OBJECTIVES: Changes in policy can reduce violence and injury; however, little is known about how partnerships among organizations influence policy development, adoption, and implementation. To understand partnerships among organizations working on injury and violence prevention (IVP) policy, we examined IVP policy networks in 15 large US cities. METHODS: In summer 2014, we recruited 15 local health departments (LHDs) to participate in the study. They identified an average of 28.9 local partners (SD = 10.2) working on IVP policy. In late 2014, we sent survey questionnaires to 434 organizations, including the 15 LHDs and their local partners, about their partnerships and the importance of each organization to local IVP policy efforts; 319 participated. We used network methods to examine the composition and structure of the policy networks. RESULTS: Each IVP policy network included the LHD and an average of 21.3 (SD = 6.9) local partners. On average, nonprofit organizations constituted 50.7% of networks, followed by government agencies (26.3%), schools and universities (11.8%), coalitions (11.2%), voluntary organizations (9.6%), hospitals (8.5%), foundations (2.2%), and for-profit organizations (0.7%). Government agencies were perceived as important by the highest proportion of partners. Perceived importance was significantly associated with forming partnerships in most networks; odds ratios ranged from 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.13) to 2.35 (95% CI, 1.68-3.28). Organization type was significantly associated with partnership formation in most networks after controlling for an organization's importance to the network. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies could strengthen local IVP policy networks, including (1) developing connections with partners from sectors that are not well integrated into the networks and (2) encouraging indirect or less formal connections with important but missing partners and partner types.
OBJECTIVES: Changes in policy can reduce violence and injury; however, little is known about how partnerships among organizations influence policy development, adoption, and implementation. To understand partnerships among organizations working on injury and violence prevention (IVP) policy, we examined IVP policy networks in 15 large US cities. METHODS: In summer 2014, we recruited 15 local health departments (LHDs) to participate in the study. They identified an average of 28.9 local partners (SD = 10.2) working on IVP policy. In late 2014, we sent survey questionnaires to 434 organizations, including the 15 LHDs and their local partners, about their partnerships and the importance of each organization to local IVP policy efforts; 319 participated. We used network methods to examine the composition and structure of the policy networks. RESULTS: Each IVP policy network included the LHD and an average of 21.3 (SD = 6.9) local partners. On average, nonprofit organizations constituted 50.7% of networks, followed by government agencies (26.3%), schools and universities (11.8%), coalitions (11.2%), voluntary organizations (9.6%), hospitals (8.5%), foundations (2.2%), and for-profit organizations (0.7%). Government agencies were perceived as important by the highest proportion of partners. Perceived importance was significantly associated with forming partnerships in most networks; odds ratios ranged from 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.13) to 2.35 (95% CI, 1.68-3.28). Organization type was significantly associated with partnership formation in most networks after controlling for an organization's importance to the network. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies could strengthen local IVP policy networks, including (1) developing connections with partners from sectors that are not well integrated into the networks and (2) encouraging indirect or less formal connections with important but missing partners and partner types.
Entities:
Keywords:
injury and violence prevention; organizational network; policy
Authors: Angela McGowan; Robert Hahn; Akiva Liberman; Alex Crosby; Mindy Fullilove; Robert Johnson; Eve Moscicki; Leshawndra Price; Susan Snyder; Farris Tuma; Jessica Lowy; Peter Briss; Stella Cory; Glenda Stone Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Terrence E Murphy; Dorothy I Baker; Linda S Leo-Summers; Luann Bianco; Margaret Gottschalk; Denise Acampora; Mary B King Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2012-10-04
Authors: Shelley Hearne; Brian C Castrucci; Jonathon P Leider; Elizabeth K Rhoades; Pamela Russo; Vicky Bass Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2015 Jan-Feb