The document presents the results of a collaborative survey aimed at assessing the success of collaboration among members, including aspects like member satisfaction and perceived benefits or drawbacks. Key findings from comparisons of three successive surveys (2008, 2011, and 2014) indicate improvements in areas such as process and communication, while highlighting varied levels of participation and response rates. The report also details demographic information of respondents and identifies both the benefits of participation and the challenges faced by the collaborative members.

1. Presented at the One Voice Board Meeting
June 20, 2014
Gerald R. Goodman, DrPH
Professor and Program Director
Health Care Administration
Texas Woman's University
1

2.  The purpose of the One Voice Collaborative Survey
was to evaluate the degree of success of the
collaboration process, determine member satisfaction,
examine the benefits and drawbacks of participation as
perceived by the collaborative members, and gain
member feedback.
 The survey examined member demographics,
members’ perceptions of components of successful
collaboration including environment, membership
characteristics, process and structure, communication,
purpose, and resources, perceived benefits and
drawbacks of collaborative, member satisfaction, and
member feedback.
2

3. Comparison Report: 6 years and 3 surveys
later – how are we doing?
1. Review of the Survey Structure
2. Who were the respondents?
3. Findings Comparing 3 Successive
Surveys – 2008, 2011, 2014
4. Conclusions and Next Steps
3

4.  The survey statements were adapted from the Wilder
Collaboration Factors Inventory developed by the Amherst H.
Wilder Foundation.
 The survey (inventory) was developed and tested over a
period of eight years. The inventory is designed to help
collaboratives and community collaboratives assess their
strengths and weaknesses relative to 20 success factors.
 Research suggests that these factors can apply to
collaborative efforts of nonprofit, governmental and other
organizations.
 Respondents are asked to rate their level of agreement with
40 different statements ** about the collaborative.
4

5. Category (6)
Category Factory (20)
Category Statement (40)
• The survey respondents answered statement
questions. The statement questions are grouped
into 6 categories for analysis.
5

6. 6
Example of Rank Order
Category Factor Statement
Environment History of collaboration in the community 5. Agencies in our community have a history of
working together.
6. Trying to solve problems through collaboration has
been common in this community. It's been done a lot
before.
Collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader
in the community
7. Leaders in this community who are not part of
Care for Elders seem hopeful about what we can
accomplish.
8. Others (in this community) who are not part of
Care for Elders would generally agree that the
organizations involved in this partnership are the
"right" organizations to make this work.
Favorable political and social climate 9. The political and social climate seems to be "right"
for a partnership like this one.
14. The time is right for this partnership.

7. To simplify analysis, the authors grouped the
40 individual statements into six global
categories, which were in turn grouped into
20 success factors:
 Categories:
1. Environment
2. Membership Characteristics
3. Process and Structure
4. Communication
5. Purpose
6. Resources
7

8.  So we have Categories (6), Factors (20), and individual
Statements (40). Analysis can then be done on a macro level,
Factors or Categories , or a micro level, Statements.
 Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed or
disagreed with each statement. The rating scale used was as
follows:
• Strongly agree (5 points)
• Agree (4 points)
• Neutral (neither agree or disagree) (3 points)
• Disagree (2 points)
• Strongly disagree (1 point)
 For the purpose of this survey, “don’t know” was added as an
option to allow respondents to indicate that they had no
knowledge on a particular subject rather than a lack of opinion.
Since the survey required an answer to each question, this
facilitated the completion of the survey.
8

9. The survey and our report were divided
into six sections as follows:
1. Respondent Information
2. The Collaborative Factors Inventory
3. Benefits and Drawbacks of Participation
4. Satisfaction with Participation
5. Feedback from Partners
9

10.  The survey was emailed to collaborative members in February
2014. Members were asked to respond to the survey online.
 Survey response rates were as follows:
• 2008 - 37% response rate
• 2011- 46% response rate
• 2014 – 21% response rate
 Comment: The mailing list in 2014 has grown to 322 names
from perhaps 100 in the previous 2 surveys. How many of the
322 are really active participants in One Voice?
 For any survey, however, as response rate of 21% is very
good.
10

11. 11

12. 12
Table 1A: Summary of Respondent Demographics
Type of
Participation
(Q1: only 1
answer possible
2008 2011 2014
Part of a non-profit
organization
80% 74% 69%
Part of a
governmental
agency
17% 11% 18%
Other 2% 5% 13%

