Results from the MOCAN Partnership Survey Sophie Mendelson and Kimberly Keller, PhD - PowerPoint Presentation

Results from the MOCAN Partnership Survey Sophie Mendelson and Kimberly Keller, PhDJanuary 17, 2019

Goals in seeking member feedback: To increase membershipTo enhance connections among existing initiatives To inventory MOCAN’s strengths regarding factors shown by research to be important to the success of collaborative projects To identify areas in which actions can be taken to improve the effectiveness of collaboration Purpose of the survey:

Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Twenty “success factors” shown to be pivotal in successful collaboration.Categories:Environment Membership characteristics Process and structure Communication Purpose Resources

Methods Qualtrics survey:Open July 24th-August 31st, 2018All 256 recorded members invited to participate online via email Analysis: RStudio - tableone, psych, dplyr packages for descriptive statistics Whole group and d isaggregation by Organizational Status, Length of Membership, Work Group, and Number of Work Groups Excel - PERCENTILE function Cutoffs for high and low scoring factors established at the 15th and 85th percentiles; compared across disaggregated groups

Who responded? 80 MOCAN members responded; 61 members completed the survey:31.25% overall response rate; 23.83% completed response rate 8 work groups, in addition to the steering committee, were represented: Healthcare (n=15), Worksites (n=21), Schools (n=20), Child care (n=20), Food systems (n=18), Physical activity (n=16), Communications (n=9), Policy/advocacy (n=20), Steering committee (n=12) Twenty-one (26.3%) not associated with a work group; thirty-nine (48.8%) associated with more than one Length of membership: < 1 year (n=12), 1-5 years (n=16), 6-10 years (n=14), not indicated (n=38)

Analysis strategy Composite means obtained for each Wilder Inventory factor, plus three added factors:No normative standards for scores - but generally:Scores of ≥ 4.0 indicate strengths Scores between 3.0-3.9 are “borderline”Scores ≤ 2.9 indicate areas of concern Aggregated MOCAN scores ranged from 3.0-4.0 The 3 highest-scoring and 3 lowest-scoring overall factors were identified...

Highest Three Overall Factor Score Comments Members see collaboration as in their self-interest 4.0 “The work of MOCAN directly impacts the work I do with schools across MO.” “This may be the most important question on the survey, as it aligns directly with the Strategic Plan goal.” “I suspect my organization would benefit, but I’ve been unable to figure out what the clear goals, objectives, mission etc. are for MOCAN. What’s the overall purpose, and why should I be involved? I’ve asked multiple members/leaders, & the always struggle to come up with an answer.” “We are all there because it fits our job and our interests.” Flexibility 4.0 “I haven’t been a member long enough to know.” Unique purpose 4.0 “I am not sure there are other organizations like MOCAN in Missouri, to my knowledge I have not heard of any.”

Lowest Three Overall Factor Score Comments Multiple layers of participation 3.3 “Need more people to engage with full authority of their organization.” “Large organizations need multiple representatives at MOCAN to cover their diverse work foci.” “Some members are able to speak for their organization but not all… I cannot commit my organization to something but can commit my time or my program.” Appropriate cross section of members 3.2 “There are more groups across the state, especially in rural regions, that need to be involved in MOCAN.” “MOCAN members are still strongly based in public health and academia, and there are many more sectors that can be developed.” “Are children/students involved? Do they have any voice? How about low-income, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged citizens? Do they have a direct voice? How about community organizations? How well represented are they?” Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time 3.0 “Do you ever have enough dollars or people?” “A line item in the state budget would be helpful.” “We need to continue to fund at least 1.5 positions.”

Disaggregated scores Positive trends:Respondents who had been MOCAN members for longest (6-10 years) scored ≥85% in 3 factors:“Ability to compromise,” “Working through differences,” “Adaptability” The Communications Work Group scored ≥85% in 2 factors: “Adaptability,” “Concrete, attainable goals and objectives” The Steering Committee scored ≥85% in 6 factors: “Ability to compromise,” “Adaptability,” “Concrete, attainable goals and objectives,” “Working through differences,” “History of collaboration or cooperation in Missouri,” “Development of clear roles and policy guidelines” Negative trends: The Food Systems Work Group scored ≤15% in “Shared vision”

Next steps Diversification of types of member organizations: What barriers or opportunities are there to engage grassroots and local or regional organizations (particularly in rural areas) that would be powerful allies and benefit from MOCAN networking capacity? Strengthening of communication efforts: Comments reflected a desire for clarification of MOCAN’s purpose, improvement of intra-work group communications, greater transparency regarding who comprise the MOCAN membership, and updated online materials. Expansion of publicity efforts that extend beyond MOCAN’s membership also represents an opportunity for enhancing MOCAN’s reach and impact.