I have analyzed in a preliminary way the social networks of consumers seen at family service agencies for being suicidal, and have prepared comparative information for all consumers so surveyed. The information derives from 1,952 surveys in the State of Connecticut completed during May 1999 at 20 different locations. I have added to the comparison data from the 1997 National Survey of American Families. That survey assessed the demographics, problems, services provided and social assets of 10,000 individuals who had contact with 89 family service agencies around the U.S. during a 7 day window in April, 1997. (7,452 Asset Inventories were ultimately completed.) This allows comparison of the 36 suicidal individuals to a national as well as state wide pool. It reinforces the conclusion that the 1999 Connecticut state-wide results are quite representative of broader patterns. By extension, it reinforces the conclusion that the social networks of suicidal people are extremely distorted.

The survey itself consisted of four parts:

I. Demographics
II. Current problems or needs
III. Current services provided
IV. Assets Inventory (social relationships)

Parts I through III were completed by the direct service provider (often a counselor or social worker, but not invariably), and Part IV was completed by the consumer.

The attached Word table presents the responses of consumers to the Assets Inventory. The Assets Inventory is a 3-page, self-administered inventory of social resources, grouped into family, friends and other people, groups and associations, agencies, businesses, and other (two write-in lines). The person responds by recalling first whether they actually used the listed relationship during the past two years, and then, if they used it, how helpful the relationship had been on those occasions when they used it. Helpfulness is a three point scale - not at all helpful, somewhat helpful, and very helpful. As such, the Assets Inventory amounts to a measure of connectedness between individuals and resources in their social network (i.e., social capital), and it also produces information on the quality of the relationship (i.e., degree of helpfulness).

The attached tables summarize the responses of the 36 consumers for whom the Connecticut based service provider checked "suicidal" as one of the Current Problems or Needs. It sets their answers adjacent to those of the full pool of 1,952 respondents in the entire state and those of 7,542 national respondents. The first table shows the percent of respondents in the group who indicated that they had used the particular asset, ordered in the same manner as the original survey (i.e., by groupings of assets). The second table shows, for those who used a particular resource, what percent found that resource very helpful.

Shading in each table highlights resources whose use and helpfulness differ markedly from the background patterns for Connecticut and for the nation. Red indicates assets who use or helpfulness fell 15% or more below the broader patterns. Yellow marks resources for which the corresponding difference was 10 – 15%. Blue indicates resources whose use or helpfulness exceeded the comparables by 10% or more. Assets used by fewer than 10% of the suicidal group remain unmarked, regardless of the magnitude of the difference.

The way the two groups use resources is very distinct. Suicidal consumers attempt to rely much more heavily on professional helpers - counselors, other mental health providers, doctors, hospitals, and, to a lessor degree police. Suicidal people, to judge from this sample, evaluate the helpfulness of counselors very highly. The other professional resources perform generally as they do for others, with the exception of police who are sharply downrated.

Suicidal individuals also rely far less on family resources. Six of eight family relationships are seriously underutilized, to judge by State of Connecticut patterns (viz.: parents, spouse/partner, own children, own relatives/kin, spouse’s/partner’s parents, and spouse’s/partner’s relatives). These six relationships, plus godparents, are also rated very poorly by the suicidal group in terms of helfulness. Own relative/kin received the most votes as "very helpful", but still fell considerably below the ratings by other state residents or Americans generally.

The networks of suicidal people are generally thinner than those of other Americans. Notably, they resort to neighborhood agencies and institutions such as schools, community centers, preschool and day care programs less frequently. Balancing this, the suicidal group appears more strongly connected to informal groups and associations, such as church, church groups, support groups, sports clubs, and informal social clubs.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the landscape of very helpful resources is extraordinarily bleak. The vast majority of social resources perform far worse for suicidal people than for those not so identified. 24 of the 30 most used social relationships (i.e., used by 20% or more of the suicidal group) are viewed as significantly less helpful than they were for other state residents. Only 3 of the total of 48 resources are found to be very helpful by half or more of the suicidal group. There is an enormous spread between the top and second most helpful relationship. The top three resources in order are counselor, other mental health providers, and doctor. Missing from their list of the most helpful relationships, but found in the top of the statewide list are schools, mutual support groups, daycare, preschool, and charity organization. Only seven resources are rated as very helpful by one-third or more of the group. The comparable figure for the State of Connecticut as a whole is 33 resources. Generally speaking, suicidal individuals perceive their social networks as stunningly unhelpful.