13. 13
Table 1A: Summary of Respondent Demographics
Sector or Service (Q2:
multiple choices were
possible)
2008 2011 2014
Mental Health 14% 13% 19%
Healthcare 10% 13% 15%
Housing 6% 6% 10%
Persons with Disabilities 6% 6% 9%
Substance Abuse 6% 5% 6%
Seniors 9% 7% 6%
Transportation 4% 2% 6%
Utilities 5% 5% 6%
Food 4% 2% 6%
Public Education 6% 8% 5%
Early Childhood
Education
6% 8% 4%
Other 10% 7% 10%

14. 14
Sector or Service-Other 2014
Child Welfare (deleted as a category in 2014).
Health Assessment, Education & Outreach.
We are a non-profit funder.
Multi discipline including seniors, health care, mental health,
utilities.
Veterans.
Adult Education.
Community based organization - healthcare, seniors, trans,
housing, utilities and food.

15. 15
Table 1B: Participation
Level of Participation
(Q12: one choice was
possible)
% 2008 % 2011 % 2014
Less than 2 meetings 19% 13% 22%
2 to 6 meetings 37% 44% 38%
7 to 12 meetings 22% 32% 27%
13 or more meetings 22% 12% 13%
Two comments about participation:
(1) There was a statistically significant relationship found between a
higher level of participation and the answer to the statement “My
organization benefits from being involved”.
(2) The change over the past several years in participation in 13 or
more meetings may be explained by the changing frequency for
workgroup and collaborative-wide meetings.

16. 16
Issue
2011
Weighted
Rank
2014
Weighted
Rank
Availability of appropriate services 292 253
Sustainable funding 311 249
Availability of comprehensive services
286 233
Capacity to deliver needed services 288 231
Accessibility to needed services 286 226
Affordability of services 278 176

17. 17
Other Issues Noted
The ACA and Ryan White Care Act. What is the impact?
We are not a direct service provider so our interests aren't really any of the above. We
are more focused on transforming the homeless response system and making sure the
supportive laws, funding and other resources are there to integrate the changes into
long term practices.
Public awareness about our program.
Fostering partnership and support from other organizations.
Quality of HC.
The need for local organizations to continue to collaborate and provide shared services
to increase efficiency and comprehensive programming.
The mentally ill have special problems as well as special needs that need to be
addressed. Co dependency being one.
Medication and crisis services before people are danger to self or others.
Stopping the cycle of juveniles and adults through the juvenile and criminal justice
systems, particularly those with mental health and substance abuse issues.
Specialty Health Care Services for low income and Women's Health Care.

18. Looking at Statements and Categories
18

19.  In the 2008 and 2011 surveys, the factors with overall
means greater than 4.0 were related to the unique
purpose of the collaborative as demonstrated in the
mission statement: “…working together to ensure that
the health and human service needs of all Texans are
addressed in public policy, legislative and regulatory
initiatives”.
 The previous 2 surveys rated the categories
Environment and Purpose as 4.0, excellent. The
category Resources had 3 questions, 2 of which
consistently had 30% of respondents answer “Don’t
Know”. All 3 of these categories were not included in
the 2014 survey.
19

20.  The 2014 survey demonstrated continued
improvement in Process and Structure, and
effectiveness of Communication of the
collaborative.
 This was suggested by Statement 33, “People in
this collaborative have a clear sense of their roles
and responsibilities”.
• In 2008, no one strongly agreed with this statement.
• In 2011, 11% of respondents strongly agreed with this
statement.
• In 2014, 16% of respondents strongly agreed with the
statement.
20

21. 21
The “bottom line” to the survey was the
cumulative score for “Satisfaction With One
Voice”.
Statement
Number of
responses Percent of responses
Completely satisfied 13 24%
Mostly satisfied 31 56%
Somewhat satisfied 9 16%
A little satisfied 1 2%
Not at all satisfied 0 0%
Not applicable 1 2%

