SLCM — Neighbor Network
$2.3M grant-funded initiative · UX Researcher & Systems Lead · 2023–2025
Role
UX Researcher & Systems Lead
Org type
Nonprofit, $2.3M grant
Timeline
2023–2025
Methods
Service design, affinity mapping, scoring model
Outcome
1,800+ households served; 250+ evictions halted; 67 placements guided
The problem
Neighbor Network began as $2.3M in case management funding for rental assistance. Early work surfaced a pattern: families cycled through housing, justice, and health crises because workforce barriers were never addressed as root infrastructure. This engagement expanded into three connected workstreams — a redesigned intake system, an intensive stabilization pilot, and original workforce placement research.
Three connected workstreams
Each answers a different piece of the same problem: what do neighbors need to become self-sufficient? Select a workstream to open the project, key metrics, and technical appendix.
1. Intake System Redesign1,800+ families served · 0 days of downtime since the redesign
Diagnosis
Neighbor intake was unstable — the system had to be shut down and taken offline multiple times, including one full month of downtime before redesign. The root cause was triage and client workflow: there was no way to distinguish a neighbor needing a single resource referral from one needing months of sustained support, so everyone entered the same undifferentiated path. Volume overwhelmed the structure it was running on. Less than 15% of follow-up forms were completed after first contact, and reporting lines across navigators, resource specialists, and leadership weren't mapped clearly enough to assign ownership once a neighbor exited initial triage.
Intervention
Redesigned the intake flow into three tiers based on need intensity: Triage (curated resource referral, one-time), Connected Neighbor (single-goal, under two weeks of support), and Flourishing Neighbor (multi-goal, extended navigator relationship). Each tier carries its own assessment criteria, follow-up cadence, and handoff sequence between navigators and resource specialists. Rebuilt the organizational chart alongside the flow to clarify who owns each stage. Considered and rejected keeping a single-track intake with manual triage notes — the volume made that path unsustainable and untrackable. The new structure runs on a live kanban board, giving real-time visibility into caseload by stage.
Technical appendix
Research & Methodology
Mapped existing intake against actual follow-up completion data; the under-15% completion rate was the core signal that something structural, not individual, was failing.
Scoring & Logic
Tier assignment criteria: goal count, timeframe to resolution, and referral source (internal vs. external partner).
Constraints & Assumptions
Built within existing staffing levels; navigator and resource-specialist roles kept separate rather than merged.
Obstacles Encountered
Establishing a direct communication loop between navigators and resource specialists — internal handoffs were initially as lossy as external ones, requiring a dedicated feedback and follow-up system to fix.
2. KYnship Pilot4 participants completed the full program · 20 hours per week · 4-month pilot
Diagnosis
Standard navigator caseloads weren't built for the highest-barrier neighbors — those with multiple stacked barriers and high Environmental Sensitivity Scores. Support intensity didn't match need intensity: a navigator carrying a typical caseload couldn't provide the sustained, relational presence this group required to stabilize. Without a tested model for what intensive support actually requires — staffing ratio, session cadence, and how long gains hold before decaying — there was no way to make the case for funding a dedicated program.
Intervention
Ran a 4-month intensive pilot: 20 hours per week of structured programming covering behavioral modification, skill training, social-emotional regulation, executive functioning, and work-task introduction — a full pre-employment stabilization curriculum, not a standard case-management cadence. Four participants completed the full program. Considered running the pilot at standard caseload ratios to control cost, but rejected it — prior data showed high-sensitivity individuals require sustained 1:1 relational contact that a larger caseload structurally cannot provide. Visible improvement peaked around week 5–6 and decayed by week 8 without a formal reassessment checkpoint, which became a core recommendation for any scaled version.
Technical appendix
Research and Methodology
Mixed-methods pilot; quality-of-life tracking plus qualitative themes across a small cohort at a single site over roughly 16 weeks.
Scoring and Logic
A navigator-to-participant ratio of 1:3 was derived empirically from observed burnout and co-regulation breakdown above that threshold for high-sensitivity, high-barrier cases.
Constraints and Assumptions
Small cohort size limits generalizability; findings are directional, intended to justify a larger funded pilot rather than serve as population-level evidence.
Obstacles Encountered
Co-occurring mental health and substance-use needs were frequently undiagnosed going in, causing repeated group-setting triggers; unclear role boundaries between navigator and participant led to burnout risk, which directly produced the defined-roles-and-team-rituals recommendation.
3. Workforce Placement Research67 survey responses · 80% needed stabilization support before job placement
Diagnosis
The organization's working assumption was that unemployment among neighbors was a job-readiness problem — solvable with training and referrals. Research told a different story: nearly 80% of neighbors could not simply be placed into available jobs without addressing stacked barriers first. Transportation, health, childcare, and unresolved trauma weren't side issues — they were the actual blockers standing between neighbors and stable employment. Without a way to measure and sort these barriers, every neighbor was being offered the same generic job-readiness path regardless of what was actually stopping them.
Intervention
Designed and fielded a workforce placement survey (67 valid responses) covering job history, barriers, confidence, and environmental stress triggers. Built an original scoring heuristic — the Environmental Sensitivity Score (ESS) — combining self-reported environmental triggers with an agreement-scale measure of current stability, added to a simple barrier count and self-rated confidence score. The combined score sorts each neighbor into one of four quadrants: Direct to Work, Training, Gig/Agency with Support, or Stabilization First. Each quadrant maps to a distinct intervention type rather than a one-size-fits-all placement track. Considered scoring barriers alone without the ESS layer, but that undercounted neighbors who had few formal barriers yet were too dysregulated to sustain employment — the environmental layer was necessary to catch that group.
Technical appendix
Research and Methodology
Online form, phone calls, and in-person navigator support, fielded June 2025; questions covered job history, barriers, confidence, environmental triggers, and aspirations.
Scoring and Logic
Barrier score = 1 point per self-identified barrier. ESS = environmental trigger count (Q13) plus agreement-scale score (Q24: 2 points per strongly disagree, 1 point per disagree). Confidence = self-rated 1–5. Quadrants range from Q1 (0 barriers, 0 ESS, 5/5 confidence) through Q4 (5–17 barriers, 4–11 ESS, 1–5/5 confidence).
Constraints and Assumptions
The first iteration used 19 responses before scaling to 67; groupings were affinity-mapped and reorganized three times to reduce bias.
Obstacles Encountered
Confidence ratings were self-reported and didn't always match barrier severity — some high-barrier neighbors rated confidence high, which required cross-checking against the ESS layer rather than trusting either score alone.
Project visuals
Intake service flow
Mapping every step of intake showed where handoffs slowed neighbors down. This map became the blueprint for the redesigned intake system, which served 1,800+ families.
Click the image to enlarge
Pilot operations outline
An operations outline for future pilots. It lays out how a pilot should be set up and run, so the next team can start from a clear plan.
Click the image to enlarge
Workforce placement matrix
Survey responses were scored on barriers, environmental sensitivity, and confidence. The matrix sorted participants into placement quadrants, from ready to work to stabilization first, and guided 67 placements.
Click the image to enlarge