Collaboration was the main point and guiding force in establishing SCHEP between the State OA and CAPS. Based on a proven model of a locally funded collaborative consortium, SCHEP intended to explore the efficacy of a more decentralized model, where local agencies could join forces under the auspices of the State, guided by the university.

Although it is difficult to monitor and measure the level of collaboration between scientist and service providers from a distance, we were able to understand their working relationships from individual and group meetings, correspondence and reporting.

Collaboration outcomes

Between the State OA and CAPS:

  • SCHEP piloted a new model of community collaborative research.
  • This initiative was successful in negotiating and carrying out a state-funded, local-based collaborative initiative.
  • The administrative structure of the contract allowed CAPS to provide flexible project management and oversight of project sites.
  • This initiative funded populations in need and provided services to about 700 individuals in the state of California.

Between CAPS and individual projects:

  • CAPS provided on and off-site technical assistance in the areas of program design and evaluation, collaboration, data collection, computer support and mediation (collaborative partner negotiation).
  • We established close contact with subcontracts throughout the contract period.
  • We helped foster the development of trust between service providers and academic researchers.
  • CAPS handled the administrative task of establishing and maintaining subcontracts with individual consortium participants.
  • Programs selected provided innovative services, and lent insight into four populations a risk.

Among projects:

  • Projects were able to obtain important information from each other about intervention strategies.
  • The consortium allowed the provision of peer review for project components, including instrument development and human subjects review.

Within projects:

  • All four projects stated learning from their respective collaborative relationships.
  • The collection of data at service sites informed intervention programs, and in some cases, has been incorporated into ongoing service activities.
  • Researchers gained valuable insights about populations in need.
  • All projects are or plan to continue their collaborative relationship with their local SCHEP partner.

Last modified: January 20, 2011