EVALUATING PARTNERSHIP FUNCTIONING AND SUSTAINABILITY
IN THE MARTINDALE BRIGHTWOOD ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS (MBAES)
Research Brief
Silvia C. Garcia, PhD.
Assistant Director for Research
Family School and Neighborhood Engagement
RESEARCH QUESTION
How MBAES functioning factors relate to partnership sustainability?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2010 IUPUI launched the federally funded Full Service Community Schools initiative to support three
full-service community schools in Martindale Brightwood neighborhood—James Russell Lowell School 51,
Frances W. Parker School 56, and Joyce Kilmer School 69. The MBAES, a school-community collaborative,
was formed to provide mental health, health and academic supports, and social services to students and
their families in the neighborhood while promoting parent engagement, academic achievement, as well as
health and wellness.
The theoretical underpinnings of the program
align with the Coalition Community Schools
Logic Model (Shah, Brink, London, Masur, &
Quihuis, 2009). Five-year term results aim
towards improving student academic
achievement and student attendance through
the creation of educational, social and mental
health services and programs to students and
their parents, and the increase in family
involvement with their children’s education.
Figure 1. MBAES Objectives
After five years in operation, it is important to MBAES partners to get an inside look
of the alliance and reflect on how they engage in collaborative efforts; what have
been the gains and investments of their organizations in this partnership
throughout these years; and what are the aspects they must pay attention to in
order to make the alliance sustainable.
METHODOLOGY
The study used a Sequential Mixed approach design (Creswell, 2013) that started with a survey followed by
qualitative data collection methods –document analysis, focus groups with partners and semi-structured
interview to program coordinators. This research brief reports only the quantitative results of the
survey.
1
Measures: The survey grouped 35 items in four descriptive dimensions: leadership, partner engagement,
group relationships/dynamics, and partner perception of benefits (Borthwick, 1995; Han, Connolly &
Canham, 2003; Lasker, Weiss & Miller, 2001; Weiss et al., 2002). An exploratory factor analysis using
Principal Component Analysis with direct oblimin rotation helped identify components within each
descriptive dimension in the survey. Table 1 below lists the 14 final measures. Only the first 12 measures
were developed using factor analysis. The table shows the number of items in each factor, rating scale,
mean values, and standard deviations in cases where factors were extracted.
Table 1. List of measures
Dimension
Measures
Leadership
Mission alignment
Resource administration
Collaborative leadership
Strengthening the alliance
Strengthening impact
Strengthening school model
Shared meaning
Sense of collaboration
Mutual reliance
Access to resources
Increased knowledge
Enhanced organizational capacity
Engagement
Group
Relationships
Perceived
Benefits
Likelihood to
recommend
Likelihood to
continue
Number
of Items
3
2
3
7
3
1
3
2
3
5
4
1
Rating
Scale
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
M
SD
3.71
3.90
4.07
3.90
4.12
4.15
4.13
4.48
4.18
4.05
4.23
4.39
0.78
0.79
0.65
0.72
0.72
0.64
0.55
0.59
0.61
1.03
1.02
0.78
Cronbach’s
Alpha
.907
.710
.653
.865
.781
.774
.777
.555
.889
.823
-
Likelihood to recommend
1
1-10
9.08
1.05
-
Likelihood to continue
1
1-10
9.13
2.15
-
Table 1 also lists the Cronbach’s Alpha to measure the reliability of components that include more than one
item (Gliem & Gliem, 2003; Santos, 1999). The means were obtained by calculating the average score within
each item, and then calculating the average score across all items in each measure. All calculated measures
except two – Collaborative leadership and Mutual reliance– yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha over 0.7, which is
the common acceptable value to assume unidimensionality of the scale. However both measures under 0.7
were kept because: 1) communalities were moderate; 2) average factor loadings were .760 and .712
respectively; 3) there were not cross loadings; and 4) several variables loaded strongly on each factor, which
making them strong factors (Costello & Osborne, 2005). On the other hand, this is the first time the scale is
used and we expect to improve it through successive applications on larger populations.
Following is the description of the six dimensions and measures:

