Prevention Connection
What is Collaboration Math?
Enhancing Cross-Sector Partnerships for Preventing Violence Against Women
Text Chat Q&A    November 10, 2005 

Q1:  Think about why is it important to bring multiple factors together in preventing violence against women?  What are the advantages of cross sector collaboration? 
A: Share the work
A: Get new ideas
A: Getting new perspectives is always helpful.
A: Access to new resources streams
A: broader scope of awareness
A: more monetary resources.
A: more awareness
A: different viewpoints
A: and the costs
A: greater strength in numbers
A: Get the whole community on board
A: more power in legislative and policy advocacy
A: You can combine your resources.
A: it's important to have different perspectives
A: Many voices are louder than just one.
A: Everyone has a sense of "ownership" to the problem.
A: New ideas
A: Provides victim centered services
A: More groups aware of issue, more assistance
A: no one sector will be able to completely solve the problem individually
A: sharing resources
A: more awareness
A: raises the importance of issues across several disciplines
A: It's a complex problem requiring multi-disciplinary collaborations.
A: Share frustrations
A: Clear up misconceptions
A: Work as team
A: Violence against women affects all institutions in different perspectives
A: Adaptable innovations
A: Health issues along with psychosocial
A: Layered impact by engaging a variety of intuitions
A: So that we are all on the same page.
A: coordinated care
A: Greater access to decision makers.
A: To gain access to the array of supports that may be available in a community for a survivor or abuse
A: Community members will get unified messages
A: language/semantics
A: confidentiality
A: Building bridges during calm times so that they're firm in times of crisis.
A: training
A: getting on the same page/communication
A: time
A: agencies with different missions
A: bureaucracy, red tape.
A: different perspectives/commitments
A: history of hostility
A: Different orgs have different messages
A: To gain access to the array of supports that may be available for a survivor in a community
A: different emphases and philosophies
A: priority differences
A: Turf
A: Physical distance
A: Sharing of resources
A: keeping everyone on the same page
A: Dealing with assumptions about each other.
A: everyone has lost positions and doesn't have time
A: Competing goals
A: sharing money
A: Misperception about the issue
A: Politics play a big role.
A: Different personalities don't always mix well
A: Finding new orgs to include
A: different philosophical understandings of the problem
A: Accountability.
A: not buying in to our analysis of the problem
A: Differences in philosophical bases
A: Agencies not willing to share the problem/issues
A: getting representation from all over the community
A: The very value that each sector brings to the table creates challenges in agreement on what priorities or strategies are necessary to address the problem.
A: hidden agendas
A: defensiveness
A: perception on the part of some partners that they have all the answers or are doing everything they can
A: culture differences
A: everybody's overworked already--people don't think they have time
A: rural area is difficult
A: Differing definitions of the same words.
A: Decision makers don't come to meetings - they send low-powered subordinates.
A: culture differences
A: Continued denial about the problem and its long term consequences
A: “Inclusivity”, is everyone at the table

Q2: How do you think public health professionals define the problem of traffic safety? 
A: police data
A: deaths and injuries
A: A contagion model
A: # of injuries and deaths
A: BRFSS
A: Counting injuries
A: police stats/ insurance
A: Injury data from hospital surveillance.
A: long and short-term health consequences
A: hospital reports
A: hospital data
A: Injury prevention - seatbelts, helmet use
A: injuries and public safety...making public aware
A: emergency room resources
A: death certificates
A: vision/other health issues; drunk driving stats
A: DUI reports

Q3: How do you think law enforcement define the problem of traffic safety? 
A: moving violations
A: Public health may involve whether or not substance is involved
A: police reports, 911 calls
A: first response
A: location frequency
A: traffic; injury, tickets given 
A: numbers of accidents; causes; outcomes
A: police reports, location, frequency, fines
A: Engineering problem: how to build safer roads
A: demographic frequency
A: lighting at frequent crash sites
A: Intersection accident stats
A: traffic congestion
A: Stoplight placement
A: road design, quality of the construction
A: Crash data from insurance agencies.
A: types of cars usually in accidents
A: safety concerns, injuries, how to protect
A: pavement quality
A: public safety, speed issues
A: curves title, accidents at area, 
A: moving violations, number of vehicles at what time of day
A: weather factors
A: age at time of crash, elderly involved in crashes
A: accessible health care
A: color blindness
A: visibility of environmental cues that assist drivers
A: Reaction time. Visual acuity.
A: % of eye glass wearing as needed
A: licensing restrictions based on vision
A: placement of the sun in relation to lights/signs
A: census
A: Noise pollution
A: zoning, speed bumps in neighborhoods
A: overall community perspective
A: developers
A: Population density.
A: law enforcement partners would help our area

Q4: As you have been listening to the Wichita panelists, what questions or issues arose for you? What was valuable? 
A: Which entity spearheaded or began the development of the coalition?  How did you get the other partners on board?
A: did you ever think of targeting special education classes in the school system to ensure that kids with disabilities were accessing these same prevention efforts?
A: did you have philosophical differences about the problem that you needed to address?
A: How easy was it to get the issue of sexual assault prevention into school classrooms-especially elementary-Indiana seems to be a bit conservative about this topic
A: What was the average that you came to with the different Mandate/Purposes?
A: Did you have decision makers at the table, or was your collaborative made up of "front line people" who needed to get approval for moving forward on the collaborative?
A: Can you use a specific example of how this collaboration has been successful within the community.
A: What is an example of "feminist" SV issues?  Is the word "feminist" a red flag (or deterrent) for less receptive community members recognizing SV?
A: what has been the most challenging barrier in operating collaboratives or implementing strategies--what did NOT work?
A: The chart really helps highlight the similarities between the different groups
A: We use a similar tool when talking about community assessment, so this is a nice match for the other section of our community-level response trainings.
A: Is there a calculation component to the CMath?  Or is the importance is the visual look at the matrix to note commonalities of approaches.
A: how do you get all parties to show up to collaborate?
A: Do you think this could be used for a board of directors or even with staff to accomplish our variety of tasks we must do everyday?

Q5: What "ah-hahs" did you have? What surfaced for you? How can this tool be useful in your work? Where are the opportunities for cross-sector collaboration in your community? 
A: To bring the necessary community components together
A: it seems that this is a VERY good tool for balancing those “philosophical” pieces that can become such intense struggles in collaborations... that's great!
A: I really like the idea that for some areas you would find an "average", but that others you can really add or multiply.
A: can help to focus the discussion more in how we will collaborate 
A: Provides you with a perspective of an agency outside of yours and what your common goals are but also what other issues need to be addressed.
A: Research their organizations and find what those organizations have in common.  Play on that to bring them to the table
A: This is a tool you can gather information outside the context of the meeting - which will save the group's time. 
A: Good tool to help expand peoples creative processes and to think less individually and more systemically for solutions
A: I'm interested in the tensions between sexual violence preventionists and those who provide treatment for people who have perpetrated sexual and domestic violence. There seem to be some fundamental differences in approach and belief vis a vis social change perspectives v. individual change through various medical and treatment interventions.  Without some level of bridging these gaps, these key groups aren't going to work collaboratively. Any suggestions?
A: Comment:  getting into the schools with SA we have used the Bill of Rights or "Natural Rights"