Bridgeport Safe Start Initiative: Interagency Collaboration Survey & Social Network Analysis

Transcription

1 Bridgeport Safe Start Initiative: Interagency Collaboration Survey & Social Network Analysis Joy S. Kaufman, Ph.D., Stacey R. Friedman, Ph.D., Jesse Reynolds, B.A., Ellen Ross, M.A., and Cindy A. Crusto, Ph.D. Yale University 1

2 Background What is collaboration? a process in which organizations exchange information, alter activities, share resources, and enhance each other's capacity for mutual benefit and a common purpose by sharing risks, responsibilities, and rewards. (Himmelman, 2004) 2

3 Background (cont.) Why measure collaboration? One measure of service system maturation: Intended to provide access to a seamless array of services (Hernandez & Hodges, 2003; Hodges et al., 2003) 3

4 Interagency Collaboration Scale (IACS) Developed by Paul E. Greenbaum & modified for BSSI evaluation 3 Subscales Collaboration Values (13 items) Collaborative Activities (20 items) Connectedness (5 items) Retest:.78,.86,.81; Alpha:.72,.96,.73 Most Important Barriers & Facilitators The Collaborative Network 4

5 Method Baseline survey in spring of 2002; 18-month follow-up in fall of staff representing 33 agencies in round one; 40 staff representing 40 agencies in round two 28 agencies participated in both rounds 5

6 Results - Demographics Respondent demographics Gender Age Race/Ethnicity Agency characteristics Linguistic capabilities, Whether provides direct services to children 0-6 or their families 6

7 Results Collaboration Subscales 5 Figure 3. Collaboration Subscale Scores Values Activities Connectedness 7

8 Comparisons between Participants Figure 4. Average Connectedness Score in 2003, by Years at Agency* less than 1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years >10 years *p<

9 Barriers & Facilitators Most important barriers Lack of agency resources (59.7%) Lack of ownership of responsibility/followthrough/initiative (18.2%) Most important facilitators Networking (20.0%) Interagency meetings (18.6%) Leadership/initiation (15.7%) 9

10 Barriers & Facilitators (cont.) 100.0% Figure 5. Significant Changes in Frequency of "Most Important" Barriers & Facilitators 71.8% 50.0% 0.0% Lack of resources *p< % 2.6% 21.1% Limited access *p< % 7.9% Networking *p<

11 The Collaborative Network Social Network Analysis Measures: Geodesic Distances (Degrees of Separation) Density Degree Centrality (Outreach & Recognition) Strength of Relationships (2003 data) 11

12 Diagrams of Network

13 Closeness of Collaborative Relationships O NE D EG RE E between A and B A gen cy A A gency B 1 D EG R E E TW O D EG RE ES betwee n A and B A gen cy A A gency C A gency B 2 D EG R E ES TH RE E D EG RE ES betwee n A and B A gen cy A A gency C A gen cy D A gen cy B 3 D EG R E ES 13

14 Closeness (cont.) 2002: max of 3 degrees, average of approximately 2 degrees 2003: max of 2 degrees, average of approximately 1.5 degrees 14

15 Density Figure 7. Proportion of Active Collaborative Relationships* 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 72.3% % 32.0% 0.0% *p<

16 Outreach & Recognition Example #1 OUTREACH to another agency: A collaborates with B Agency A Agency B Example # 2 R EC O GN ITION by anoth er agen cy: B collaborates w ith A Agency A Agency B Example #3 Outreach & Recogntion: RECIPROCAL Collaboration Agency A Agency B 16

17 Outreach & Recognition 50.0% Figure 8. Outreach/Recognition & Reciprocity 40.0% 49.6% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20.4% 27.2% 37.2% % Outreach/Recognition *p<.001 *p<

18 Summary of Findings: Changes over 18 months Several indicators of increased collaboration over 18 months Increased proportion of active collaborative ties, with more reciprocal ties More close-knit (increase in direct collaborative relationships) 18

19 Summary of Findings: Changes over 18 months (cont.) Increased recognition of networking as facilitator of collaboration Less frequent identification of lack of resources as barrier to collaboration More frequent identification of lack of access to services as barrier 19

20 Implications for the Community Agencies in the community can direct resources & policies to promote activities identified as facilitating collaboration: networking opportunities interagency meetings & trainings pro-collaboration activities in which agency leadership take an active and visible role 20

21 Implications (cont.) Agencies can utilize this information to advocate for resources and policies needed to address key barriers to collaboration: Lack of agency resources Limited client access to services 21

22 Implications (cont.) Agencies can focus efforts to encourage collaboration around selected activities, based upon data. Agencies may find it valuable to take inventory of their collaborative partnerships, including the distribution of responsibility and resources. 22

23 Implications (cont.) Continued collection of longitudinal data will provide information about the evolving collaborative network in the community. 23