Welcome! - we will commence shortly - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome! - we will commence shortly

https://www.creatingpathways.org.au

You can post questions you have now using the Q&A feature

Please note: Live Events on Teams looks slightly different to Teams meetings in that you will not be able to see other participants

The Creating Pathways initiative was funded (partially) by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council in partnership with researchers and partners at the following institutions, Government Departments, and Non-Government Organisations:

Dr Kate Frieberg and Professor Ross Homel Griffith Criminology Institute Rosealie Vallance, Lydia McMillan, and Louise Collins YWCA Australia - Communities for Children Murwillumbah and Lismore

The Value of Measuring the Wellbeing of Community Partnerships

Reviewing collaborative practice with the Coalition Wellbeing Survey

Outline

• CREATE project background
• Development of Coalition Wellbeing Survey

(CWBS)

• Use of CWBS in CREATE research design –

findings from Phase 1

• Use of CWBS by Community Coalition
• Q & A

The CREATE Project: A Play in Three Acts

Phase 1: 2013-2016 – 10 CfC communities (5 + 5) Building the capacity to take collective impact to scale (Stage 1

• f the Change Cycle)

Phase 2: 2016-2018 – 22 CfC communities Establishment of the prevention support and data collection systems Phase 3: 2019-2020 – 22 CfC communities (9+13) Implementation: Stages 1, 2 & 3 of Change Cycle

Innovation without capacity is of limited value…

Researchers Community Services Government Community Funders Shared Purpose and Safe Space for Respectful Relationships and Co- creation of Really Useful Science-based Tools, Methods and Resources

CREATE Project Goal

DEVELOP SUPPORT SYSTEM

Facilitate change

• In the way we work together
• To achieve better outcomes for

children

Collaboration as a strategy for achieving better

• utcomes for

children

Collaborative Advantage

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Some Characteristics of Effective Coalitions

• Shared Vision and Goal Clarity
• Respectful Relationships
• Effective and Timely Communication
• Role Clarity
• Governance and Guidelines
• Shared Responsibility and

Accountability

CWBS Framework

DOMAIN ASSETS ATTRIBUTES Indicators COLLECTIVE PURPOSE (31 items) Direction setting

Clear purpose & shared goals 3 items Strategic planning 4 items

Readiness to collaborate

Working together 3 items Collaboration value 5 items Role clarity 3 items Commitment and cohesion 3 items Active participation 6 items

Membership Characteristics

4 items

COLLECTIVE PROCESS (24 items) Governance, principles, and procedures

Agreed guidelines 1 item Decision making 3 items Conflict resolution 2 items Structuring processes 2 items Leadership 3 items

Engagement and Reciprocity

Communication 4 items Member benefits 4 items Principles of equity 5 items

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY (13 items) Reviewing progress

6 items

Supporting good practice and process

Evidence-informed 5 items Collective efficacy 2 items

COMMUNITY COHESION

5 items

CWBS Development Timeline

CREATE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 2014 2015 2016 2017

Review empirical literature Develop conceptual framework Develop survey questions

Implement T1 CWBS (10 CfC coalitions)

• Research team collects data

(Qualtrics)

• Research team and CIFs

prepare reports and deliver to each coalition manager CIFs work actively with Action site coalitions and passively with BAU sites Factor analyse aggregate data Revise question set (reduce number of items) Implement T2 CWBS (10 CfC coalitions)

• Research team collects data

(Qualtrics)

• Research team and CIFs

prepare reports and deliver to each coalition manager Analysis of T1-T2 change (relative to project group) Develop online CWBS resource package Self-service management dashboard for coalition leaders to:

• Collect own data
• Report own data
• Use own data

Analyses of baseline data (Time 1)

• N=150 respondents from 10 CfC communities and 11 coalitions
• 5 ‘action sites’ where CIFs work with coalitions; 5 ‘business as usual’

sites (receive a report on their coalition, but no support)

• Out of 92 key questions, 47 (51%) had > 30% missing values
• Most common items not answered (> 60%):
• The way decisions are made in the coalition
• How often do you support the decisions made by the partnership?
• How often do you feel that you have been left out of the decision-

making process?

Variation across sites

• Striking differences between sites
• Sites with the most missing emerged as amongst ‘the

healthiest’ in the factor analyses of coalition functioning (with missing items removed)

• Suggests that negative views are suppressed through ‘no

answer’ – impression management?

• All coalitions improved on

most items:

• 90% of items showed positive

changes in the Action sites

• 60% in the BAU sites showed

positive change, with 31% negative changes

2

Maximum likelihood factor analysis in R, with oblique rotation

• A 2-factor solution provided an adequate fit*
• Clarity of collective purpose, direction and roles
• Collaborative processes that enhance relationships and

engagement

• * (RMSE<.05)

2 2

But a 4-factor solution also provided an adequate fit and was more informative

• Partnership valued and supported
• Support for collaborative processes
• Governance structures and procedural processes
• Member perception of benefits gained through the partnership

2 2

NOTE There were too many missing values at Time 1 for the variables comprising F4 to show the change

2

Concluding remarks

• All sites improved from Time 1 to Time 2 (the Time 1

reports were useful even without the support of CIFs)

• Action sites started behind (at Time 1)
• Action sites caught up by Time 2 (2016)
• In the case of F3: governance structures, action sites

performed better than BAU by Time 2.

• Action sites tended to improve more on items directly

related to the CREATE principles, while BAU sites tended to improve on aspects of organisational capacity (reflecting DSS resources)

• We interpret this as evidence that the CIFs were effective

as ‘critical friends and agents of change’

Voices from the field

Rosealie Vallance – Partnership Coordinator Murwillumbah Lydia McMillan – Partnership Coordinator Lismore Louise Collins – Communities for Children Team Leader

Communities for Children – YWCA Australia

Q&A