On this page I've shared the Network Mapping tool created by a team of Indiana University students in the Fall 2025 Information Visualization (IVMOOC) class.
This week I received the final report from a second IVMOOC team, who used the same Tutor/Mentor Conference history, to visualize participation. Below is the interactive map-based visualization that they created.
Open the interactive map at this link. Across the top of the map are dates of the 1994-2015 Tutor/Mentor Leadership and Networking Conferences, held in Chicago. For each conference the IVMOOC team created a zip code map, with shaded areas showing where conference participants came from.
You won't find the text that I show with the map on the actual interactive version. I had to read the Final Report to see their description of the information on the map, how to view the four classifications which you can view, using the drop down menu at the top left.
I'm sharing some of that below.
--- beginning of text from the report ----
--- beginning of text from the report ----
In addition to static figures, an interactive dashboard was
developed using Plotly to provide a more flexible view of
participation trends. The dashboard displays ZIP codes shaded
by intensity, where darker colors represent higher levels of
activity. Users can explore the data dynamically through a
dropdown menu that switches between four key metrics:
Total Participation: Shows the overall number of participants from each ZIP code. This view highlights the most active regions and provides a baseline for geographic engagement.
Change in Participation: Displays year‐to‐year changes in participation by ZIP code. Areas shaded in stronger colors indicate growth, while lighter or negative values highlight declines. This view is useful for spotting emerging regions or places where engagement has tapered off.
New Members: Focuses on participants attending for the first time. This metric helps identify ZIP codes that are contributing fresh engagement and expanding the community base.
Recurring Members: Highlights ZIP codes with participants who attended multiple times.
Total Participation: Shows the overall number of participants from each ZIP code. This view highlights the most active regions and provides a baseline for geographic engagement.
Change in Participation: Displays year‐to‐year changes in participation by ZIP code. Areas shaded in stronger colors indicate growth, while lighter or negative values highlight declines. This view is useful for spotting emerging regions or places where engagement has tapered off.
New Members: Focuses on participants attending for the first time. This metric helps identify ZIP codes that are contributing fresh engagement and expanding the community base.
Recurring Members: Highlights ZIP codes with participants who attended multiple times.
Then they provided this Data Analysis.
The data included thousands of individual entries. Most participants came from Illinois, with a strong cluster centered in Chicago and nearby cities such as Evanston, Oak Park, and Cicero. Outside Illinois, several states, including Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, showed consistent participation across multiple years.
The total participant count increased gradually from the 1990s through the early 2010s, suggesting a steady growth in engagement. However, the participation rate dropped slightly in the final years, likely due to changes in outreach or available data coverage. (Note - this was largely due to less funding available to host and market the conferences following the 2011 decision of the Board of Directors to discontinue support of the Tutor/Mentor Connection part of the Cabrini Connections nonprofit, that was launched in late 1992. While I formed the Tutor/Mentor Institute, LLC to keep this strategy available to Chicago, I never found significant funding due to no longer operating as a 501-c-3 non profit.)
Geographic concentration: Participation spanned 616 ZIP codes across 45 states, but Illinois dominated with about 66% of all participants. Chicago alone accounted for over 5,500 entries, underscoring its role as the central hub. After 2005, participation gradually expanded into nearby states such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, reflecting regional growth. (This also reflected the growing use of the Internet since the early 2000s).
Organizational diversity: More than 1,532 unique organizations were represented. Nonprofit and education-related groups contributed the majority of attendees, while donor and policy-focused organizations made up a smaller share, highlighting a sector imbalance.
Temporal trends: Yearly participation fluctuated, peaking in the late 1990s and early 2000s, followed by a gradual decline after 2010. This suggests that outreach strategies or conference accessibility may have shifted in later years. (As noted above, there were less funds available after 2011. However, there also was growing competition as others hosted their own networking events. And with the Internet, there were fewer reasons for people to attend face-to-face events.)
The report concluded with this INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Our analysis has shown strong participation from nonprofits and educators, but limited involvement from donors and policymakers. This imbalance suggests that the conferences primarily served as spaces for practitioners and community‐based organizations rather than funding institutions. While this helped strengthen grassroots connections, it also limited opportunities for broader institutional influence and resource mobilization.
Our analysis has shown strong participation from nonprofits and educators, but limited involvement from donors and policymakers. This imbalance suggests that the conferences primarily served as spaces for practitioners and community‐based organizations rather than funding institutions. While this helped strengthen grassroots connections, it also limited opportunities for broader institutional influence and resource mobilization.