Leadership: We asked partners to rate leadership based on how they believed coordinators
communicate common goals and evaluate progress. Respondents were also asked to rate the model
that defines the decision-making processes and enables collaboration and partner involvement.
1
The survey was constructed based on existent partnership studies and previously developed partnership evaluation
tools. Namely: The Coalition Effectiveness Inventory (Butterfoss, 1998); the Community School Partnership Assessment
(Blank & Langford, 2000); the NJ Survey Instrument (Reiker, 2011); and the Partnership Assessment Tool (Afsana,
Habte, Hatfield & Neufeld, 2009). The survey was content-validated with a small sample of seven partners during the
Community Advisory Committee monthly meeting.
2
April, 2016



Mission alignment was assessed by asking respondents to rate if coordinators clearly communicate
the purposes and results wanted and shared with partners how their organizations would
contribute to these purposes. Partners were also asked to rate if coordinators continuously
evaluated and refined partnership actions. To measure resource administration respondents rated
frequency of meetings and coordinator’s success in building external support for the alliance. To
measure collaborative leadership, respondents rated whether coordinators shared information with
partners, promoted partner participation in decision-making, and encouraged collaborative work.
Engagement: Partner engagement is defined in this study as the partners’ committed and
enthusiastic effort to strengthening the alliance and its goals, enhancing partnership positive
impact in the communities served, and strengthening the community school model. Respondents
were asked to rate the levels of contribution their organizations provide to strengthening the
alliance in the following ways: adding to the credibility of the alliance; bringing innovative
perspectives to address community issues; bringing other organizations to the alliance; leveraging
resources; sharing information and best practices with partners; creating strategies or ideas tailored
to the needs of the community; and creating awareness for increased support. To measure
strengthening impact on the community partners rated their contribution to facilitating access to
targets populations; improving understanding of the needs of students and their families; and
coordinating with other agencies to take collective action. Partners also rated their contribution to
strengthen the community school model.
Group relationships/dynamics: Group relationships refer to how partners work to create a
collaborative environment of trusting relationships, open communication, and meaningful
participation where common overarching purposes are shared. One measure to assess group
relationships was shared meaning. To measure if partners have developed a shared meaning of the
partnership, they were asked to rate their level of agreement with the following statements: 1) I
have a clear understanding of what this alliance is trying to accomplish; 2) I have a clear sense of
the roles and responsibilities of my organization in this alliance; and 3) Communication in this
alliance happens both at formal meetings and in informal ways. To measure sense of collaboration
respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: 1) I am
always open to discussing different options before decisions are made; 2) What this alliance is
trying to accomplish would be difficult without collaborating with other organizations. Finally,
mutual reliance entails not only how partners trust each other, but also the confidence that
organizations in the alliance provide the resources and skills that are required to achieve common
goals. The items to measure trust were: 1) I trust the other members of this alliance; 2) This alliance
gathers the necessary skills and expertise for what we are trying to achieve; and 3) My organization
has invested the right amount of time and resources for this project to succeed.
Perceived benefits: Perceived benefits refer to what partners perceive as benefits of being in the
alliance; either tangible resources like financial support, or intangible assets, like access to
networking. The perceived benefits dimension was assessed using three measures. To determine
perception of access to resources partners were asked to rate whether the alliance was important for
their organizations to make new connections, gain access to non-financial resources, gain access to
financial support, gain access to new clients, and identify new and creative ways to solve problems.
This last item was also used to measure access increased knowledge due to the high load value to
both factors. Additionally partners rated the importance for their organization to gain access to
new knowledge and best practices and connect with the community. The third measure enhance
organizational capacity was measured asking partners the importance of the partnership to
enhance their organizational capacity for service delivery.
3
April, 2016

Likelihood to recommend and Likelihood to continue: Partners were asked to rate in a scale 1 to
10 their likelihood to recommend to others to participate in the alliance and their likelihood to
continue being part of the alliance.
Population: The survey was completed by 25 of the 40 invited partners (62.5%) representing 19 of the
existing 26 partner organizations. Fifty six percent of surveyed partners have been in the alliance since the
beginning; 40% have been partners for 3 to 4 years, and only 8% have been in the partnership for less than
two years.
Data Analysis: Primary methods for statistical analysis included averages and standard deviations,
frequency analysis, factor analysis, and bivariate correlation.
RESULTS
Functioning
Partners are brought together into a partnership to create a collective impact through coordinated efforts.
Collaboration to create this kind of impact depends on how partners relate to each other (trust, respect,
and power balance); their level of involvement; leadership style; resources administration and management;
knowledge of available resources, information, and connections (Lasker & Weiss, 2003; Lasker et al., 2001).
Functioning measures all these factors.
Figure 2 shows the ranking given in the survey to each dimensional factor based on the calculated mean.




