danielle varda & carrie chapman university of colorado at denver, school of public affairs
TRANSCRIPT
Levering Resources in Cross Sector Collaboration: The Role That Nonprofits Play in Public
Health Systems
Danielle Varda & Carrie ChapmanUniversity of Colorado at Denver,
School of Public Affairs
Public Health System Membership An array of diverse partners are collectively and
systematically addressing complex public health problems and population health goals
Goal-directed networks are “intersectoral networks…specific purpose…evolve largely through conscious efforts to build coordination” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, 231). ◦ Public Health Department as convener◦ Membership from a wide range of organizations
Growing diversity = more opportunity for nonprofits
The Role of Nonprofits in Public Health System Networks
As the size and scope of the nonprofit sector grew over the last thirty years, so has the frequency with which nonprofits collaborate with other sectors (Yankey & Willen, 2010).
Increased documentation of the value that nonprofits bring to articulate the unique role, particularly in terms of: mission alignment and resource contributions◦ Mission Alignment: Flexible, mission driven partner◦ Resource Contribution: valuable resources (Provan &
Milward, 1995).
Purpose of this Research: To examine the associations between resource contributions and mission alignment in both nonprofit organizations and in overall network outcomes
Importance: A lack of clarity on these issues, competition, or variation
in value definitions, can result in miscommunication, lack of trust, reduced mission congruence, and confusion of members’ value (Milward & Provan, 2003).
Successful networks = mutual understanding of mission alignment and resource contribution (Milward & Provan, 2003).
Purpose & Importance
Research Questions
Research Questions: RQ1: Do nonprofit organizations contribute different
types of resources than public or private organizations in public health networks?
RQ2: Do nonprofit organizations differ in their perceptions of mission alignment from public and private organizations in public health networks?
RQ3: To what extent does the interaction between resource contributions and mission alignment affect outcome achievement in public health networks?
Theoretical Framework Number of specified variables
linked to outcomes in networks◦ sector-based resource contributions ◦ mission alignment
Hypotheses H1: Nonprofit organizations will have greater mission
alignment relative to public and private sector partners.
H2: Nonprofit organizations will have greater resource contribution relative to public and private sector partners.
H3: As resource contributions and mission alignment increase, greater outcome achievement in networks will also increase.
“Core Dimensions of Connectivity”
Framework (Varda et al. 2008)
Study Design Secondary Data Analysis PARTNER (Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks
to Enhance Relationships, www.partnertool.net) dataset◦ PARTNER is a social network analysis tool that is designed
to evaluate structural network variables in interorganizational networks Network “Manager” Administers the Survey Convenience sample
Full dataset includes:◦ ~400 whole networks◦ ~ 10K orgs,◦ ~70K dyads
Sample Population
177 Public Health Collaboratives (Whole Networks)◦ collectively represent 4,213 individual organizations.
Selected based on a set of common criteria: ◦ Goal-directed mission focused on public health, ◦ Organizations as the unit of analysis, and ◦ Use of the same or similar PARTNER survey
questions and response options.
Data Notes:◦ Collected between October 2009 and December 2012◦ No known differences exist across the sample ◦ Do not aim to generalize ◦ There were no noted changes to public health systems policy
Response Rates 4,213 organizations included for analysis 2,094 members responded to the survey
◦ which yields an average response rate of 49.7%
Variables Used Independent Variables:
◦ Hypotheses 1 and 2: Org Level Sector (public, private, nonprofit), Resource
contributions (summed total reported), perceptions of mission alignment
◦ Hypothesis 3: Network Level Resource Contributions, Mission Alignment, and
Organizational Diversity in Networks (Breadth), Density and Centralization
Dependent Variables:◦ Number of Outcomes◦ Agreement on Most Important Outcome
Descriptive Results Collaboratives included in this analysis ranged in size
from a minimum of 9 organizations to a maximum of 279 (mean=21; SD=27.65).
The mean density and centralization scores were 0.59 (SD=0.29) and 0.39 (SD=0.23), respectively, which indicate that, on average, collaboratives were moderately cohesive and loosely centralized.
Hypothesis 1: Difference of Resource Contributions by Sector
IT/Web*
Advocacy
Leadership
Decision Making
Community Connections
Other Expertise***
Health Expertise
Info/Feedback**
Data***
Volunteers*
Paid Staff
In-Kind***
Funding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Resource Contributions by Sector
Nonprofit
Private
Public
Mean Percentage Contributed
Type o
f R
esourc
e
• With the exception of volunteers, where nonprofit organizations contributed significantly more than their public and private partners (36%, p=0.10), differences were attributed to private organizations, which consistently provided fewer resources.
• Patterns: Nonprofit/Public organizations provided 6 types of resources more frequently when compared to other sectors
Hypothesis 2: Difference of Mission Alignment by Sector
Differences across sectors on whether mission alignment was important for collaborative success; No significant differences existed across sectors.◦ Yes: 60% NPOs, 57.4% of public; 54.7% private
However, when ranked by other sectors according to support of the collaborative’s mission, private organizations received significantly lower scores than either nonprofit or public organizations (F=159.29, p<0.0001).
Hypothesis 3:Mission Alignment/Resource Contribution on Outcomes
Size, Density & Centralization not sig in any model
DV: # of Outcome Identified: DV: Outcome Agreement
Discussion Sector Differences:
◦ NPOs bring a greater # and diversity of resources; Perceived as having the strongest mission alignment
◦ Despite being consistent with extant literature, findings are perhaps more subtle than previous research would suggest.
Resource Contribution/Mission Congruence: linked to Outcomes ◦ Greater breadth & Resources:
A wider array of outcomes identified Not entirely surprising, less likely to reach consensus
on the objectives viewed as most essential to the collaborative’s work
Discussion Cross-sector differences are expected More interesting = resource contributions and
mission alignment affect outcomes Substantiates the role of resource contribution
and mission congruence as a vital element of successful outcome attainment
Further, it gives credence to the opportunities for interorganizational goal-directed networks -> only goal-directed networks specifically suggest mission congruence as the motivation for collaboration
Study Limitations Convenience sample used for our analyses Because these data are cross-sectional,
causal arguments are necessarily limited ◦ Ideally, longitudinal data should be used to
improve causal certainty. Dataset does not contain information
pertaining to context
Implications for Theory and Practice Theory: substantiate the Core Dimensions of
Connectivity theory, which hypothesized that both greater resources and higher mission congruence would lead to better network outcomes
Practice: ◦ Nonprofits can provide leadership in mission congruence
and the contribution of more resources (not just support)◦ Validation for nonprofits in terms of their potential value in
interorganizational goal-directed networks◦ Knowledge by which network managers/leaders might
refer to when thinking about how to engage their nonprofit partners