22. Collaborative Factors Results
 As a general rule, the instrument developers recommend:
• Scores of 4.0 or higher show a strength and probably don’t
need special attention
• Scores from 3.0 to 3.9 are borderline and should be
discussed by the group to see if they deserve attention.
• Scores of 2.9 or lower reveal a concern and should be
addressed.
 The mean scores on the statements ranged from:
• 2008: a range of 2.3 to 4.2, average of 3.7
• 2011: a range of 2.4 to 4.5, average of 3.8
• 2014: a range of 2.9 to 4.4, average of 3.8
 The differences are slight but interesting. In the 2014
survey, the results reflect a more positive opinion overall.
In 2014, 8 items were ranked below the 2008 level. Those
differences were typically one-tenth of a point drop.
22

23.  One item in the 2014 survey dropped by three-tenths
of a point; Category of Communication,
Statement 43, asked:
 “I personally have informal conversations about
One Voice with others who are involved in the
collaborative”.
 Only 5% of respondents strongly agreed with the
statement. The mean of the item fell from 4.2 to
3.8, which is still a strong showing.
 Interpretation: Unknown
23

24.  For the 3 surveys, the same 10 statements
ranked highest, 3 related to Membership
Characteristics (3 of 6, or 50%), 3 to Process
and Structure (3 of 13, or 23%), and 4 related
to Communication (4 of 5, or 80%).
 The highest ranking statements remain
consistent through the 3 surveys as shown in
the following table. However, rather than a
focus on the individual statements, I believe
the strengths shown in the Category list most
important.
24

25. 25
Category Highest Ranking Statements
Mean Score
2008
Mean Score
2011
Mean Score
2014
Membership
Characteristics
24. My organization will benefit from being involved in
One Voice. 4.2 4.5 4.4
Membership
Characteristics
20. I have a lot of respect for the other people involved in
this collaborative. 4.3 4.5 4.6
Process and Structure
26. Everyone who is a member of One Voice wants this
project to succeed. 4.2 4.3 4.3
Communication
43. I personally have informal conversations about One
Voice with others who are involved in the collaborative. 3.9 4.2 3.9
Communication
41. The people who lead this collaborative communicate
well with the partners. 4.0 4.2 4.2
Communication
42. Communication among the people in this
collaborative happens both at formal meetings and in
informal ways. 4.1 4.2 4.2
Process and Structure
35. This collaborative is able to adapt to changing
conditions, such as fewer funds than expected, changing
political climate or change in leadership. 3.9 4.1 4.0
Membership
Characteristics
21. The people involved in One Voice represent a cross
section of those who have a stake in what we are trying to
accomplish. 4.1 4.1 4.2
Communication
40. I am informed as often as I should be about what goes
on in the collaborative. 3.9 4.0 4.0
Process and Structure
36. This group has the ability to survive even if it had to
make major changes in its plans or add some new
members in order to reach its goals. 4.0 4.0 3.8

26. 26
Category Highest Ranking Statements
Mean
Score
2008
Mean
Score
2011
Mean
Score
2014
Membership
Characteristics
24. My organization will benefit from
being involved in One Voice. 4.2 4.5
4.4
Membership
Characteristics
20. I have a lot of respect for the other
people involved in this collaborative. 4.3 4.5
4.6
Process and
Structure
26. Everyone who is a member of
One Voice wants this project to
succeed. 4.2 4.3
4.3
Communication
43. I personally have informal
conversations about One Voice with
others who are involved in the
collaborative. 3.9 4.2
3.9
Communication
41. The people who lead this
collaborative communicate well with
the partners. 4.0 4.2
4.2
Top 5

27. 27
Communication
42. Communication among the people in
this collaborative happens both at formal
meetings and in informal ways. 4.1 4.2
4.2
Process and
Structure
35. This collaborative is able to adapt to
changing conditions, such as fewer funds
than expected, changing political climate or
change in leadership. 3.9 4.1
4.0
Membership
Characteristics
21. The people involved in One Voice
represent a cross section of those who have
a stake in what we are trying to
accomplish. 4.1 4.1
4.2
Communication
40. I am informed as often as I should be
about what goes on in the collaborative. 3.9 4.0
4.0
Process and
Structure
36. This group has the ability to survive
even if it had to make major changes in its
plans or add some new members in order to
reach its goals. 4.0 4.0
3.8
Next 5

28. 28
Category
Lowest Ranking Statements
Average 3
survey
score
Average
% Don’t
Know
Process and
Structure
29. Each of the people who participate in decisions
in One Voice can speak for the entire organization
they represent, not just a part.
3.2 29%
Process and
Structure
38. We are currently able to keep up with the work
necessary to coordinate all the people,
organizations, and activities related to One Voice.
3.5 22%
Membership
Characteristics
22. All the organizations that we need to be
members of this collaborative have become
members of the group.
2.9 21%
Process and
Structure
33. People in this collaborative have a clear sense
of their roles and responsibilities.
3.6 18%
Lowest Ranking Categories
Statement 22, “All the organizations that we need to be members of this
collaborative have become members of the group”, increased positively
more than any other statement, an increase of 0.5 to a mean of 2.9.

