perspectives on cross systems collaboration cypm evaluation year1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1. Wendy Haight , PhD Professor and Gamble- Skogmo Chair Laurel Bidwell, PhD Research Associate Jane Marshall, PhD Post doctoral researcher Parmananda K hatiwoda , MSW PhD student, graduate research assistant

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1' - arama


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
perspectives on cross systems collaboration cypm evaluation year1

Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1

Wendy Haight, PhD

Professor and Gamble-Skogmo Chair

Laurel Bidwell, PhD

Research Associate

Jane Marshall, PhD

Post doctoral researcher

ParmanandaKhatiwoda, MSW

PhD student, graduate research assistant

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Research funded by the Casey Family Programs and the Gamble-Skogmo endowment

overview of multi year mixed methods evaluation
Overview of Multi year Mixed Methods Evaluation
  • Year1: Ethnographic inquiry exploring implementation, especially cross-system communication and collaboration
  • Years 2-3: Quantitative descriptive and child outcome analyses
  • Years 2-3: Primarily qualitative inquiry into child and family experiences
p erspective and approach of year 1
Perspective and approach of year 1
  • Ethnographic approach

Culture

      • Tangibles: Artifacts (e.g., objects, language, laws, policies), practices (e.g., activities, traditions, interventions)
      • Intangibles: Values, beliefs, meanings
      • Change: Shaped by the experiences of earlier generations, and dynamically elaborated by later generations
      • Perspectives and activities of “insiders.”
    • Implementation science

Systems change and stability

Perspectives and activities of “drivers.”

year 1 research questions
Year 1Research questions
  • What positive changes in services to crossover youth do participants (professionals) experience during the initial implementation of the CYPM?
  • What have participants (professionals) experienced as some of the challenges/obstacles to positive change?
  • To what extent and how does context (county) and role (team leader vs front line worker) impact professionals’ experiences of positive change and challenges to change?
participating mn counties
Participating MN Counties

Population Persons/ Below White

sqmile poverty line

Hennepin 1,184,576 2,082 12.3% 77%

Sterns 151,606 112 12.8% 93%

Olmsted 147,066 221 8.1% 87%

Carver 93,707 257 5.0% 94%

Kandiyohi 42,379 53 12.7% 95%

MN total 5,379,139 67 11.0 87%

(87 counties)

procedures
Procedures
  • Participant observation: Check-in calls, Networking sessions, learning collaboratives
  • Record review: Official CYPM materials
  • Interviews: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with professionals
interview participants
Interview participants

Total # By County:

interviews with team leaders front line workers
Interviews with team leaders, front line workers
  • Phone interviews
  • 30-60 minutes
  • Semi-structured
  • Probed experiences during initial implementation

What are you doing that’s different?

How is the CYPM working?

What are the greatest strengths?

What are the greatest challenges?

data processing and analysis of interviews
Data processing and analysis of interviews
  • Transcribed verbatim (with identifying information removed)
  • Themes induced through repeated readings of each interview transcript by 3-4 of the interviewers.
  • Coding system “finalized” through discussion
data processing and analysis of interviews1
Data processing and analysis of interviews
  • Consistency of coding: All interviews were coded by one primary coder, and checked by a secondary coder. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, and/or consultation with third coder.
  • Unit of analysis = conversation/interview transcript. Theme present? Yes or no.
some general implications
Some general implications
  • Use positive reports to promote buy-in from stakeholders
  • Use reports of challenges to trouble shoot and strengthen preparation of new counties
  • Increase attention to site preparation
  • Enhance preparation and support of front line workers
recommendations from front line workers for training n 28
Recommendations from front line workers for training (n=28)
  • Articulate central/unique features of the model
  • Formal training with counterparts.
  • Keep training to the point, engaging.
  • Want dialogue, not top-down process.
recommendations from front line workers for ongoing support n 28
Recommendations from front line workers for ongoing support (n=28)
  • Ongoing training.
  • Continued discussion of cases.
  • Online component.
  • Internal support/point person to trouble shoot individual cases when needed.
credits images
Credits (Images)

Slide 3: “Diverse GMU people all put together into a square” By Kelly Criscuolo-DeButts, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Slide 5: “100525-6361” by Starr Environmental, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Slide 12: “Jigsaw Puzzle 01” By Scouten used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike3.0 unportedlicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)

Slide 13: “Sphere” By Maurizio Laudisa, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Slide 15: “Rowing Team” by Wade Brooks, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 2.0 Generic license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Slide 18: “Hurdles” By Gwyn Fisher, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Slide 26: “Career conversations about the EPA” By Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/