Valuing Collaboration Lessons Learned Through Evaluation of a

Valuing Collaboration Lessons Learned Through Evaluation of a Federally Funded Kinship Initiative AEA 2011, Anaheim, CA HSRI, Julie Murphy

Ohio Enhanced Kinship Navigator Project • Seven KN grantees, with PCSAO Leadership • Local and state advisory groups (LAG and SAG) • Collaborative Relationship b/w KN Grantees and Evaluator

Ohio Enhanced Kinship Navigator • Direct support for kinship caregivers – I&R, case management, and individual services and supports • Systems change efforts to build community of support – Community mapping, advocacy, outreach, education, collaboration, etc.

Evaluating Collaboration Research Questions: • Do community organizations that serve KCGs in demonstration counties have stronger relationships than organizations in comparison counties? • As a result of the KN program, is the larger community more aware of supports and services needed by and available to KCGs? Refined/Sub questions for network analysis: • What are the relationship dynamics between the KNs and LAG members, as well as other community providers identified as important to supporting kinship families? • How do those relationships/interactions change over the course of the KN project?

Gathering Data about Collaboration • Key component of KN model for FC Grantees • Variety of data collection efforts: – Implementation Reports – KIDS data – Interviews with KN managers and staff – LAG and Community Partner survey

Data Collection: Survey of LAG and Community Partners Part I: Knowledge of needs of kcg and of KN Program • How knowledgeable do you feel about the needs of kinship families in your community? • What services does your organization provide which are relevant and available to kinship caregivers? • How often and in what ways do you communicate with the Kinship Navigator program staff? (or your organization) ? • How available and accessible are services for kinship caregivers in your county? • In your opinion, how much overall impact has the Kinship Navigator program made in your community thus far?

Data Collection: Survey of LAG and Community Partners Part II: Collaboration Scale (Frey et al. , 2006) Measuring Collaboration Among Grant Partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 m 3, 383 -392. Collaboration Levels: • • • 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 Coordination: share information and resources, defined roles, frequent communication, some shared decision making Coalition: share ideas, share resources, frequent and prioritized communication, all members have a vote in decision making Collaboration: members belong to one system, frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust, consensus is reached on all decisions

Collaboration (5) Coalition (4) Coordination (3) Cooperation (2) Networking (1) No Interaction LAG Member 5 Collaboration (5) LAG Member 4 Coalition (4) LAG Member 3 Coordination (3) LAG Member 2 Cooperation (2) LAG Member 1 Networking (1) No Interaction Kinship Navigator PAST CURRENT Level of Interaction

Reporting Findings • • • Variety of levels of interaction Change in level of interaction over time KN vs. Community Partner & LAG perceptions Follow-up data collection Target Audience

LAG member LAG member Kinship Navigator +1 LAG member -1 0 +2 LAG member +1 +1 LAG member

Thank You For Attending For more information, please contact: Julie Murphy HSRI jmurphy@hsri. org 503 -924 -3783 ext. 25