Post on 14-Dec-2015
transcript
CATSO PROJECT
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM (UAB)ASSOCIATION OF MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
PROGRAMS (AMCHP)NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD (NIHB)
Collaboration Among Tribal and State Maternal and Child
Health (MCH) Organizations
2
Acknowledgements
This project was generously funded by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (ID: 67623)
We also wish to acknowledge the Maternal and Child Health Training Grant (ID: T75MC00008) funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
3
Background
Working collaboratively has been shown to produce desired public health outcomes (Institute of Medicine, 2005)
Programs funded by the Health Services and Research Administration (HRSA) and Title V of the Social Security Act through the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant exist in all states to serve the MCH population
Higher levels of collaboration between organizations may lead to improved relationships to better serve the MCH population broadly
4
Objectives
To explore the association between levels of collaboration and stages of interorganizational relationships (IORs)
To identify effective models of collaboration within and between State Title V and American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) MCH entities
To identify the characteristics present in these collaborative models from which best practices can emerge and be shared
5
Study Design
Mixed-methods, two-stage sequential cross-sectional Year 1/Study Phase I - quantitative data collection and
analysis Year 2/Study Phase II - qualitative data collection and analysis
Study Area 34 states with federally recognized tribes in 2010
Participants State HRSA Title V Maternal and Child Health(MCH) and
Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) directors in the study area
Personnel working in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) organizations serving the MCH population in the study area
6
Mixed Methods Design for This Study
Visual Model Of Mixed Methods Procedures for Study
Yea
r 1
Yea
r 2
Procedure ProductPhase
Quantitative Data Collection
· Mixed mode survey· N = 68· IOR Survey and ICAT
· Numeric data
Quantitative Data Analysis
· Descriptive statistics of health indicators
· k-means cluster analysis (IOR Survey Data)
· Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) (ICAT data)
· Multiple regression analysis (IOR Survey data and health status indicators)
· SPSS v. 17, SAS
· Descriptive statistical analysis appropriate to data
· IOR clusters· IOR-domain relationships· IOR-health status indicator
associations
· Maximal variation sampling (purposefully selecting 1-5 cases)
· Developing interview protocol
· Cases (1-5)· Interview protocol
· Individual in-depth telephone interviews select participants
· Documents· Secondary sources
· Text data (interview transcripts, documents)
· Supplemental numeric data
· Coding and thematic analysis· Within-case and across-case theme
development· Cross-thematic analysis· Credibility procedures· NVivo 8 software
· Visual model of multiple case analysis· Codes and themes· Similar and different themes and
categories· Cross-thematic matrix
· Interpretation and explanation of quantitative and qualitative results
· Peer-reviewed meeting presentations and journal articles
Case Selection
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative Data Analysis
Define Policy Findings
7
Study Phase I – Examining Phases of Network Formation
Phase 1Exchange NetworkInformation sharing
Phase 2Action Network
Mutual goal setting &collective action
Phase 3Systemic NetworkLong-term formal
linkages
Adapted from: Alter C, Hage J. Organizations working together. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1993.
8
Intensity and Density of Interorganizational Collaboration
Intensity — the “how often?” dimension; the mean frequencies of different levels of interaction
Density—the “how many?” dimension; the relative number of collaborators for an agency in comparison to the average number of collaborators overall Density is measured on a normal distribution from low
density (few relative to the mean, producing negative scores) to high density (many relative to the mean, producing positive scores)
9
Network Phases, Density & Intensity of Collaboration
Adapted from:Singer HH & Kegler MC. 2004. Assessing interorganizational networks as a dimension of community capacity: Illustrations from a community intervention to prevent lead poisoning. Health Educ Behav, 31(6):808-821.
10
Results from Study Phase I
The participants examined primarily discuss and exchange ideas and information with their collaborators
The respondents largely do not set mutual goals, take collective action, or enter into formal agreements
11
From Surveys to Interviews
The surveys indicated that the participants were not involved in higher levels of collaborative action with their working partners
We wanted to understand WHY and HOW various levels of collaboration occurred
Interviews were conducted to shed more light on the survey responses and better understand unique collaborative relationships between state Title V and AI/AN MCH entities
12
Study Phase II – Participant Interviews
From the pool of participants in Study Phase I, we identified 5 states with respondents from both a Title V and an AI/AN organization/agency
We identified “pairs” to understand the point of view of the Title V and the AI/AN participants working on MCH issues in the same geographic area
13
Interview Content
These pairs were asked questions regarding: What collaboration means to them Perceived barriers to collaboration Enabling factors to promote collaboration Strategies utilized to enhance collaborative efforts How collaboration was maintained, enhanced, and
facilitated
The responses helped to better understand collaboration as the participants viewed it
Barriers to Collaboration as Identified by CATSO
Participants
15
Barriers #1
Organizational Issues Varying definition of collaboration Organizational structure and style differences Trust issues Unwilling to collaborate Lack of openness Non-commitment on a personal level
16
Barriers #2
Tribal Issues Limited recognition and understanding of tribal
sovereignty Doing lip service to sovereignty Disagreement on legal language (contracts, etc.) that
accounts for tribal sovereignty in states Lack of general understanding of treaty obligations
and laws
17
Barriers #3
Establishing and Maintaining Relationships Feelings of being an outsider from either side Outsiders not willing or not knowing how to work with
grass-roots folks Infrequent or no contact around mutually relevant
MCH issues Lack of trust and openness in contacts and
relationships
18
Barriers #4
Mutual Understandingso Misconceptions about non-nativeso Limited exposure to non-tribal worldo Tribal reluctance to initiate communication and
contact o Understanding of cultural competencyo Inability to adhere to all ideals of cultural competency
19
Barriers #5
Financial Constraints Differing financial contracting structures Funding constraints State budget constraints
20
Barriers #6
Data Issues Access to data Data collection differences between AI/AN region vs.
