Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 28/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
mixed-format event agenda agenda analysis
CCBHC model
This mixed-format event agenda in Unknown shows 30 visible agenda rows from thenationalcouncil.org and scores 28/100: a weak visible outcome architecture. The clearest public signals sit in Learning Transfer and Participation Architecture; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent rather than durable... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as a mixed-format event agenda, with the strongest visible signal in learning transfer and participation architecture and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the weak visible effectiveness evidence band. The strongest visible pillars are Learning Transfer, Participation Architecture, and Personalization; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Problem Specificity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The extracted agenda preview includes 30 visible rows. The most common formats are Unknown, Training, and Demo; the most common inferred purposes are Unknown, Skill Building, and Showcase.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?46
Participation Architecture - 46/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?28
Problem Specificity - 28/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.Missing: Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Personalization?42
Personalization - 42/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?16
Network Design - 16/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?53
Learning Transfer - 53/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?31
Evidence Maturity - 31/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?34
Future-of-Work Fit - 34/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Problem Specificity (28/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
27 percent of the 30 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventAbout UsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventOur WorkUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventConsulting and Training ServicesTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPrograms & InitiativesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventGet InvolvedUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventMembershipUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventNews & EventsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCCBHC Success CenterUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventWhat Is a CCBHC?UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCCBHCs and Crisis Response SystemsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCCBHC Data and ImpactUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventTake ActionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventImplementation SupportUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCurrent and Prospective CCBHCsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventState Government Officials or PolicymakersUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventState Behavioral Health AssociationsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventMentorship ProgramUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventData CollaborativeUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventDemonstration Sites Training and Technical AssistanceTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventFind a CCBHCUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventEventsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventContact UsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventMeet The TeamUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventIn this section: Select Page What Is a CCBHC? CCBHCs and Crisis Response Systems CCBHC Data and Impact Take Action Implementation Support Current and Prospective CCBHCs State Government Officials or Policymakers State Behavioral Health Associations Mentorship Program Data Collaborative Demonstration Sites Training and Technical Assistance Find a CCBHC Events Contact Us Meet The TeamTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventData and ImpactUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventThe CCBHC model was originally implemented in eight states in a 2017 demonstration program through the passage of the Excellence in Mental Health Care Act of 2014, with two states added to the demonstration in 2020. Since 2018, grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have also funded clinics in dozens of states to take on the activities and services of a CCBHC.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event2017: Eight states participate in the original demonstration program.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event2020: Two more states are added to the CCBHC demonstration program.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCCBHCs currently are funded through the Medicaid demonstration program or through SAMHSA grants. A growing number of states are moving to implement the model - similar to other value-based or alternative payment models - independently via a state plan amendment or Medicaid waiver. CCBHCs in the Medicaid demonstration are paid using a prospective payment system (PPS), which supports the clinics’ costs of reaching more clients with a wider range of services, while improving their flexibility to deliver client-centered care.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventNavigate BackStates Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin WyomingRegions 2023 Demonstration Planning Grant CCBHC Grants Only CCBHCs in Medicaid Independent Planning Effort No CCBHCsDemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 32/100 and verified 32/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as a mixed-format event agenda, with the strongest visible signal in learning transfer and participation architecture and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Learning Transfer, Participation Architecture, and Personalization. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Problem Specificity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from thenationalcouncil.org. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- Judgment uses base extraction because no publication-polished agenda is available.
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Unknown events scored on the same eight pillars.