The interactive dashboard provides a clearer picture of how
participation evolved across ZIP codes and years. By toggling
between metrics such as total participation, change in
participation, new members, and recurring members, several
patterns emerge:
● Community clusters: The dashboard shows that nonprofit and education‐related ZIP codes consistently appear with high intensity, especially in Illinois. Many of these areas also show strong recurring member counts, reinforcing the persistence of local and regional communities over time. (Note. if you view many of the maps on this blog you'll see where poverty is concentrated in the Chicago region. If there were a demographic overlay to the IVMOOC map it would show most of the participating organizations came from these high poverty areas. That was our goal.)
● Peripheral actors: When switching to the “new members” view, donor and policy‐related ZIP codes appear less frequently and with weaker intensity. Their limited presence suggests missed opportunities to expand engagement beyond practitioner and educator communities.
● Regional hubs: Chicago and surrounding Illinois ZIP codes dominate across all dashboard views, acting as central hubs of participation. After 2005, the dashboard highlights new activity in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, showing geographic expansion and gradual integration of neighboring states into the conference network.
● Retention vs. outreach: The dropdown comparison between recurring members and new members reveals a balance between retention and outreach. Some ZIP codes show strong recurring participation, indicating long‐term commitment, while others contribute more new members, highlighting successful outreach into fresh regions. Together, these dashboard insights suggest that while the conferences were highly effective at sustaining nonprofit and education networks, future outreach could focus on strengthening donor and policy participation and leveraging regional growth beyond Illinois.
● Community clusters: The dashboard shows that nonprofit and education‐related ZIP codes consistently appear with high intensity, especially in Illinois. Many of these areas also show strong recurring member counts, reinforcing the persistence of local and regional communities over time. (Note. if you view many of the maps on this blog you'll see where poverty is concentrated in the Chicago region. If there were a demographic overlay to the IVMOOC map it would show most of the participating organizations came from these high poverty areas. That was our goal.)
● Peripheral actors: When switching to the “new members” view, donor and policy‐related ZIP codes appear less frequently and with weaker intensity. Their limited presence suggests missed opportunities to expand engagement beyond practitioner and educator communities.
● Regional hubs: Chicago and surrounding Illinois ZIP codes dominate across all dashboard views, acting as central hubs of participation. After 2005, the dashboard highlights new activity in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, showing geographic expansion and gradual integration of neighboring states into the conference network.
● Retention vs. outreach: The dropdown comparison between recurring members and new members reveals a balance between retention and outreach. Some ZIP codes show strong recurring participation, indicating long‐term commitment, while others contribute more new members, highlighting successful outreach into fresh regions. Together, these dashboard insights suggest that while the conferences were highly effective at sustaining nonprofit and education networks, future outreach could focus on strengthening donor and policy participation and leveraging regional growth beyond Illinois.
--- end of text from the report ----
The report reinforces what I recognized since launching the conferences in 1994. We were attracting many of the volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in the Chicago region, along with some of the university programs and researchers involved in doing this work. Occasionally we had participation from foundations, business, universities and local media. However, we never were able to attract a large and consistent following of business, philanthropy and policy representatives.
The report reinforces what I recognized since launching the conferences in 1994. We were attracting many of the volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in the Chicago region, along with some of the university programs and researchers involved in doing this work. Occasionally we had participation from foundations, business, universities and local media. However, we never were able to attract a large and consistent following of business, philanthropy and policy representatives.
This concept map visualizes the long-term goal of bringing people from every sector together in an on-going effort to learn where youth need extra help, how volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs can expand networks and learning opportunities, and ways business, philanthropy and public policy need to support programs in every high poverty neighborhood, not just a few.
As long as donors, business and policy makers live in silos, disconnected from organizations doing the work and people being served, there will be too few resources distributed consistently and in too few places.
The 2025 IVMOOC team report shows that we were not very successful at this. Had I had the report in the mid 2000s I might have been able to recruit leaders to help. However, part of the reason I never was able to accomplish all that we were trying to do was the loss of major donors in 2000 when Montgomery Ward went out of business, and the dot-com bubble burst, then 2001 to 2003 following the 9/11 attack. We were just recovering in 2007 and 2008 and had earned several grants of $50,000 or more, when the financial crisis began, causing us to lose major supporters like HSBC North America, and ultimately in mid 2011 causing the Board of Directors to decide to focus only on the direct service part of the organization.
As you look at this report, visit this page and look at the Network Mapping tool created by a second 2025 IVMOOC team. These show two ways of looking at participation in an event, or network, and of understanding "who's participating" and "who's missing". Until those who are missing are involved, the network will continue to struggle to achieve significant impact.
Thank you to the students who created both of the 2025 IVMOOC visualizations and reports. I look forward to being part of the Spring 2026 project cycle. I also look forward to hearing from readers how they are using this information. Just share in the comments, or reach out to me on LinkedIn.
No comments:
Post a Comment