Findings from the Coalitions and Networks for Active Living ( CANAL) Study

1. Findings from theCoalitions and Networks for Active Living (CANAL) Study Presentation by: Rachel Tabak CANAL Team: Jill Litt Hannah Reed Susan Zieff Amy Eyler Rodney Lyn Jeanette Gustat Nancy O’Hara Tompkins Karin Goins Dan Bornstein Danielle Varda Jessica Retrum MOCAN Meeting October 24, 2013

2. Acknowledgements • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevention Research Center Program Special Interest Project: 5U48DP001938-02 • Physical Activity Policy Research Network (PAPRN) • The communities who shared their time, stories and successes • Kaiser Permanente • LiveWell Colorado • Wisconsin Department of Health Services • Denver Environmental Health

3. What we know … Challenges we face … What are the changes we can make to live more actively?

4. Purpose Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative groups to facilitate the adoption and implementation of policies and environmental changes at the community level that promote physical activity

5. Conceptual Model

6. Methodology Phone interview • Structures, leadership, tactics and activities • Environmental and policy achievements Network survey • Resources, trust, value Interview Sample Groups Invited Network Sample

7. Eight areas of improvement • Parks and Recreation • Transit • Streetscaping • Street Improvement • Children’s Play Areas • Plazas • Infill and Redevelopment • Safe Routes to School.

8. Results: Participating sites by physical inactivity rates* *Source: BRFSS, 2008

9. Key Research Results from 59 Groups-Partners Most groups involve partners from multiple sectors, including: • Planners • Elected officials • Public health experts • Private entities (e.g., health care organizations) • Media • Non- profit organizations

10. Key Research Results from 59 Groups-Tactics and Activities Greater policy and environmental change in groups that reported: • Engaged in media communication • Actively participated in the policy process • Engaged with the broader community of stakeholders

11. Key Research Results from 59 Groups-Strategies Groups reported the most success in adopting policy in the areas of: • Public plazas • Street improvements • Streetscaping • Parks and recreation • Complete Streets policy was frequently cited as a supporting policy for these areas • Opportunities remain in other areas, including transit and infill and redevelopment

12. Results: Strategy areas identified

13. Results: Advancing Environmental & Policy Change

14. Results: Descriptive statistics-Sample

15. Group Composition and Community Engagement Activities

16. Outcomes by collaborative attributes • % Score • % Score

17. Environment & Policy Tactics & Activities

18. Outcomes by tactics and activities • % Score • % Score

19. Inside the Collaborative: Network Structure and Member Perceptions

20. Survey tool: PARTNER (www.partnertool.net) • Contacted members of MOCAN to learn more about their experiences in this partnership • Perceptions of those partners who took the PARTNER survey • 11 partners identified • 8 partners completed online survey • 73% partner response rate

21. Network Structure • Social Network Analysis to map relationships (also known as ties) among members of the group • Structural attributes of the group: • Density-general level of cohesion-proportion of ties present in the network in relation to the number of possible ties in the entire network • Degree centralization-the extent to which relationships are centered around specific group members-proportion of ties each member has in relation to other members

22. Network Maps

23. MOCAN Map • Most members recognized one another by name. • There appears to be a core group of members in the center and others are organized around the periphery. • Information flows through the core group to the periphery • Density Score: 0.75 • Degree Centralization: 0.31

24. Comparison of network maps with varying density and degree centralization scores • Different network configurations work for different groups • Groups can organize in a way that works best for their members and the context in which they are working. • Groups can be effective with both tightly knit (i.e. high density) or loosely constructed (i.e. low density) configurations.

25. Member Perceptions • Collaborative’smost important outcome and whether the group as been successful in achieving their goals • MOCAN: group has been somewhat successful in achieving their goals

26. Member Perceptions-most important outcome • Majority (50%) members selected changes to or formation of policy as the most important outcome of MOCAN

27. Partners identify other members in the collaborative with whom they work • Trustworthiness-measured by reliability, mission congruence, and openness to discussion • Organizational value-power and influence, level of involvement, and resource contribution

28. Member Contributions • Member asked to identify their most important contribution to the collaborative • Variety of contribution reduces redundancy and increases the group’s ability to work collaboratively toward a common goal

29. Implications • Insights into the: • Structures and activities of collaborative groups • Environmental and policy approaches they utilize to advance an active living agenda • Suggests that active living collaboratives are translating the evidence on environmental and policy approaches to promote active living from research to practice • Achieving environmental and policy change requires time, social and political connections, and financial resources.

30. Suggestions • Diverse, multi-sectoralcollaborative expands the influence of the group and their ability to make decisions that move the work of the group forward. • Groups who organize a greater variety of community events and use social media and social marketing achieve higher levels of environmental improvements and related policy change • Groups most effective in making improvements to the built environment and changes to the policy landscape dedicate substantial resources to engage: • Their memberships • The broader community • Decision-makers

31. Reflections? Questions?

32. Extra Slides

33. Results: Descriptive statistics-MOCAN

34. Results: Advancing Environmental Change

35. Results: Advancing Policy Change

36. Multivariable Model

37. Strengths and Limitations • Largest study of its kind to evaluate group effectiveness in advancing a policy and environmental change agenda to promote physical activity • However, statistical analysis is limited by sample size of 59 groups • This dataset is robust enough to look at the types of network structures and the quality of relationships within these structures as they relate to group effectiveness

38. Conclusion • Collaborative groups are translating the message about environment and policy approaches to advance the active living agenda into action • Tactics and activities, as part of community engagement, are widely used but intensity of use varies • All collaborative groups have attempted to make changes to local environments and most have attempted to improve or add policies

39. Next Steps Dissemination • Feedback sheets • Interactive forum to facilitate exchange of information among groups (2012-2013) Future work • Social network analysis • Case studies • Key informant interviews • Site visits • Healthy eating module