SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

The SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) serves as an answer to the question “Where are we now?” A summary of results from the SWOT is included below.

Back to Top

Strengths:

  • CES enjoys an exceptional reputation for high quality services and collaboratively delivered, expert support for a wide variety of challenges facing students, educators, and districts.
  • Recognized for playing an indispensable role in meeting the needs of school districts
  • Quality across a broad range: Most stakeholders think that CES provides high quality services and programs.
  • Unique value to stakeholders: 
  • Adaptive: Understand and collaborate with clients/customers to develop an approach to their specific needs
  • Individualized: Understand the unique needs of each individual learner and develop approaches to meet them where they are
  • Commitment to Social Justice: Understand forms of oppression, the way they manifest in educational contexts, and effective strategies to mitigate harm and promote inclusion and facilitate social, emotional, and academic growth
  • Professional Development and SJE/Antiracism work consistently receive attention from stakeholders.
  • State legislators value the role of CES as a convener of the voices of education in western Mass. and see CES as a vital contributor to the process of legislative change related to social and racial justice in education.
  • The Dept. of Education sees CES as “ahead of them” regarding racial equity and social justice work.
  • Clear commitment from leadership to the importance of advancing diversity
  • CES teams report that they have “healthy conflict” and can address problems when they occur. Communication and collaboration within teams is mostly effective.
  • Staff do not feel micromanaged, and feel they are trusted to do their work without excessive oversight or supervision.
  • Outcomes are often measured against intended impacts
  • Staff and leaders share a strong sense of purpose and a clear vision for CES
  • Staff generally respect each other and hold each other and each other’s work in high regard.
  • CES is extremely responsive to market needs. We are able to respond quickly, seize opportunity, and meet the needs of many learners.
Back to Top

Weaknesses:

  • We talk about how we are “flat”, but are perceived as hierarchical by some of our staff
  • Staff do not uniformly see leadership as demonstrating and acting on a consistent set of values
  • Decision making too often leaves out voices/views of those most impacted
  • Some staff fear that raising issues/identifying problems will mean that they are seen as troublemakers
  • Too much space between organization’s talk on equity and its commitments to paying and treating its teachers fairly
  • Programmatic and bureaucratic challenges result from multiple funding sources for various areas of work
Back to Top

Opportunities:

  • With really strong communication and intentional efforts at collaboration, the broad range of programs and services can act in synergy and foster creative possibilities
  • Clarify connections to equity in outcomes: While CES work related to SJE is widely praised, some stakeholders raised concerns about whether and how the ideals related to SJE translate into equity in outcomes for learners and other stakeholders.
  • Opportunities for CES to center it’s SJE values in our work: 
  • Connect principles of justice and equity to improved outcomes  
  • Address internal challenges related to equity as part of the effort to do more and broader SJE work with stakeholders
  • Professional development for educators related to justice, equity, anti-racism, anti bias work
Back to Top

Threats

  • Without really strong communication and intentional efforts at collaboration, the heterogeneity of programs and services reinforces silos and stifles creativity.
  • Some internal stakeholders are concerned that some of the services provided by CES feed into and legitimize systems of oppression.
  • We are so market driven that we do not clearly define our own strengths or values, and we look exclusively to the market rather than our own abilities to determine strategy.
  • Funding structures: Indirect rates allowed by state contracts are very low, and median indirect cost among medium to large nonprofit organizations is closer to 40%. The mismatch between CES’ actual indirect overhead and the allowed indirect costs related to contracts means there is insufficient funding for adequate infrastructure.
Back to Top