As observed in Figure 2 partners rated collaboration as the most important feature of the
partnership.
The following two high rated factors -enhanced organizational capacity and increased knowledgeare part of the “perceived benefits” dimension.
Mutual reliance and shared meaning (group relationships) are also among the 6 top rated items.
Shared meaning is considered a pre-requisite to ease partner engagement into co-creating and
sharing with other partners any efforts that align their own values and goals with those of the
alliance.
The lowest rated factor was “mission alignment” which measures how leadership intentionally
communicates the purposes of the alliance; shares how partner organizations contribute to the
goals of the alliance; and evaluates partnership.
Figure 2. Factor ranking
Sense of collaboration
Enhanced organizational capacity
Increased knowledge
Mutual reliance
Strengthening school model
Shared meaning
Strengthening impact
Collaborative leadership
Access to resources
Strengthening the alliance
Resource administration
Mission alignment
4.48
4.39
4.23
4.18
4.15
4.13
4.12
4.07
4.05
3.9
3.9
3.71
4
April, 2016
Sustainability
The DiVa Consortium Handbook for Dissemination, Exploitation and Sustainability of Educational Projects
(2011) defines sustainability as the “capacity of a project to continue its existence and functioning beyond its
end” (p.5). A project is sustainable if after funding ends “relevant results are pursued and products are
maintained or developed” (p.5).
One logical condition for the project to continue is that partners remain in the partnership
and strive to make it stronger. Sustainability is measured in this study as partner likelihood
to continue in the partnership and partner likelihood to recommend to others to
participate in the alliance.
Recommending the organization to others (usually known as positive word-of-mouth) affects sustainability
because of the potential positive impact on donor behavior (Williams & Buttle, 2013). Donor behavior
involves important factors like volunteering hours, donations, donor recruitment, grants, event attendance,
or fundraising engagement (Wymer & Rundle-Thiele, 2016) and together with internal functioning features,
it may become an important drive to partnership growth and sustainability.
The likelihood to continue generally referred to in the business literature as “retention” (Reichheld &
Markey, 2011) measures willingness to stay and support the partnership. Reichheld & Markey (2011) explain
that willingness to recommend is usually related to high retention rates.
Results in Figures 3 and 4 show that MBAES partners are very likely to continue in the partnership. Seventy
percent of the respondents rated “Ten” in a scale 1 to 10 their likelihood to continue. However, partners are
not as likely to recommend other organizations to participate in the alliance.
Figure 3. Likelihood to recommend
41.7%
Ten
37.5%
Nine
12.5%
Eight
Seven
Figure 4. Likelihood to continue
8.3%
70.8%
Ten
12.5%
Nine
Eight
Seven
4.2%
12.5%
Factor correlations
The time a partner organization has remained in the partnership was also considered in the analysis to
understand how seniority relates to other functioning factors. Bivariate correlations calculating
Spearman’s rho coefficient were used to measure the relationship of years in the partnership with group
relationships, leadership, engagement and perceived benefits.

It was found that partners who had been partners for more time are more likely to engage in
strengthening the alliance (rs=.408, p <.05), and strengthening the school model (rs=.631, p
<.01). They also seem to develop a major sense of mutual reliance (r s=.581, p <.01), and are more
willing to remain in the partnership (rs=.471, p <.05). These results highlight the importance of
time in building strong partnership relationships.
Spearman’s rho was used also to calculate the correlation between all 12 measures of functioning (See
table 4 in the next page).
5
April, 2016



