Perspectives on cross-systems collaboration: CYPM Evaluation, Year1

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.”

4. 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?

5. Methods

6. 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)

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

8. Interview participants Total # By County:

10. 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?

11. 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

12. Emergent Themes

13. 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.

14. RESULTS

15. Qualitative overview of cultural and historical context

16. Cultural Context Themes (Mean % and range % across 5 counties)

17. Positive Change

18. Positive Change Themes (Mean % and range across 5 counties)

19. Positive Change Themes(Mean % and range across 5 counties)

20. Qualitative OverviewChallenges/Obstacles to Positive Change

21. Challenges/Obstacles Themes (Mean % and range across 5 counties)

22. Challenges/Obstacles Themes (Mean % and range across 5 counties)

23. Team Leader/Front-Line Worker Comparisons of Major Themes (Percent of participants)

24. Implications for implementation?

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Discussion

29. 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/