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

1. Fostering Partnerships for Physical Activity Promotion: A Case Study of a Regional Strategy Laura MisenerUniversity of Windsor Leisure Studies Association Canterbury, UK

2. 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

3. Purpose of the Study • Rise 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 campaign • Partnership research and frameworks • Case Study: SW Ontario In Motion • Critique and Discussion • Conclusions and Future Research

4. Partnerships • A 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)

5. Partnership Research in Sport and Leisure Organisations • Formation: • 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)

6. Partnership Model (Parent & Harvey, 2009)

7. Partnerships in Health/Physical Activity Promotion • Joint 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)

8. 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.

9. Rationale • 48.6% of regional population, compared to 47.1% of Ontario population are physically inactive • 52.9% of regional population, compared to 48.5% of Ontario population are obese or overweight • 35.2% of population compared to 40.2% of Ontario population consume fruits & vegetables 5 or more times per day • High rates of Type-2 Diabetes • Childhood obesity/inactivity concerns (Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, 2001)

11. Chatham-Kent YMCA City 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 YMCA St. Clair Township Town of Essex Town of Kingsville Town of Lakeshore Windsor-Essex County Active Living Coalition Windsor Essex County Health Unit Windsor-Essex YMCA AM 800 CKSY Media Bluedoor Productions ... Partners

12. Community Awareness www.swontarioinmotion.ca

13. Methods • Multiple 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

14. Preliminary Results • Key Issues/Themes • Complexity • ‘Loose’ coupling • Organisational Commitment • Give/Gets • Leadership

15. 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 ties • Numerous committees and levels • Geographic Proximity

16. 2. Loose Coupling • “There areno 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)

17. 3. Organisational Commitment

18. 4. Gives/Gets • Goal incongruity • Lack 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)

19. 5. Leadership • Central role of ‘Champion’ • Facilitates communication • Attempts to bridge sectors • “Without Lucierunning 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)

20. 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)

21. Discussion/Future Research • García-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??

22. Fostering Partnerships for Physical Activity Promotion: A Case Study of a Regional StrategyQUESTIONS?? Laura MisenerUniversity of Windsorlmisener@uwindsor.ca * Thank you to the University of Windsor Research Grants for Women for funding support. Leisure Studies Association Canterbury, UK

23. Southwestern Ontario in motion Steering Committee Support Areas: • Research • Marketing & Communication • Finance • Policy Strategy Development Committee, i.e. Child & Youth, Older Adult Communities in motion Coordinating Committee (CIM CC) SWARG Financial Accountability Legal Entity CIM CC Windsor Essex CIM CC Sarnia Lambton CIM CC Chatham-Kent Local Initiatives