Cross-Sectoral Collaboration to Improve Outcomes for Children/Youth in Vulnerable Contexts: Policy Dialogue Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive Summary This report summarizes a one-day policy dialogue event that brought together 55 stakeholders and persons with lived experiences to discuss key lessons from TRiP (The Regina intersectoral Partnership) initiative. TRiP is an example of sustained collaboration across six human service organizations to improve outcomes for children and youth in vulnerable contexts within Regina, Saskatchewan, since 2010. The event aimed to explore how these lessons can be applied in other intersectoral contexts through the engagement of the participants in 1) TRiP translation and 2) consensus-building activities (World Café). During TRiP translation group activity (see details below), participants were asked about the top reason for TRiP's success. Collaboration was the most common response among 28 participants, followed by the knowledge and dedication of frontline staff (4 participants) and shared consent (2 participants). When asked what aspects of TRiP could be translated into other contexts, participants identified six key categories: effective communication, governance and leadership, building relationships and trust, accountability and responsibility, evaluation and measurement, and organization support and resources. During the World Café conversations, the event participants discussed the core themes that emerged from the research study including governance and leadership, accountability, information sharing, defining and measuring success and resources. Below is the summary of key findings in each theme. Governance and Leadership: Participants emphasized the need for buy-in from government and higher-level leadership, suggesting concrete actions beyond written strategies to foster cross-sectoral collaboration. They discussed various leadership models, including single-entity and shared approaches, with considerations for accountability and alternative governance structures. Accountability: Challenges to accountability in collaborative initiatives were identified, including a lack of shared definitions and siloed structures hindering collaboration. Proposed solutions included inclusive engagement strategies, enhanced communication, capacity building, and person-centered care for improved service continuity. Information Sharing: Participants stressed the importance of building trust among partners, understanding sector skill sets, and utilizing shared physical space for efficient collaboration. Purposeful information collection and sharing, with a trauma-informed approach, empower clients and improve service delivery. Defining and Measuring Success: Defining success in collaborative initiatives such as TRiP was seen as complex, tailored to individual needs, and requiring a holistic approach with quantitative and qualitative measures. Success was viewed as collective and reflective of strong partnerships and family connections. Resources: Concerns about potential burnout among dedicated staff and financial challenges, especially in securing government funding, were noted. Suggestions included exploring direct resource allocation options and addressing the high turnover rate among TRiP personnel to enhance service delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".