Fostering Partnerships for Physical Activity

Promotion: A Case Study of a Regional Strategy

Laura MisenerUniversity of Windsor

Leisure Studies AssociationCanterbury, UK

Introduction Physical inactivity and health care concerns

(CFLI, 2005; WHO, 2005)

Reducing the prevalence of population-wide physical inactivity is a priority of many public health services throughout the world (Jones et al., 1998; Sparling et al., 2000).

Sport and physical activity have been viewed as a means of tackling health concerns (Corti,

1995;1997)

Lack of coordinated effort to address rising rates of physical inactivity

Purpose of the StudyRise of partnership arrangements for

health promotion (Cameron et al. 2003; Kahn, et al., 2002)

Examines the development of a tri-county interorganizational partnership in SW Ontario focused on implementing a physical activity and health promotion campaign1. Partnership research and frameworks2. Case Study: SW Ontario In Motion3. Critique and Discussion4. Conclusions and Future Research

PartnershipsA partnership is defined as a voluntary

agreement between two or more organizations to work cooperatively toward a set of shared outcomes (Gillies, 1998)

IOR’s involve multiple, overlapping organisations from various sectors

Determinants of IOR’s: necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, and legitimacy (Oliver, 1990)

Partnership Research in Sport and Leisure OrganisationsFormation:

◦Goals and Strategy (Thibault & Harvey, 1997)◦Complexity; Unequal resources (Frisby et al., 1999)

◦Opportunity and reducing uncertainty (Babiak, 2007)

◦Proximity (Intermunicipal; Glover 1999)Management:

◦Undermanagement (Frisby et al., 1999; Babiak, 2007; 2009)

◦Trust (Shaw & Allen, 2006)

◦Formalization and Centralization (Shaw & Allen, 2006)

Partnership Model (Parent & Harvey, 2009)

ANTECEDENTS• Project

purpose/goal• Environment

(facilitator or barrier)

• Nature of the partners• Partner motives• Partner

complementarity and fit

• Partnership planning• Type of

partnership• Governance

MANAGEMENT• Attributes of the

partnership• Commitment• Coordination• Trust• Organizational

identity• Organizational

learning• Communication

• Quality• Information

sharing• Participation

• Decision making• Structure• Conflict

resolution• Power balance• Leadership

EVALUATION

• Type of evaluation• Process• Impact• Outcome• Formative• Summative

• Determination of success• Satisfaction of

partners• Project/program

outcome

Partnerships in Health/Physical Activity PromotionJoint initiatives between educational, health, and social

institutions using sport and leisure to address quality of life issues have emerged in the context of local leisure services (Thibault, Frisby, & Kikulis, 1999)

Critical success factors for community health promotion: involvement of community members, strong process and outcomes evaluations, and theory based interventions (Best et al., 2003)

A systems-thinking perspective - comprehensive, participatory, and collaborative approaches to health promotion more effective than narrowly targeted and less collaborative approaches (Best et al., 2003; Garcia-Canal et al., 2003)

Case Study:Southwestern Ontario In motion

In motion is a comprehensive, community-based approach that uses public awareness,

education and motivation strategies to reach all corners of the community.

The intent of in motion is to ingrain understanding and behaviour changes into the

culture and fabric of the community.

Rationale48.6% of regional population, compared to 47.1%

of Ontario population are physically inactive52.9% of regional population, compared to 48.5%

of Ontario population are obese or overweight35.2% of population compared to 40.2% of

Ontario population consume fruits & vegetables 5 or more times per day

High rates of Type-2 DiabetesChildhood obesity/inactivity concerns

(Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, 2001)

PartnersChatham-Kent YMCACity of Sarnia City of Windsor Community Health Services

Department – Lambton Government of Ontario -

Ministry of Health Promotion Heart Health Action Windsor-

Essex Healthy Living Lambton Healthy Living Chatham-Kent  Chatham-Kent Public Health

Unit  Municipality of Chatham-Kent,

Recreation Programs

Municipality of Leamington Sarnia-Lambton YMCASt. Clair Township Town of EssexTown of KingsvilleTown of LakeshoreWindsor-Essex County Active

Living Coalition Windsor Essex County Health

UnitWindsor-Essex YMCAAM 800CKSY MediaBluedoor Productions...

