Organisational Survey
1992-2005
Volume 2: The Effects of
Healthway on Sponsored Organisations
HEALTH PROMOTION EVALUATION UNIT
School of Population Health
The University of Western Australia
Health Promotion Evaluation Unit
School of Population Health
The University of Western Australia
Michael Rosenberg MPH, PhD
Director of the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit
Sarah French BSc GDPH MPH
Research Officer
Lisa Wood B.Com. (Hons) Postgrad.Dip.Health Promotion
Consultant
Citation
The citation below should be used when referencing this work:
Rosenberg M, French S, Wood L. Organisational Survey 1992-2005 Volume 2: The Effects of Healthway on Sponsored Organisations. Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, Department of Public Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth 2006.
ISBN: 1 876999 94 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageSUMMARY...... / 5
1. INTRODUCTION...... / 6
2. SURVEY METHODS...... / 7
3. ANALYSIS
4. RESULTS...... / 9
10
4.1 Areas of perceived increase as a result of receiving funding......
4.1.1 SAR Organisations
4.1.2 Health promotion project funding / 10
10
11
4.2 Impact of Healthway funding on sponsored organisations...... / 15
4.3 Effects of Healthway funding on organisation's abilities...... / 18
4.4 Target groups & settings reached as a result of Healthway funding.. / 22
4. DISCUSSION...... / 24
REFERENCES...... / 27
Appendices...... / 28
Appendix Tables 1-9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1a Effects of Healthway on activities reported by sponsored SAR organisations
Table 1b Effects of Healthway on activities reported by organisations receiving health promotion funding
Table 2a Effects of Healthway on membership, staffing, audiences and participants reported by sponsored SAR organisations
Table 2b Effects of Healthway on staffing, audiences and participants reported by organisations receiving health promotion funding
Table 3a Impact of Healthway funding on sponsored SAR organisations
Table 3b Impact of Healthway funding on organisations receiving health promotion funding
Table 4a Effects of Healthway on abilities of SAR organisations to undertake various tasks
Table 4b Effects of Healthway funding on abilities of organisations receiving health promotion funding to undertake different tasks
Table 5 Target groups reached as a result of Healthway funding
Table 6 Settings utilised as a result of Healthway funding
SUMMARY
This report presents the findings from five surveys of organisations funded by Healthway: conducted in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005. This report focuses on organisation’s perceptions of the effect of receiving Healthway funding on their organisation, its activities and the skills and expertise of staff. Sport, arts and racing organisations (SAR organisations) are reported separately from organisations receiving health promotion project funding.
The results of the 2005 Organisational Survey show that for most areas assessed, a high level of effect was maintained or improved as a result of providing organisations with sponsorship or health promotion funding compared with the four earlier surveys. The proportion of SAR organisations that reported that Healthway funding had a positive effect on the promotion of their program and ability to introduce new initiatives to promote the health of their members, audience and participants increased compared with previous surveys.
In 2005, several new items were included in the Organisational Survey to evaluate the effects of Healthway funding on developing partnerships and collaborations. These were relevant to Healthway’s current Strategic Plan (2004-2007). The results were encouraging in each of the areas assessed, with more than 50% of SAR and 60% of organisations in receipt of health promotion funding reporting increases in their partnerships and collaborations with other agencies. More than 74% of SAR organisations appeared to embrace health promotion by introducing new innovative strategies as part of their sponsorship plan, and a similar proportion ran activities that brought together different groups in the community. Additionally, the majority of funded organisations increased opportunities for staff to gain new skills and trialled new strategies as a result of receiving funding.
The organisations surveyed also reported reaching target groups that are consistent with Healthway’s priority areas, including youth, indigenous people, rural and remote communities and other disadvantaged groups.
Overall, the results of the 2005 Organisational Survey show that Healthway has continued to make a positive contribution to the majority of organisations it funds in terms of skill and expertise development, and services and activities offered to the public.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Health Promotion Development and Evaluation Program (HPDEP, now known as the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit or HPEU) initiated the Organisational Surveys in 1992. Repeat surveys were conducted in 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005. The surveys were established to accomplish the following objectives:
i) To evaluate the effects of Healthway on organisations in receipt of grants from the Foundation.
ii) To evaluate the quality of the business relationships between Healthway and organisations in receipt of grants from the Foundation.
iii) To provide Healthway with statistical information for planning purposes on healthy public policy in organisations.
iv) To provide HPDEP (now HPEU) with information for planning purposes on skill levels and staff development needs in organisations.
v) To evaluate the effects of HPDEP (now HPEU) on skill levels and staff development needs.
vi) To study the determinants of healthy structural reform in organisations.