29. 29
Table 7: Benefits of Participation ranked according to frequency
selected (respondents could select more than one option) (ranked high to
low)
Benefits 2014 % of Partners Experiencing
Benefit
Acquired useful knowledge about services,
programs, or people
86%
Enhanced ability to address an important issue 62%
Developed valuable relationships 66%
Provided ability to have a greater impact than I/we
53%
could have had on my/our own
Enhanced ability to affect public policy 55%
Enhanced ability to make contribution to the
51%
community
Heightened public profile 40%
Increased utilization of our expertise or services 29%
Enhanced ability to meet the needs of our
27%
constituents or clients
Developed new skills 26%
Acquired additional financial support 9%
None of the above 4%

30. 30
Table 8: Drawbacks of Collaborative: (could select more than one option)
(ranked low to high by 2014 ranking)
Choice #/Drawbacks 2008% of
Partners
Experiencing
a Drawback
2011% of
Partners
Experiencing a
Drawback
2014% of
Partners
Experiencing
a Drawback
Choice 3. Viewed negatively due to
association with other partners or the
collaborative
17% (n=6) 0% (n=0) 2%(n=1)
Choice 5. Received insufficient credit for
contributing to the accomplishments of the
collaborative
3% (n=1) 0% (n=0) 4% (n=2)
Choice 6. Created conflict between my job
and the collaborative’s work
6% (n=2) 4% (n=1) 2% (n=1)
Choice 2. Wielded insufficient influence in
collaborative activities
6% (n=2) 13% (n=3) 7% (n=4)
Choice 4. Resulted in frustration or
aggravation
11% (n=4) 30% (n=7) 9% (n=5)
Choice 1. Diverted time and resources
away from other priorities
57% (n=20) 52% (n=12) 16% (n=9)

31. 31

32. 32
Statement
Table 9: Satisfaction Means by Statement
How
satisfied are
you with the
way the
people and
organizations
in One Voice
work
together?
(1 is excellent, 5 is poor)
How satisfied
are you with
your
influence in
the
collaborative?
How
satisfied are
you with
your role in
the
collaborativ
e?
How satisfied
are you with
the
collaborative’s
plans for
achieving its
goals?
How satisfied
are you with
the way the
collaborative
is
implementing
its plans?
2008
Statement
Mean 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1
2011
Statement
Mean 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0
2014
Statement
Mean 2.0 2.5 2.5 Not included 2.2

33. A recommendation following the 2008 survey
was that there should be a well-planned
response to the feedback provided by the
responding partners. This was seen as
having the potential to help the collaborative
move to a higher level of collaboration. We
suggested that the collaborative administer
the collaborative inventory on an annual
basis, or as needed, to provide on-going
feedback on the status of the organization’s
functioning.
33

34. The leadership of One Voice has done
exactly as recommended. A survey
specific to the functioning of the work
groups was conducted in 2009. The
follow-up collaborative survey was initiated
in 2011. The 2011 survey provided
outcome measures of the effectiveness of
the organizational and executive-level
changes implemented in 2008 and 2009.
34

35.  As noted in the previous surveys, the scores on
the Collaboration Factors Inventory are not an
absolute reflection of the collaborative’s ability to
work effectively. There is no critical value on each
factor to ensure success. As suggested earlier,
scores of 4.0 or higher probably indicate strength
on a factor (factor as opposed to a category).
Scores from 3.0 to 3.9 ought to prompt some
discussion to determine if the collaborative needs
to devote attention to them.
 Based on the category results, with a mean of 4.0
being excellent, we find the following:
35

36. 36
Category Finding
Membership
Characteristics
Appropriate cross-section
of members
Mutual respect,
understanding and trust
3 survey mean of 3.9; median of 4.2.
 Only 1 of the responses fell below 3.0. Statement 22
had a mean of 2.9 – “All of the organizations that we
need to be members of this collaborative have become
members of the group”. And, as noted, this statement
increased positively more than any other statement, an
increase of 0.5 to a mean of 2.9, with 21% answering
“Don’t Know”.
 Without Statement 22, the mean is 4.15.
 The median is the more accurate rating for this
category.
 Possible focus area, Statement 19 – “People involved
in our collaborative always trust one another”. Four
responded as strongly disagree, 10 responded as
disagree with the statement. The outcome improved
from earlier surveys with a 3 survey average of 3.5.
However, only 10% responded as “Don’t Know” over
the 3 surveys.

