIRS Research Atlas

INTRODUCTION TO T HE R ESEARCH ATLAS .........................................................1 RESEARCH H IGHLIGHTS A ND C ONCLUSIONS .....................................................3

DETAILED R ESEARCH F INDINGS ..........................................................................8

AIRS Research Atlas INTRODUCTION TO T HE RESEARCH ATLAS

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS

AIRS MEMBERS OPERATE A SIGNIFICANT ENTERPRISE

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas DETAILED R ESEARCH F INDINGS

AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 2: Map of AIRS Membership By State and Province

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 7: Response Rates by Two Demographic Factors

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 9: PopulaZon Change in US and Canadian Member LocaZons

Figure 10: Aging PopulaZon in US and Canadian Member LocaZons

AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 13: AIRS Members and County PopulaZon of Foreign Birth

Figure 14: AIRS Members and County PopulaZon in Poverty

AIRS Research Atlas

B-2 B-3 B-4

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

Figure 28: Respondent I&R/Resource Database Soeware Vendors

Figure 29: Respondent Computer Vendors

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas

AIRS Research Atlas