This report focuses on objective i) the effects of Healthway funding on organisations in receipt of grants from the Foundation. This part of the Organisational Survey seeks to determine sponsored organisation’s perceptions of the impact of Healthway funding on their organisation. This includes the effects of Healthway on the organisational profile, including membership, mix of activities, fund-raising and substitution of pre-existing funding sources; effects on organisational policies; effects on skills levels including use of evaluation; and perceptions of effects. For health organisations only, the range of promotional educational and structural approaches used were also evaluated.
The results from all five Organisational Surveys are presented in this report to allow a comparison of the effects of Healthway over time. Additionally, the results from 2005 are presented in the appendices according to project type, location and amount of Healthway funding.
2. SURVEY METHODS
Surveys of organisations that received funding from Healthway were conducted in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005. In 1992, all organisations that had received funding between the date of Healthway’s inception (February 1991) and June 1992 were surveyed. However, it was not realistic to survey all organisations that had ever received funding from Healthway in the subsequent surveys. Instead, a sample was selected to include organisations receiving funding during a similar time period to those surveyed in 1992. The 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005 samples included all organisations that completed projects after 30th April in the preceding year (1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004 respectively) and commenced projects before 30th April in the year of the survey.
Healthway provided HPEU with a mailing list of grant recipients in each year. After removal of duplications, 321 organisations were contacted in 1992, consisting of 269 SAR organisations and 56 health organisations. In 1994, 511 organisations were contacted, consisting of 425 SAR organisations and 86 health organisations, and 616 were contacted in 1997, consisting of 536 SAR and 80 health organisations. In 2001, 627 organisations were contacted, consisting of 566 SAR organisations and 67 health organisations. In 2005, 461 organisations were contacted, consisting of 426 SAR and 36 health organisations.
Details of the samples for the five surveys, along with the field procedures and survey instrument are detailed elsewhere1. In all five surveys, two instruments were developed, one for SAR organisations and the other for organisations in receipt of health promotion funding. The overall response rates were 81.3% in 1992, 78.0% in 1994, 83.5% in 1997, 95.8% in 2001 and 99% in 2005.
This report focuses on the effects of Healthway funding on funded organisations. Respondents were presented with a series of items about possible effects of receiving Healthway sponsorship. Most of these items were based on a series of in-depth interviews undertaken in 19922. However additional items were developed in 2001 based on results from in-depth interviews undertaken in 20003 and aspects of Healthway’s Strategic Plan 2000-2003 that were not measured in previous surveys. In 2001, eight items were included that required respondents to quantify the extent to which various effects had occurred using a five-point scale from “a large increase” (i.e. one third or more) to “a large decrease” (Tables 1a – 3a and 1b - 3b); nine items asked whether various effects had or had not occurred (Tables 4a and 4b); and four items asked respondents to quantify what effect receiving Healthway sponsorship had on various organisational skills using a four point scale from “a major effect” to “no effect at all” (Tables 5a and 5b). In 2005, the survey was further modified to include additional questions relevant to assessing the impact of Healthway funding on organisational capacity.
For each of these areas of effects assessed, the data are reported for SAR organisations separate from organisations receiving health promotion funding. Respondents indicating “not applicable” or “don’t know” to all questions were excluded from analyses in this report.
3. ANALYSIS
All data were entered into SPSS for analysis. Descriptive statistics were generated separately for each relevant survey question across all survey periods and reported for either a large increase or large effect, depending on the response frame. Binary variables were created to reflect a total increase (all positive increase responses) and total effect (all positive effect responses) and were also used to generate descriptive statistics for relevant survey questions across all survey periods. Chi Square was used to test for significant associations between results observed in the 2005 survey, compared with each previous survey period.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Areas of perceived increase as a result of receiving funding
i. SAR Organisations
Table 1a shows the effects of Healthway on the scope of activities reported by sponsored SAR organisations in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005.
In 2005, the proportion of SAR organisations reporting that Healthway funding had increased their overall level of activity was significantly higher compared with all previous survey years. Compared with previous surveys, there was a significant increase in the proportion of SAR organisations reporting a large increase in the range or number of programs as a result of Healthway funding, from 21.7% in 1992, to 33.6% in 2005. Changes in the proportion of SAR organisations reporting an overall increase in the range and/or number of programs offered existed between 1992 (71.7%) and 2005 (72.8%). The proportion of SAR organisations reporting that Healthway funding resulted in an increase in programs offered in country areas was significantly greater in 2005 than any previous survey period.