37. 37
Category Finding
Process and
Structure
Multiple layers of
decision making
Members share a stake
in both process and
outcomes
3 survey mean of 3.7, median of 3.9.
 The category is large, 16 statements. 1 statement
was below 3.5, Statement 29 – “Each of the
people who participate in decisions in One Voice
can speak for the entire organization they
represent, not just a part”. Over 3 surveys, 29%
answered “Don’t Know”. The statement answers
reflect a normal lack of information about
member organizations in a large collaborative
such as One Voice.
 Statement 31 – “The organizations that belong to
One Voice invest the right amount of time in our
collaborative efforts”, is similar. 3 survey mean
of 3.4, but 23% of respondents answered “Don’t
Know”.
 The Median is the more accurate score.
 No specific intervention is indicated.

38. 38
Category Finding
Communication
Open and frequent
communication
Established informal
relationships and
communication links
3 survey mean of 3.8, median of 4.0.
 For the 3 survey average, 4 of 5 statements ranked 4.0 or
higher.
 One statement ranked below 4.0, Statement 39 - “People
in this collaborative communicate openly with one
another”. The score on this response over 3 surveys has
averaged 3.8. Average answering “Don’t Know” for the 3
surveys is 12%. Without this statement, the overall mean
score is 4.1.
 The median is a more accurate measure than the mean.
 An area to watch is reflected by the one item in the 2014
survey that dropped by three-tenths of a point, Statement
43 - “I personally have informal conversations about One
Voice with others who are involved in the collaborative”.
Only 5% of respondents strongly agreed with the
statement. The mean of the item fell from 4.2 to 3.8.
The 3 survey average was 4.0, with 2% answering “Don’t
Know”.
 However, Statement 39, above, with only 12% answering
“Don’t Know”, may also be an area for additional study.

39. 39
Table 11: Drawbacks to Participation (reference Table 8)
Comment 2008
Survey
2011 Survey 2014
Survey
Choice 2. Wielded insufficient
influence in collaborative activities
6% (n=2) 13% (n=3) 7% (n=4)
Choice 4. Resulted in frustration or
aggravation
11% (n=4) 30% (n=7) 9% (n=5)
Choice 1. Diverted time and
resources away from other
priorities
57% (n=20) 52% (n=12) 16% (n=9)
The drop in negative comments on Choice 1, diverted
time, is important and reflects the change in meeting
format and frequency. Also possibly the better
organization of the workgroups.

40. “I am very dismayed that all issues
pertaining to seniors in our community are
being ignored while it seems that all efforts
and all committees and workgroups are
being focused on the issues of children.
While the issues of children are important, I
am very disappointed at this ongoing
development”.
40

41.  It is perhaps worth the time to track and
report by service sector (Table 1A) the
primary activities of the collaborative,
noting how well the collaborative activities
match (and don’t match) member’s service
sectors.
• If growth is important, do we need to be more
inclusive?
Bottom line, we have the data to make that
determination.
41

42. 42
Table 1A: Summary of Respondent Demographics
Sector or Service (Q2:
multiple choices were
possible)
2008 2011 2014
Mental Health 14% 13% 19%
Healthcare 10% 13% 15%
Housing 6% 6% 10%
Persons with Disabilities 6% 6% 9%
Substance Abuse 6% 5% 6%
Seniors 9% 7% 6%
Transportation 4% 2% 6%
Utilities 5% 5% 6%
Food 4% 2% 6%
Public Education 6% 8% 5%
Early Childhood
Education
6% 8% 4%
Other 10% 7% 10%

43. • Plan to resurvey the workgroups based on
the legislative agenda submitted in 2016.
• Consider, as a research agenda, why
some issues succeed as regards a place
on the legislative agenda, and some do not
succeed?
43