Product Details

Author Information

Corresponding Author
Mavis Morton
University of Guelph
633 MacKinnon
50 Stone Rd. E
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Canada
p: 519-824-4120 x52576
f: 519-837-9561
mavis.morton@uoguelph.ca

Authors (listed in order of authorship):
Mavis Morton
University of Guelph

Linzy Bonham
Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis

Danielle Bader
University of Guelph

Melissa Horan
Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health

Sara Crann
University of Guelph

Product Description and Application Narrative Submitted by Corresponding Author

What general topics does your product address?

Public Health, Social & Behavioral Sciences, Social Work

What specific topics does your product address?

Community coalition , Community engagement, Community health , Domestic violence, Interdisciplinary collaboration, Social determinants of health, Social services, Women's health , Program evaluation, Community-based participatory research

Does your product focus on a specific population(s)?

Women

What methodological approaches were used in the development of your product, or are discussed in your product?

Community-academic partnership, Community-based participatory research , Qualitative research, Survey, Interview

What resource type(s) best describe(s) your product?

Community Engaged Evaluation Research Report

Application Narrative

1. Please provide a 1600 character abstract describing your product, its intended use and the audiences for which it would be appropriate.*

The Guelph-Wellington Action Committee Evaluation Research Report provides a detailed reporting of the methodology and findings of community-engaged evaluation research of the Guelph-Wellington Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence (SADV) First Response Protocol. It is intended to provide information that is clear and accessible about the study's methodology and findings, which are an assessment of the extent to which the Protocol has been implemented by 27 service providing agencies (the Action Committee), its effectiveness for women in the community using SADV services, and its ability to facilitate coordination and collaboration among Action Committee agencies. The intended audience includes community-engaged researchers interested in evaluation research, protocol evaluation researchers, practice/service researchers, practitioners and service providers working on issues of violence against women (i.e., sexual assault and domestic violence), funding agencies, students/academics not familiar with how to do or mobilize community-engaged research, as well as the general public including women who have experienced SADV and the subsequent criminal justice and/or social service response.

2. What are the goals of the product?

The goals of the research report are to provide information about:
1) A piece of community-engaged evaluation research (CEnR).
2) An overview of the way the CEnR was done.
3) The findings of the research in a way that is accessible, engaging, and relevant for the service providers that are represented on the Guelph-Wellington Action Committee and whose agencies participated in the research, as well as other interested parties.
4) Women's satisfaction with SADV service delivery as well as service providers’ experiences using a Protocol like the one used in Guelph-Wellington Ontario.
5) Points of action and tension resulting from the research findings to help focus the audience's attention to issues that were identified by research participants.
6) Connections between key findings of this research study and previous academic research.
7) Recommendations for future CEnR on SADV.
8) The importance of ongoing action and attention to the context within which SADV occurs.

3. Who are the intended audiences or expected users of the product?

The intended audiences and expected users of the product include:
1) Members of the Guelph-Wellington Action Committee representing 27 agencies in Guelph-Wellington including child welfare, criminal justice, health, violence against women, and education, that provide services and supports to women and children who have experienced SADV.
2) Additional service providers in Guelph-Wellington that participated in the research and/or work in the region to provide services to women and children who have experienced SADV.
3) Women who have experienced SADV in Guelph-Wellington.
4) Other communities (including agencies, advocates, government) working on SADV.
5) Other community-engaged evaluation researchers working on violence related research.

4. Please provide any special instructions for successful use of the product, if necessary. If your product has been previously published, please provide the appropriate citation below.

The table of contents is laid out in a way to allow users to access the information they want easily and quickly. The other instructions that might be helpful is to note that the Action Points/Tension Points provide a quick summary of identified issues for future attention.

5. Please describe how your product or the project that resulted in the product builds on a relevant field, discipline or prior work. You may cite the literature and provide a bibliography in the next question if appropriate.

Our project and product builds on and contributes to the following fields and prior work:
1) community-engaged scholarship and the scholarhip of engagement (1) specifically because of the complex partnership that developed to contribute to this project.
2) sexual assault/domestic violence evaluation research specifically because the methodology includes data from women who have experience with SADV services. Previous evaluation research has mainly sought feedback from service providers in evaluating a coordinated/collaborative response. Our research addresses this important critique by including feedback from women who have accessed services and therefore offers valuable insight about the effectiveness of the SADV response from those using the services (2), and not only from those providing the services (3).