12General

Community Awareness

www.swontarioinmotion.ca

MethodsMultiple Data Sources

◦Document Analysis (Meeting minutes, contracts, by-laws, government documents, etc.)

◦Participant observation (member of in motion Steering Committee)

◦Interviews with Partners (n=12)Data Analyses

◦Coding◦QSR Nvivo 8

Preliminary ResultsKey Issues/Themes

1. Complexity2. ‘Loose’ coupling 3. Organisational Commitment4. Give/Gets5. Leadership

1. Complexity SWARG is legal entity; In motion is

partnership arrangement with additional partners

Government (provincial, municipal); non-profit; public; private

Health; Recreation; Fitness; Sport; No tiesNumerous committees and levelsGeographic Proximity

2. Loose Coupling“There are no signed agreements. Basically we

follow up every November with a letter to our partners…then we follow up typically with phone calls and e-mails, kind of informal, and once we get some indication that they are willing to stay on as a partner then we send out the invoices for that following budget year if they are a funding partner. If not, …well that’s it.” (Steering Committee Member)

“I keep arguing we need agreements but it’s not for my organizations to impose these” (Ministry Partner)

3. Organisational CommitmentLevel of

Commitment Employee Engagement

Active Commitment

Formal job role (i.e. portfolio, formalized internal agreement)

Passive Commitment

Informal job role(i.e. anyone can help, but not to interfere with work)

Non-Commitment

Voluntary (i.e. outside of work time only)

4. Gives/GetsGoal incongruityLack of understanding

◦“My boss is still weary about what our organisation is getting out of this partnership. I think it’s a worthwhile cause, but we need to be clear about the gives/gets.” (Municipal Partner)

◦“we have been able to bring some partners who normally would work in that silo on their own without involving others” (Steering Committee Member)

5. LeadershipCentral role of ‘Champion’Facilitates communicationAttempts to bridge sectors

“Without Lucie running the show, I don’t know how we would get partners to the table.” (Steering Committee Member)

“Its great that leaders have emerged in each region, but that can’t sustain us over the long haul.” (Regional Partner)

Discussion◦Complexity of the IOR can result in structural challenges and problems of long-term viability (Babiak, 2007; Thibault & Babiak, 2007)

◦Need for formalization and institutionalization – but can not be imposed through hierarchical arrangements (Shaw & Allen, 2006)

◦Differing levels of commitment speak to issues of communication and vulnerability of partnership (Kanter, 1987)

Discussion/Future ResearchGarcía-Canal et al. (2003) argued the presence of a

dominant partner facilitates decision making and the coordination of work. – key to the current partnership

Leadership is crucial to success (Diamond, 2002)

Few studies has addressed the importance of the Champion/Leader (Babiak, 2009)

Overlapping motives

Long term management – Gives/Gets

Formalization? ---Commitment??

Fostering Partnerships for Physical Activity Promotion: A Case Study of a Regional Strategy

QUESTIONS??

Laura MisenerUniversity of Windsorlmisener@uwindsor.ca

Leisure Studies AssociationCanterbury, UK

* Thank you to the University of Windsor Research Grants for Women for funding support.

Southwestern Ontario in motionSteering Committee

Support Areas:•Research•Marketing & Communication•Finance•Policy

Strategy DevelopmentCommittee, i.e. Child &

Youth, Older Adult

Communities in motion Coordinating Committee (CIM CC)

SWARG

CIM CCWindsorEssex

CIM CCSarnia

LambtonCIM CC

Chatham-Kent

Local Initiatives

FinancialAccountabilityLegal Entity