Iowa Paths Collaboration Survey

The Iowa Paths Collaboration Survey was developed by the partners of the Iowa Systems Change Project:
Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Iowa Department of Education
Iowa Workforce Development
Iowa Department of Human Services
Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Persons with Disabilities
Governor’s Developmental Disabilities Council,
Iowa Department for the Blind

The Iowa Systems Change Project was funded under grant H989A980009-02, Systems Change Project to Expand Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Mental or Physical Disabilities, or Both, Who Receive Public Support, from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Rehabilitation Services Administration.

1. Which organization do you represent in the collaboration?

DARS
CIL
Other

2. Which CHIRP training did you attend?

Mark the appropriate box to choose the statement either on the left or on the right that best describes your consortium. One checkmark per line

3. Structure (S1 – S4)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Members see how the vision of their agency or business fits into the vision/goal of the project.						Members continue to ask, “What is the purpose of this group/project?”
An organizational structure with clearly defined roles and responsibilities exists and partners understand how to carry out their responsibilities.						Not all partners are engaged in the roles and responsibilities of the consortium.
Work plans are developed and utilized.						Work plans are written because of grant requirements but are not utilized.
Feedback, from internal and external stakeholders, leads to changes and/or modifications in the work plan.						Feedback from the stakeholders does not exist, is ignored, or actively resisted.

4. Membership (M1 – M5)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Consortium membership represents the spectrum of the community impacted by the project.						Membership represents the needs of the grant writer, as opposed to the needs of the project.
Membership is fluid according to the project issue/need.						Membership is closed.
Consortium members are clear on why they are important to the project.						Members continually ask, “Why am I here?"
Consortium members are clear on why the other members are important to the project.						Consortium members continually ask, “Why are the other members here?”
Core membership is consistent, and they are committed to and contribute to the vision.						Attendance is sporadic and chaotic.

5. Leadership/Facilitation (L1 – L3)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Every consortium member is encouraged to contribute to the discussion.						One or two members dominate the discussions.
Meetings are facilitated for productive results.						Meetings are not productive. There appears to be no agreed upon system of leadership.
There are agreed upon ground rules.						No ground rules.

6. Formal Communication (F1 – F3)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Meeting minutes are complete and sent to each consortium member ASAP.						Meeting minutes are incomplete and/or distributed at the next meeting.
The meeting agenda is sent to each consortium member prior to the meeting.						The meeting agenda is distributed at the meeting or does not exist.
Communication is provided in a format that meets the needs of the members.						Communication does not occur outside of meetings or the communication doesn’t reach all members.

7. Two-Way Communication (T1 - T5)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Feedback is forthcoming from members.						Communication is one-way.
Messages address the issue/need and are relevant.						Messages do not address the issue/need and are irrelevant.
Consortium members demonstrate mutual respect for one another.						Consortium members are not respectful of one another.
Everyone understands each other’s motivation for participating – no hidden agendas.						There is an unwillingness to share – hidden agendas are present.
Conflicts are handled openly and constructively.						Conflicts are suppressed or handled inappropriately.

8. Environment (E1 – E7)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Open thinking is encouraged; opportunities exist for voicing opinions, concerns and experiences.						Inability to see the situation from a broad perspective. “We’ve always done it this way.”
Members know what resources (strengths) the other members bring to the table.						Members do not know the resources (strengths) the other members bring to the table.
Willingness to share knowledge, skills, and time.						Turfism; hoarding of knowledge, skills, and time.
There is a willingness to take risks.						“safe stuff only”
The “I” becomes “we.”						Members in it for themselves; the “I” stays “I”.
Resources are shared.						Resources are protected.
Clients do not “fall through the cracks.”						Clients consistently “fall through the cracks.”

9. Accountability (A1 – A2)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
Consortium members are actively involved, follow through with action plans, and share responsibility for developing measures of success.						There is a lack of participation with the expectation that someone else will take the lead and everyone else will wait for direction.
Gather feedback from stakeholders (those affected by the project).						Consortium members know what stakeholders need; gathering feedback is not necessary.

10. Creativity (C1 – C3)

	Often	Seldom	Neutral	Seldom	Often
A different look.						“Same old thing.”
Trying new things, modifying, and retrying.						The plan is sacred; changes are not necessary.
Not making assumptions; getting the facts.						We knew what we wanted when we started.

11. Additional comments