6. Please provide a bibliography for work cited above or in other parts of this application. Provide full references, in the order sited in the text (i.e. according to number order). .

(1) Morton, Mavis et al. Engaging evaluation research: Reflecting on the process of sexual assault/domestic violence protocol evaluation research. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 1–17, jun. 2014. ISSN 1836-3393. Available at: . Date accessed: 03 Jul. 2014.

(2) Allen, N. E. An examination of the effectiveness of domestic violence coordinating councils. Violence Against Women 2006; 12:46-67.; Allen, N. E., Watt, K. A., & Hess, J. Z. A qualitative study of the activities and outcomes of domestic violence coordinating
councils. American Journal of Community Psychology 2008; 41(1-2):63-73; Greeson, M. R., & Campbell, R. Sexual assault response teams (SARTs): An empirical review of their effectiveness and challenges to successful implementation. Violence & Abuse 2013; 14(2): 83-95; Hague, G. and Bridge, S. Inching forward on domestic violence: The co-ordinated community response and
putting it in practice in Cheshire. Journal of Gender Studies 2008;17(3):185-199; Zweig, J. M. and Burt, M. R. Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients? Violence Against Women 2007; 13(11):1149-1178.

(3) Allen, N. E. An examination of the effectiveness of domestic violence coordinating councils. Violence Against Women 2006; 12:46-67.; Sullivan, C. M. Evaluating domestic violence support service programs: Waste of time, necessary evil, or opportunity for growth? Aggression and Violent Behavior 2011; 16(4): 354-360.

7. Please describe the project or body of work from which the submitted product developed. Describe the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise contributed to the project. Pay particular attention to demonstrating the quality or rigor of the work:

• For research-related work, describe (if relevant) study aims, design, sample, measurement instruments, and analysis and interpretation. Discuss how you verified the accuracy of your data.
• For education-related work, describe (if relevant) any needs assessment conducted, learning objectives, educational strategies incorporated, and evaluation of learning.
• For other types of work, discuss how the project was developed and reasons for the methodological choices made.

The context for this CEnR project starts with the community partner. The Guelph-Wellington Action Committee on Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence is chaired by a local violence against women agency and represents 27 organisations from various sectors in Guelph-Wellington, Ontario that provide services and support to women and children who have experienced SADV. In 2003, the Action Committee came together to develop a First Response Protocol after recognising the need to increase service provider collaboration to better assist women and children who have experienced SADV. The primary purpose of the study was to conduct evaluation research on the use of the 2010 Protocol from a service provider and service user perspective, and to assess how well it was working to improve the community’s system response to sexual assault and domestic violence. Based on the needs of the Action Committee, and guided by a literature review, the following research questions were articulated by the research team: (1) To what extent are the Protocol objectives (i.e. caring and consistent response, limits of confidentiality explained, safety planning and risk assessment, referrals, follow-up and support) being met? (2) To what extent do the current Protocol objectives meet the needs and issues facing women and children who experience sexual and/or domestic violence? (3) To what extent does the Protocol meet the needs of service providers in their work with individuals who have been impacted by sexual assault and/or domestic violence? We conducted 33 individual interviews with service users, 94 online surveys and 5 focus groups with service providers and obtained additional secondary data (i.e. agency reported occurrences of sexual and domestic violence and other service delivery statistics). Interview and focus group data was analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo qualitative software was used to organize the data and facilitate the identification of themes. Survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS.

The community-engaged process was developed intentionally to align with principles of community-based research, community-based participatory research, practice research, and participatory action research in the following ways:
1) The composition of the community-university research team was diverse and included one faculty member, two community partners with education and experience from different disciplines (also members of the Action Committee), three graduate students in different disciplines from two universities, and consultation from women participants, service providers, and members of the Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship at the University of Guelph.
2) Input and feedback from service providers and service users was incorporated in all data collection tools,
3) Shared responsibility and involvement of the research team at all stages of the research, writing, and dissemination.

The collaborative approach enhanced the rigor and value in the following ways:
1) A more accurate and deeper understanding of conceptual framework due to the expertise and experience of Action Committee members as part of the research team.
2) Research questions were based on community need.
3) Evaluation, feedback, and revision of research tools (interview guide, focus group guide, survey) increased their quality and reliability.
4) The number of research participants was due to community partner recruitment strategies.
5) Member checking during coding to expand and deepen our understanding of data and community context.
6) Service user and provider feedback enhanced interpretation of results and analysis while reducing bias.
7) Increased the effective framing of results and dissemination of findings because of community partner engagement and knowledge of appropriate knowledge mobilization products.
All outputs/products were co-authored with students, community partners and faculty.

