Public Health in the Rockies Vail, Colorado; September 2015 Networks, and Outcome, and Tools! Oh My! Applying Social Network Analysis to Measure and Build Early Childhood Systems for Better Public Health in the Rockies Vail, Colorado; September 2015

III. Examples From The Project

Project Background In partnership with CDPHE, CO Trust, and CDHS, the PARTNER team met with Early Childhood Councils (ECC) in MIECHV or Health Integration funded communities to assess system relationships for Quality Improvement. As part of the Quality Improvement (QI) effort, a Social Network Analysis was conducted to identify system relationships and develop an evidence base for systems building efforts. PARTNER (Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships, www.partnertool.net) Process Quality/Working Together Tool

How Communities Participated The ECC Coordinator from each community served as the Point of Contact to coordinate a stakeholder meeting and administer a survey to ECC members. The project consisted of the follow activities: A one hour introductory webinar for ECC Coordinators (November) A half-day onsite meetings with stakeholder groups (January/February) Survey administration (April) Debrief meetings with each site (April/May) Each community received a Personalized Coalition Evaluation/Assessment and recommendations for actions steps to engage in systems building (July/August) ECCs continue to participate in TA for translating data into action

Data Collection (PARTNER Survey) Feb/March 2013 PARTNER was used in this project to collect data and inform a Quality Improvement process. The survey combined the PARTNER survey with the Process Quality/Working Together survey already administered to the ECCs in the past. www.partnertool.net

What is PARTNER? www.partnertool.net PARTNER (Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships) utilizes Social Network Analysis (SNA), a quantitative methodology that focuses on relationships between and among organizations, measuring and mapping relationships and flows between organizations. -- Housed in the School of Public Affairs at UC Denver--

Survey Questions Dimension Measures Organizational Membership Organizational identification by name, type, and other organizational characteristics (e.g. size, mission of organization) Network Interaction Network patterns and positions identified by subgroups, key players, etc. Quality of Relationships Types and levels of communications among members Organizational Value to the Collaborative Power, involvement, resources Trust Reliability, shared belief in mission, opportunity for frank discussion Additional Questions Process Quality/Working Together

Who Participated? (Time 2)

Response Rate – Goal of 65%

State-Level Results

What is the value of the ECCs to Colorado’s Early Childhood System? 5,975 Early Childhood Partnerships in Colorado described by 394 respondents Of those, 3,755 Partnerships were attributed to ECC 2,615 Partnerships Developed From ECC 1,159 Strengthened by ECC In other words, 63% of all partnerships In EC System in Colorado attributed to the ECC Each one of these partnerships has an accompanying story about what they are doing to strengthen the ECC, how the partnership benefits each organization, and how those partnerships are linked to improving the health and welfare of kids in Colorado.

Number of Partnerships Described Across the State 5,975 Partnership in the Early Childhood System in Colorado Described in This Set of Data

Please describe how your relationship with each of these partners was developed. 2,615 Partnerships Developed From ECC 1,159 Strengthened by ECC 3,755 Partnerships Attributed to ECC In all but 2 counties, at least 50% of all partnerships attributed to the ECC. At least 20% attributed directly to the work of the ECC.

How many partnerships exist in Colorado (and in each county) in Different Domains? 2435 2981 1919 1507 532

What are all these partners doing together?

Communicating Results

Grant Language See handout

IV. What’s Next (and What We’ve Learned)

Project Limitations Gap between having these data and the ability to really understand/apply the data Network data are complex and “new” Cultural/historical barriers to translating data into practice (in general) Survey may need to be revised Standardizing across sites is possible, but will take some work to implement “Lists” of members Systems measures need to reflect site differences; but standard measures can be developed to measure site specific goals

Translation to Practice is Challenging The PARTNER data’s primary purpose: To give coordinators/communities data that can help them improve their processes; strengthen their systems work It is NOT to compare one ECC to another, or measure how “well” each ECC is performing We are not experienced in using data to make decisions, especially when it comes to building relationships among constituents These types of data are atypical We often depend on who we know, what we know about them and what we think we know about them We naturally depend on who we know, what we know about them, and what we think we know about them It’s not typical to have data that gives us real insight into how partners perceive each other and the details of their relationships

Key Take Away Points There is an evidence-based practice for managing networks & partnerships Social Network Analysis provides research-based tool Quality Improvement can be applied to networks & partnerships

Questions? Carsten Baumann Carsten.Baumann@state.co.us Danielle M. Varda danielle.varda@ucdenver.edu Sara Sprong sara.sprong@ucdenver.edu PARTNER Team partnertool@ucdenver.edu