Higher Education Resources

Institution: Commonwealth University

Initiative: Project Sentinel

Closing the Gap Between Data and Life-Saving Action.

• Social Issue: Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3)
• Social Impact Focus: Suicide mortality rate
• Social Impact Goal(s): The initiative aims to achieve a 5% annual reduction in suicide mortality across 3–5 pilot districts in the (Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region by establishing a real-time surveillance system for 50,000–100,000 people. Over a 3-to-5-year timeline, the project will bridge the gap between police and hospital records to ensure 100% of high-risk individuals are identified and connected to care within 48 hours.

I. SITUATION

The data arrived too late.

Across several districts in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region, suicide reporting lagged by up to 2 years. By the time trends were identified, the opportunity to intervene had passed. High-risk individuals were not consistently identified, and preventable deaths continued.

Commonwealth University’s Department of Epidemiology launched Project Sentinel to address this gap. As an R1 institution with regional influence, it aimed to test a scalable public health model aligned with SDG 3.

The initiative focused on reducing suicide mortality by 5% annually across 3 to 5 pilot districts, covering 50,000 to 100,000 people. Its core objective was to identify high-risk individuals in near real time and connect them to care within 48 hours.

The model centered on integrating data across institutions. Police records, emergency department admissions, and community health inputs would feed into a unified digital platform. Alerts would trigger rapid follow-up by trained responders.

The system required coordinated participation across:

• Police departments responsible for incident reporting
• Hospitals and emergency units capturing clinical data
• Community providers delivering follow-up care

The initiative was supported by approximately $920,000 over 3 years, covering system development, staffing, and training.

The design was strong. The challenge was execution.

II. CONSTRAINT 

 The system did not function as intended. Despite the new platform, data remained fragmented. Reporting delays persisted, and participation varied across institutions. In some districts, improvements were minimal.

Frontline actors experienced the system differently than expected. Police officers viewed reporting as an added administrative task. Healthcare providers submitted data but lacked visibility into how it informed action. Community responders were unclear about their role.

The implications were immediate. High-risk individuals were not consistently identified within critical windows. The target of connecting 100%of individuals to care within 48 hours was not reliably achieved. Early results showed limited progress toward the 5% annual reduction goal.

Financial risk increased. Continued funding depended on demonstrating measurable outcomes. Without improvement, expansion beyond the pilot phase was unlikely.

The university responded by reinforcing formal structures. Data-sharing agreements were strengthened, reporting protocols were clarified, and oversight increased. These actions improved compliance. They did not improve performance. 

Participation remained inconsistent. Data quality varied. The system collected information but did not consistently support coordinated action.

III. TURNING POINT 

 A regional stakeholder workshop marked a shift. Police representatives, clinicians, and community responders provided direct feedback on system use. Reporting processes were time-consuming, data flows did not support decision-making, and contributions felt disconnected from outcomes. The system was structured around institutional requirements rather than operational realities. 

Leadership paused further rollout.

A targeted review followed, including interviews and working sessions across districts. Engagement was strongest where actors understood their role and could see how their  actions contributed to outcomes. Participation was not automatic. It had to be designed. 

IV. INTERVENTION & OUTCOME 

The project shifted from a data collection model to a participation-based system. Beneficiaries and stakeholders were reframed as active co-creators. Clear pathways for participation and co-creation were developed.  

Action 1: Reframe Stakeholders as Co-Creators

 The project team redesigned workflows with direct input from frontline actors. Police officers, clinicians, and community responders participated in structured design sessions. 

Reporting processes were simplified. Data inputs were aligned with operational needs. Response protocols were clarified.

Participation increased as stakeholders saw their input reflected in system design. Reporting became more consistent and relevant to daily work.

Action 2: Create Clear Participation Pathways

 The university introduced shared dashboards providing real-time visibility into key indicators across institutions. Data became accessible and actionable for all participants.

Roles were clearly defined:

• Police identify and report high-risk incidents
• Healthcare providers validate and respond
• Community responders ensure follow-up within 48 hours

Training programs supported adoption across districts. Feedback loops allowed continuous refinement.

Clarity reduced friction and improved consistency.

Ecosystem Activation

Coordination improved across institutions. Police departments submitted data more reliably because it supported operational priorities. Healthcare providers used shared data to inform clinical decisions. Community responders became fully integrated into response workflows.

The system shifted from isolated activity to coordinated action.

Network Effects in Practice

Performance improved as participation increased. Faster data flow enabled earlier identification. Earlier identification enabled faster intervention. Effective interventions reinforced participation and improved data quality.

On the ground:

• Reporting lag decreased by approximately 75%
• Data availability improved to under 30 days, with some near real time cases
• Cross-agency coordination increased across pilot districts

Practices spread across districts through shared visibility.

Impact on Social Outcomes and Finances

The results were measurable. High-risk individuals were identified more consistently and connected to care within the 48-hour target window. Progress toward the 5% annual reduction goal began to emerge.

The system reached 50,000 to 100,000 individuals with improved surveillance and response capacity.

Financially, the project stabilized. Demonstrated effectiveness led to renewed funding and additional investment for expansion. The initiative transitioned from a pilot to a scalable model.

V. LEADERSHIP INSIGHTS 

System performance improved when participation became central to design. Public health outcomes depend on coordinated action across institutions. Systems that rely primarily on structure and oversight face limitations when participation is uneven.

For leaders, the implication is clear. If participation is not designed into the system, performance will remain constrained. When participation is enabled, capacity expands and outcomes improve.

This is the practical value of the ISG operating system. It provides a structured way to activate ecosystems, generate network effects, and convert coordination into measurable results.

These case studies show how purpose-driven organizations translate strategy into measurable results. Each example traces a specific operating challenge, the shift in approach, and the actions taken to coordinate across a broader ecosystem. They are grounded in a clear theory of change: ISG’s principles and strategies enable ecosystem activation, which generates network effects, which in turn drives greater and more sustained social impact. The focus is practical, highlighting how participation, coordination, and outcomes improve. These examples are illustrative composites, reflecting real patterns observed across organizations.

Read additional case studies:

• NGOs | Social Issue: Affordable and Clean Energy  (SDG 7) | ISG Principle 1: Orchestrate the Ecosystem
• Government | Social Issue: Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6) | ISG Principle 2: Lead with Values
• Social Enterprise | Social Issue: Climate Action (SDG 13) | ISG Principle 5: Make Progress Visible

ISG Principle 3: Expand Who Can Lead