Collaborative Networks in Chronic Disease Prevention: What Factors Inhibit Partnering for Funding?

Abstract

Inter-organisational partnering is seen as an effective mechanism for improving the delivery of chronic disease interventions in communities. Yet even in communities where organisations across multiple sectors are well connected and collaborative in other ways, when it comes to partnering for joint-funding, multiple barriers inhibit the establishment of formal partnerships. To understand why this is so, we examined quantitative and qualitative data from organisations in an Australian community and compared the findings with a review of the published literature in this area. We found that even organisations which are well connected through informal network arrangements face pressure from funding bodies to form more formalised inter-organisational partnerships. Community based organisations also recognise that partnerships are desirable mechanisms for service improvement; however, barriers to joint-funding partnerships exist which include restrictions imposed by funding bodies on the way grants are designed, implemented, and administered. Additional barriers at the community level include organisational capacity for partnership work, intra-organisational restrictions and timing issues. Policy makers must recognise and address the barriers to partnerships which exist within funding structures and at the community level in order to increase partnering opportunities to improve service delivery.

Committed, ambivalent, concealed, or distanced: community organisations’ perceptions of their role in local prevention systems

“…Prevention Tracker applied a range of qualitative and quantitative methods; the analysis in this paper uses data collected during semi-structured interviews. More details about the overarching study can be found elsewhere (Hopkins et al, 2019; The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, 2018). All study procedures were approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee and two additional human research ethics committees relevant to the particular communities.…”

“…This study is nested within Prevention Tracker, a systems thinking research project exploring prevention systems in local communities across Australia (Hopkins et al, 2019;The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, 2018). In Australia, prevention has historically suffered from a lack of sustained, coordinated action.…”

Mapping the Lay of the Land: Using Interactive Network Analytic Tools for Collaboration in Rural Cancer Prevention and Control

“…Informal collaborative networks are increasingly common networks that arise to address complex community problems (30)(31)(32). Such networks aim to connect public, nonprofit, and for-profit agencies across sectors to improve delivery of services and interventions at multiple levels and settings to address difficult issues.…”

Network Rent as a Determinant of Collaborative Advantage for Public Organizations: A Case Study

“…Their character and objectives (providing public services and building public value) focus on collaborating, not competing. In this case, public problems are addressed by establishing inter-organizational partnerships, which bring together a range of stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of service delivery at a local level (Hopkins et al, 2019;Gebo and Bond, 2019). Despite these distinct differences, relatively little interest is still put on the question of conscious creating collaborative advantage by public organizations.…”

“…One of the key aspects of increasing the efficiency of completing tasks is developing collaboration with other organizations that operate in a region (Gebo and Bond, 2019;Mu et al, 2018). They include other public organizations, private companies, and nongovernmental organizations (Hopkins et al, 2019). In the case of a local government office, building relations and developing collaboration with other units is especially valuable since it is the office that most often constitutes the key organization in realizing local initiatives (Czernek and Czakon, 2016).…”