8. Please describe the process of developing the product, including the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise were integrated in the development of this product.

As with the actual research process, the product (the research report) was collaboratively designed, written, and reviewed by each member of the research team (with the exception of the Knowledge Mobilization Coordinator from ICES, who was consulted as needed rather than participating as a core team member) to ensure consensual, collaborative, and reciprocal knowledge production. Using face to face meetings over a period of months, an online file-sharing site (Basecamp), and email, we agreed on what would be included in the report (i.e. a table of contents) and then each member of the CU partnership (2 community partners and 3 academic partners) wrote draft sections of the report. Each draft section was sent to the rest of the team and in a face to face meeting we collectively read each section (using a data projector, a laptop, and the track changes tool as part of the word processing program Microsoft Word) and made agreed upon edits to each section. During this process we discussed, debated, and negotiated reasons for edits. Once a full draft of the report was available, one of the community partners reviewed and revised it to ensure plain language principles were applied and that it fit the needs of the service providers that would be one of the primary audiences. After this draft was written, each member of the team reviewed and edited the report and submitted it to Basecamp to ensure that all team members were reviewing and updating the most recent version. Once the team was satisfied with the content, we discussed the layout and way we thought it should be formatted to help ensure easy access and engagement by potential readers. At this point, the document was sent to the Chair of the Action Committee (who also is a service provider) for feedback. Her feedback was incorporated into the final version of the document. We made the decision to send the document to a designer who works with nonprofit organizations to help mobilize knowledge for access by diverse audiences. Once a draft version of the designed report was prepared, all members of the team reviewed it and after numerous face to face meetings, phone calls, and emails to reach consensus on design and content edits, the revised draft was sent back to the designer for final edits.

9. Please discuss the significance and impact of your product. In your response, discuss ways your product has added to existing knowledge and benefited the community; ways others may have utilized your product; and any relevant evaluation data about impact, if available. If the impact of the product is not yet known, discuss its potential significance.

In the summer of 2014, portions of the report (a powerpoint presentation summarizing the methodology/methods and findings, one page summaries of the findings as they relate to the main sections of the protocol, and the Action and Tension points) were presented to the Action Committee. The research team facilitated a World Café process so that all members of the Action Committee had an opportunity to spend time in small groups hearing, thinking and reacting to the research findings outlined in the report. As part of this process, each small group took notes that were reported back to the large group at the end of the day and written up as a way to hear about the impact the information had on the Action Committee.

The report was disseminated to the Action Committee at the end of the summer of 2014. An overview of the report's findings was distributed to the Action Committee in August 2014 and a formal release of the research report and video summarizing the research took place in November 2014. This event was hosted by the Guelph Police and attended by approximately 50 guests which included members of the Action Committee, other interested service providers, women who participated in the research, and interested citizens. The feedback received to date has been informal but very positive. On November 3, 2014 the research team received a written thank you from the Chair of the Action Committee which included the following remarks "… Your research will help to shape the future of our work and we will push to make changes from the valuable insights gained from this report! ... You have been an incredible team and we can’t thank you enough". We expect that this product will have significance and impact because it is research which responds to an identified community need, it was done in a community-engaged and rigorous way, and it has been well received by Action Committee members who are anxious to act on ways to improve the SADV service delivery in Guelph-Wellington. It is significant because the majority of the agencies were involved and therefore provides a rare opportunity to gain information about their work with women and other service providers. The report is significant because it was designed to be an easy and interesting way to access research results and points of action and tension to examine collectively.
We expect this report to contribute to existing knowledge of:
1) The impact of SADV service delivery for women who have experienced violence
2) Coordinated and collaborative responses to SADV
3) The role and impact of SADV coordinating committees.
4) The scholarship of engagement and critically reflect on lessons learned about process and partnerships.

Potential Impacts includes:
1) The generation of new knowledge and confirmation of existing knowledge on community-university partnerships and SADV service delivery and coordinated responses.
2) Increased opportunity to use social science research for positive social change and in ways that will result in successful application and greater benefit to the community.
3) An accessible report easy for the Action Committee to use as they plan future work and protocol revisions.
4) A tangible purpose for the Action Committee to work together to review the report and critically reflect on specific action points and tension points.