state Title V organizations Differences in data reporting structures
Hallmarks of Successful Collaboration Between State Title V and AI/AN
MCH-serving agencies
22
Hallmarks of Successful Collaboration
Commonality of Goals and Direction Invested and focused on the same outcome Mutual benefit and understanding
Willingness to Work Together
Working and deciding things together Working together and combining resources Wanting to be involved Collaboration as a core value
23
Open Communication Regularly informing each other Utilizing liaisons
Having Common Goals Focusing on the outcome Goals are mutually beneficial and necessary Understanding each other’s perspective Addressing identified needs of each community Goals need to be approved by both parties
Hallmarks of Successful Collaboration
24
Hallmarks of Successful Collaboration
Multi-Cultural Competency Cultural competency is a priority for all partners Willingness to learn about each other’s culture
Meaningful Inclusion of Stakeholders and Partners Being invited Nurturing relationships Involving all All partners have equal “authority” Being patient
25
Hallmarks of Successful Collaboration
On-going Long-term Relationships On-going initiatives to maintain collaborative efforts Reaching out to each other Maintaining trust in relationship
Open, Voluntary, Committed Relationships Having open and respectful partnerships Being accessible to potential partners
26
Hallmarks of a Successful Collaboration
Respecting Tribal Sovereignty Understanding what tribal sovereignty means Acknowledging tribal sovereignty Learning about each individual tribe Relying on the tribal community for advice Being community-driven
Best Practices and Action Strategies
to Enhance Collaboration between Tribal and Non-Tribal Maternal and Child Health Organizations
28
Best Practice #1: Organizational Culture Openly Values a Collaborative Working Style
Action Strategies Clearly communicate regarding a collaborative
process Openly create a culture of collaboration as a core
value Establish mutually beneficial common goals Gain trust and credibility with tribal and non-tribal
groups• Tribes involve state collaborators; state personnel
engage, reach out, visit tribal communities Include and invite all relevant parties on both sides
29
Best Practice #2: Increase Mutual Understanding of Each Other’s Cultures and
Values
Action Strategies: Establish a clear understanding of cultural
competency as a priority Provide cultural competency forums, workshops,
and meetings in which barriers and solutions can be addressed
Acknowledge and respect cultural differences
30
Best Practice #3: Understand and Respect Tribal Sovereignty
Action Strategies: Acknowledge, understand, and be respectful of
tribal sovereignty Create dialogue to increase understanding of what
tribal sovereignty means to individual tribes in different states
Assure tribal membership on committees, task forces, councils, etc.
Seek out advice, viewpoints, and opinions from tribal leaders and communities on pertinent matters
31
Best Practice #4: Reach Out and Establish Relevant and Appropriate Relationships
Action Strategies: Involve all relevant individuals and groups on a
regular basis Identify appropriate tribal and non-tribal contacts to
assure correct person(s) participate Establish and maintain trust through transparency
and openness Respond promptly to communication efforts
32
Study Limitations
The perceptions represented in this study are those of a limited number of respondents to surveys and interviews
The data in this study should be considered pilot or preliminary data because
a. a small number of participants b. the uniqueness of the attempt to explain the
nature of a tribal and non-tribal interorganizational relationship
33
For more information, please contact:
The UAB Investigative Team: Beverly Mulvihill (PI) – bmulvihi@uab.edu Martha Wingate (C0-PI) – mslay@uab.edu Nataliya Ivankova (Investigator) – nivankov@uab.edu Andrew Rucks (Investigator) – arucks@uab.edu Su Jin Jeong (Graduate Assistant) – sjeong@uab.edu
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP): Sharron Corle – scorle@amchp.org
National Indian Health Board (NIHB): Paul Allis – pallis@nihb.org Black Harper – bharper@nihb.org