Family Violence Initiative

Lessons Learned from Projects Funded Through the Family Violence Initiative 1998/99 to 2002/03

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]

6. PROJECT PARTNERS

6.1. How Project Partners are Defined

The definition of partner, which emerged in our key informant interviews, was organizations that actively participated in some aspect(s) of the planning and implementation of the project. We have attempted to distinguish partners from co-funders (who, as noted above typically did not play an active role in the project implementation, although they may be categorized as partners in PCS).

6.2. Partnership Approach

Thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) projects in this study employed an active partnership approach to project implementation. The most common way to involve partners was to strike an advisory committee or group. Typically, membership was drawn from a cadre of relevant stakeholders and experts. Committees or groups operated with varying degrees of formality. Some committees were comprised of organizational leaders; others were comprised of individuals from the working level. In most cases, the primary function of these committees was to provide advice on project implementation and review project products and/or services.

Other Project Sponsors used a more consultative partnership approach, involving various stakeholders and experts in the review of project materials as opposed to striking an actual advisory group. In other cases, there was overlap between advisory and consultative mechanisms.

In the case of projects that involved broader community-based initiatives a more co-ordinated and often collaborative partnership approach was used. In some cases, a working committee or community group was already in place for the larger initiative. This more in-depth partnership approach reflects the broader and longer-term mandate of these initiatives.

It should be noted that in three cases, there were no active partnerships directly associated with the project. In two of these, however, partnerships were nonetheless part of the organization's underlying philosophy and approach and projects informally benefited from these links. In the third case, the project was undertaken as a stand-alone activity and no specific partners were identified in the development of the resource.

The main benefit of using a partnership approach was that it enriched the project in some way by providing it with access to a varied source of ideas, expertise, skills and support. The partnership approach employed helped to create credibility and "buy-in" for the project at the community level, ensured that the project was focussed and relevant to needs, and, also provided a way to vet the products and services. Project Partners also benefited from working with each other. For example, meetings provided opportunities for agencies to share information and learn from each other. Working on a tangible project also helped to strengthen a common base for collective action.

The main challenges associated with using a partnership approach relate to structure and process. At the outset, it is important to ensure that partners have a shared understanding of the commitment and tasks associated with being a partner. This can be accomplished, for example, by preparing terms of reference. To ensure that no misunderstandings arise over the course of the project, it is important to find the best process for communicating with and co-ordinating partners. Communication and co-ordination with partners can be particularly challenging when everyone already has a full plate of activities. Having adequate resources for communication and co-ordination is key. In some cases, timing was also an issue, in that it was difficult at times to bring all partners together in a timely way to meet project deadlines.

The following table describes the partnership approaches used in each project, and the current status of each partnership. It should be stressed that all of the organizations support a partnership approach and it can be assumed that partnerships could be reactivated at the project level as appropriate.

Project Partnerships

Project title	Partnerships? Y= N=	Partnership description	Current partnership status
A School-based Anti-violence Program		Stand-alone	Not applicable.
Let's Talk About Touching		Advisory/ Consultative	Active. Advisory group replaced by a smaller, interagency steering committee for subsequent training implementation.
Keeping Kids Safe		Advisory/ Consultative	We were not able to determine the status of the initial committee.
Giving Children Hope		Advisory/ Consultative	Active.
Network Buffet Manual and Video		Consultative Youth in Care Networks	Active.
Educating on Family Violence — Web site		Consultative	Inactive.
Street Exit Program		Informal links with other SOS programs and services.	Inactive.
Sur le dos de l'amour		In-house	Inactive.
Walking the Prevention Circle		Advisory	Active. National advisory committee and community partnerships.
Why Do Female Victims Recant?		Advisory	Inactive.
Community Safety Strategy Protocol		Advisory	Active.
Women in Abusive Relationships		Advisory/ Consultative	Inactive.
Family Violence Information Brochure Project		Consultative	Inactive.
Men's Track of the First Charge Intervention Process		Collaborative	Active.
Elder Abuse: The Hidden Crime		Consultative	Inactive.
Second National Conference on Elder Abuse		Advisory	Inactive.

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]