10. Please describe why you chose the presentation format you did.

The decision to write a research report with text, infographics, and quotes from women and service providers was based on the research team's discussions about who the target audience would be and what we wanted them to be able to access given their needs. The report includes:
1) A detailed table of contents to allow for easy access to specific information;
2) Appealing colours and graphics to highlight sections and significant information that we wanted to stand out;
3) Clearly identifiable quotes from service users and service providers that support our analysis and offers meaningful qualitative data;
4) A list of Action Points and Tension Points as issues on which service providers and Action Committee representatives can reflect and act;
5) A section that connects our research findings to other academic research that enhances the scholarship nature of the report;
6) A concise summary and conclusion to allow those who may not have or spend a lot of time on the report an opportunity to get the highlights; and
7) A format that allows the Action Committee to add it as a PDF to their website and is easily printed in hard copy (in black and white or colour) and sent electronically to anyone who wants it.

11. Please reflect on the strengths and limitations of your product. In what ways did community and academic/institutional collaborators provide feedback and how was such feedback used? Include relevant evaluation data about strengths and limitations if available.

In addition to the Action Committee being the community catalyst for our CEnR project and the community-university partner research team, we practiced principles of community engaged scholarship by encouraging active involvement and participation from both service providers and service users at different stages of the research. Please see above answers for more specific information about our process and the ways we tried to ensure feedback from community and academic partners. There is no evaluation data available about the strengths and limitations of our product yet. However, we have published an academic article about our partnership and the challenges and opportunities we faced. Please see the following: Morton, M., Horan, M., Bergen, A., Crann, S., Bader, D., et al. (2014). Engaging Evaluation Research: Complex CU partnership reflects on our partnership & practices via domestic violence/sexual assault protocol evaluation research. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research & Engagement.

12. Please describe ways that the project resulting in the product involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. If different, describe ways that the product itself involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. Have all collaborators on the product been notified of and approved submission of the product to CES4Health.info? If not, why not? Please indicate whether the project resulting in the product was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable, and provide the name(s) of the IRB/mechanism.

The research project that resulted in this research report involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work, and shared credit. All members of the core research team are authors of the report in an order that was discussed and attempts to value their contribution.
In our case, our mutual interest in a CBPR and CEnR approach ensured that we intentionally sought diversity at two levels. The initial engagement between CU partners embraced and valued the collaboration of both the community and university as part of the research team. Yet, we did not plan for the composition of the CU partnership to be as complex or diverse as it turned out to be.
In particular, our diversity was a result of our composition across multiple disciplines (sociology, criminology, applied psychology, social work, and health), our diverse academic and applied experience (e.g., partners with minimal or no CEnR experience, and/or experiential or service provision experience, and/or qualitative and/or quantitative methodology experience) and the diverse organizational structures and systems within which we worked (e.g., academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, multi-agency committees, and government). Specific examples of tensions and challenges that we faced as a result of our diversity are identified in the next section in an attempt to offer a realistic picture of our experiences and as a way to reflect on other relevant scholarship of engagement literature.

As previously mentioned, our early commitments to principles of CEnR prioritized the value and intention for shared decision-making and mutual benefit. This began with the very composition of our CEnR team. In addition to the diversity of the CU partnership and research team, our methodological commitments encouraged an intentional recruitment process to hear from service providers and service users that reflected the diversity of Guelph-Wellington. The CU partnership consulted with additional service providers and service users for feedback on the data collection tools we developed and used (e.g., online service provider survey, service provider focus group questions, and service user interview questions), and they were consulted on the project timeframe. Keeping the Action Committee agency representatives informed and invested, and treating them as important stakeholders and participants in the research design and process required ongoing and frequent communication. As articulated in the literature on CEnR/CBR/CBPR/PAR, members of the community participated in the research process not as research subjects, but rather as valued research advisors and partners. Practically speaking, this meant committing a great deal of time to updating the Action Committee on the research team’s process and progress and asking them to participate as part of the research process as they had valuable skills and knowledge to share which would strengthen and improve the research process and outcomes. For example, a follow up focus group was offered and held after all interviews had occurred with service users as a member-checking strategy to get a preliminary assessment about the extent to which the research team’s analysis of the qualitative interviews with service users rang true to those women who had participated in the interviews. In a similar way, preliminary data was presented at Action Committee meetings as a way to check the validity of the analysis that the research team was developing from the survey, and from the focus group data.

All collaborators on the product approve of and have been notified of the submission of this report to the CES4Health.info. The research project that resulted in the research report was approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board.