Using Network Structures to Increase Collaborations among Community Partners in an Early Childhood System of Care Project

Transcription

1

2 Disclaimer The views, opinions, and content expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or policies of the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

3 Using Network Structures to Increase Collaborations among Community Partners in an Early Childhood System of Care Project Tiffany Martoccio, Margo Candelaria, & Kate Wasserman The Institute for Innovation and Implementation University of Maryland School of Social Work Funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) through the Child, Adolescent and Family Branch, Center for Mental Health Services Kirstin Painter, PhD, SAMHSA Contracting Officer Representative Emily Lichvar, PhD SAMHSA Alternate Contracting Officer Representative

4

5 Building Resiliency for Infancy through Development, Growth, & Empowerment (BRIDGE) Southern Maryland three counties Calvert, Charles, St. Mary s Awarded 2015 Entering year 3 Started with limited knowledge of early childhood systems Requires integration across three rural counties Partners both within and across three counties

6 BRIDGE Local Service Delivery Model Tier 1 COS-P by PRC Ages 0-5 Community Settings Parent Cafes by MFN Ages 0-5 Community Settings ALL Tiers CCO by CFC E-ECMCH developed by workgroup Ages 0-5 Community Settings/Home Ages 0-5 ECE Settings/Home Tier 2 ABC by CCHD PCIT by CFC Ages 0-2 Home Visiting Ages 2-5 Clinic Tier 3 CPP by CFC Ages 0-5 Clinic

7

8 Assessing collaboration Collaboration is a prerequisite for the sustainability of interagency programs (e.g., Perkins, 2002; Peterson, 1991) We wanted to measure how relationships changed over time and if efforts to increase collaboration were effective The Levels of Collaboration Scale Frey, Lohmeier, Lee, & Tollefson (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. Used with programs with time-limited grant-funding sources

9 Methods: Levels of Collaboration Scale Collaboration data collection occurs 3-4x per calendar year Monthly Executive Leadership Team Meetings N = 20 community partners Data Collection Occasion Participants Participant Agencies Fall Spring Summer Fall

10

11

12 Methods: Levels of Collaboration Scale Networking 1 Cooperation 2 Coordination 3 Coalition 4 Collaboration 5 Level Relationship Characteristics No Interaction none Networking Aware of organization Loosely defined roles Little communication All decisions are made independently Cooperation Provide information to each other Somewhat defined roles Formal communication All decisions are made independently

13 Methods: Levels of Collaboration Scale Level Networking 1 Cooperation 2 Coordination 3 Coalition 4 Relationship Characteristics Coordination Share information and resources Somewhat defined roles Formal communication All decisions are made independently Coalition Share ideas Share resources Frequent and prioritized communication All members have a vote in decision making Collaboration 5 Collaboration Members belong to one system Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust Consensus is reached on all decisions

14 Results Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Summer 2017 Fall 2017 Density Reciprocity Number of ties Centralization *Density -> the proportion of present edges from all possible edges in the network. *Reciprocity -> the proportion of reciprocated ties (for a directed network) *Ties -> number of links *Centralization -> identification of highly central or influential agency with strong connections to other agencies

15 Time 1 Mean Number Level of of Links Collaboration The two numbers in each circle reflect, first, the number of partners with whom each entity collaborates and, second, the mean level of collaboration across all partners.

16 Time 2 Mean Number Level of of Links Collaboration The two numbers in each circle reflect, first, the number of partners with whom each entity collaborates and, second, the mean level of collaboration across all partners.

17 Time 3 Mean Number Level of of Links Collaboration The two numbers in each circle reflect, first, the number of partners with whom each entity collaborates and, second, the mean level of collaboration across all partners.

18 Time 4 Mean Number Level of of Links Collaboration

19 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 4

20 Subgroups and Communities: Cliques

21 Subgroups and Communities: Community Detection

22 What does it all mean? Visual representation of changes in program staff and increased outreach efforts: Time 2 and Time 3 showed both a change in Project Director (PD) and a new grant administrator Increased communication with all partners as new PD learned BRIDGE and helped to develop more goals Funding/contracting concerns resolve

23 What does it all mean? Time 3 and Time 4 showed the increase in outreach by several key partners Identified where connections were needed and who was not represented New PD and other key partners engaged in targeted invitations to meetings Times 2 to 4 showed several activities that brought people together ECSII training Connection with SSW SEFEL trainings in Southern Maryland Interactions at other state meetings

24 What does it all mean? At the same time UMB SSW has become a less prominent figure and local partners have become more integral partners Partners have come together to fund a Warm Line central referral system Has increased investment in the SOC as a system they share vs. siloed services Will result in connections with more community services Formally involves the local family voice organization

25 Next Steps Continue data collection Next round of data collection to occur at the February Meeting Examine relations to the SOC Assessment Data collection occurred July 2017 from the BRIDGE Leadership Team