Table 1a: Effects of Healthway on activities reported by sponsored SAR organisations
Perceived areas of increase
/Year of survey
%1992
(n) / 1994
(n) / 1997
(n) / 2001
(n) / 2005
(n)
Overall level of activity
/ (177) / (295) / (418) / (484) / (385)· Large increase / 25.4* / 27.1* / 19.6** / 18.6** / 34.8
· Total increase / 74.0** / 78.3 / 71.8** / 70.5** / 83.4
The range and/or number of programs
/ (166) / (277) / (390) / (454) / (357)· Large increase
/ 21.7** / 23.5** / 19.2** / 17.4** / 33.6· Total increase
/ 71.7 / 71.5 / 71.5 / 67.4 / 72.8Programs offered in country areas / (117) / (185) / (267) / (325) / (288)
· Large increase / 24.8** / 22.7** / 21.3** / 21.3** / 47.2
· Total increase / 56.4** / 62.7** / 66.2** / 66.2** / 82.3
Some items have missing values. Thus, the sample size for each item for 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005 and total are reported.
“Not applicable” and “don’t know’ responses excluded from analysis.
* compared with 2005 * p< 0.05
** compared with 2005 * p< 0.01
4.1.2 Health promotion project funding
Table 1b shows the effects of Healthway on activities reported by organisations receiving health promotion project funding in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2005. The proportion of organisations reporting an increase in their overall level of health promotion activity as a result of receiving Healthway funding remained very high in 2005 at 90.0%. Almost two-thirds of organisations (64.3%) reported that the range of services they offered to the public increased as a result of Healthway funding. This proportion represents a decrease, though not statistically significant, compared with 1992 (67.5%), 1997 (78.5%) and 2001 (74.1%). The proportion of organisations who reported an increase in their budget for health promotion-related activities was lowest in 2005, following a period of steady increase since 1992. The proportion of organisations reporting an increase in their budget for health promotion was significantly lower in 2005 (36.7%), compared with 2001 (64.3%).
Table 1b Effects of Healthway on activities reported by organisations receiving health promotion funding
Item
/Year of survey
%1992
(n) / 1994
(n) / 1997
(n) / 2001
(n) / 2005
(n)
Overall level of health promotion activity
/ (42) / (72) / (66) / (59) / (30)· Large increase / 28.6 / 27.8 / 39.4 / 25.4 / 43.3
· Total increase / 81.0 / 80.6 / 84.9 / 81.4 / 90.0
The range of services offered to the public
/ (40) / (63) / (65) / (54) / (28)· Large increase / 12.5 / 17.5 / 32.3 / 18.5 / 25.0
· Total increase / 67.5 / 60.4 / 78.5 / 74.1 / 64.3
Budget for health promotion related activities
/ (41) / (65) / (65) / (56) / (30)· Large increase / 26.8 / 10.8 / 23.1 / 12.5 / 13.3
· Total increase / 39.0 / 33.9 / 53.9 / 64.3* / 36.7
Some items have missing values. Thus, the sample size for each item for 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005 and total are reported.
“Not applicable” and “don’t know’ responses excluded from analysis.
* compared with 2005 * p< 0.05
** compared with 2005 * p< 0.01
Table 2a shows the effects of Healthway on membership, staffing, funding, audiences and participants as reported by SAR organisations. In 2005, more than 65% of SAR organisations reported an increase in participant numbers, and in audience and spectator numbers, as a result of receiving sponsorship from Healthway. In addition, slightly more than one half (51.1%) reported an increase in membership and subscription, and 24.6% reported an increase in staffing levels as a result of Healthway sponsorship. For each of these items, little significant change was observed between 1992 and 2005, although fewer organisations increased their audience/spectator numbers in 2005 (66.3%), compared with 1994 (71.7%) and 2001 (71.9%). Since 2001, organisations were asked to quantify the effects of receiving Healthway sponsorship on the receipt of funding or sponsorship from other sources. In 2005 a significantly greater proportion of SAR organisations (10.5%) reported a large increase in this area compared with the 4.4% in 2001. In 2005, SAR organisations were also asked if, as a result of Healthway funding, they had increased the number of partnerships/collaborations with other agencies to achieve common goals, for which 67.9% indicated they had.