We found that partners with a high sense of mutual reliance also perceive that MBAES
leadership has been successful in aligning partnership mission (rs= .580, p <.01). Mutual
reliance was also found to be associated with partner commitment to strengthening the school
model (rs= .414, p <.05).
Partners’ sense of collaboration was found to be positively correlated to their commitment to
strengthening community impact (rs= .523, p< .01), strengthening the alliance (rs=.497, p< .05),
and strengthening the school model (rs=.496, p< .05); meaning that those partners who value
collaboration are also those who are more committed to partnership success.
Partners who said that they get increased organizational knowledge from being part of the
alliance were also those who said to be highly involved in strengthening the alliance (r s= .528, p
<.01), strengthening the school model (rs= .574, p <.01) and strengthening MBAES impact on
the community (rs= .493, p <.05). In other words, “perceived benefits” is associated with
partner engagement.
Table 4. Correlations
Dimensions
Leadership
Engagement
Group
Relationships
Perceived
Benefits
Factors
1.Mission alignment
1
-
2
3
4
2. Resource
administration
3. Collaborative
leadership
.209
-
.371
.284
-
4. Strengthening the
alliance
5. Strengthening impact
.067
-.263
.074
**
-
6
7
8
9
10
11
-
12
-.110
-.056
-.004
6. Strengthening school
model
.062
-.090
.072
.758**
.741**
-
7. Shared meaning
8. Sense of
Collaboration
9. Mutual reliance
.008
.075
-.136
.088
.207
-.043
.359
.497*
.434*
.523**
.386
.496*
.297
-
.218
*
.261
.334
-
-.135
.326
*
.183
.088
.113
*
.253
-
10. Access to resources
11. Increased
knowledge
12. Enhanced
organizational capacity
.580
**
-.101
-.130
-.107
.228
-.114
.167
-.001
-.129
.684
5
.348
.252
.528**
.176
.493*
.414
.347
.574**
.429
.432*
-.045
.221
.014
.243
.259
.138
-.046
.400
-.065
.446
13
Likelihood to
recommend
13. Likelihood to
recommend
.264
.287
.004
.299
.329
.347
.299
.507*
.605**
.386
.254
.191
-
Likelihood to
continue
14. Likelihood to
continue
.284
.189
.106
.116
.016
.286
.088
.088
.550**
.527**
.002
-.011
.453*
14
-
Relationship between Functioning Factors and Partnership Sustainability
According to Northmore & Hart (2011), sustainability and partnership functioning are intertwined. To find
out if this is the case with MBAES we calculated the correlation between functioning factors and
sustainability variables, shown in Table 4. Results show that:



Those who are more likely to recommend other organizations to participate in the alliance are
also those who are most likely to continue being partners (rs= .453, p <.05).
Likelihood to recommend the partnership was also found to be significantly correlated to
mutual reliance (rs= .605, p <.01), and sense of collaboration (rs= .507, p <.05); both used to
measure group relationships.
Similarly, likelihood to continue being part of the alliance is highly associated with mutual
reliance (rs= .550, p <.01), and perceived access to resources (rs= .527, p <.01).
6
April, 2016

There is a positive significant correlation between years in the partnership and partner
likelihood to remain in the partnership (rs=.471, p <.05).
DISCUSSION
Project sustainability can be influenced by three different kinds of factors: project design and
implementation; factors within the organizational setting; and factors in the broader community
environment (Schediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998). In the first group of factors stand the project negotiation
process with the community and partners, project effectiveness, project duration, external support, project
type, and the development of strategies to build internal and external capacity. The second set of factors
relate to partnership functioning; that is, the strength of the organizations that support the alliance and
effective leadership. Finally, the third group of factors includes community involvement in the
development of the project and socioeconomic and political factors. Scholars (Borthwick, 1995; DiVa
Consortium, 2011; Devane, 2007; Shea, 2011) have found out that sustainability is influenced by the capacity
of a project to make results visible and relevant to stakeholders keeping them involved and committed to
the project. Effective management and leadership; active participation of target populations; availability of
resources; and a clear sense of direction are also important. Similarly, Borthwick (1995) found that the
central focus of members on shared goals maintains members’ commitment and sustains the partnership.
Genuine reciprocity; trust; mutual learning; collaboration; and equal relationships (Northmore & Hart,
2011), as well as mutually beneficial relationships (Ellis & Leahy, 2011) also make a project sustainable.
In this study we focused our attention on the functioning factors that influence project
sustainability; namely: leadership, partner engagement, group relationships, and partner
perception of benefits. We studied how these functioning factors relate to each other and to
sustainability, defined as: 1) likelihood to continue in the partnership and, 2) likelihood to
recommend to others to participate in the alliance.
Figure 5 below summarizes the relationships between functioning dimensions and the variables used to
measure sustainability. As observed, “Group Relationships” is related to all other dimensions: partner
likelihood to recommend and continue in the partnership; partner engagement, partner perceived benefits,
and number of years in the alliance. Partner perception of benefits is associated with their likelihood to
continue in the partnership. Likelihood to recommend and likelihood to continue, the two variables used to
measure sustainability, are also associated, as expected (Reichheld & Markey, 2011).
Figure 3. Associations between Functioning Dimensions and Sustainability Variables
Partnerships function under the premise that a combined effort of two or more organizations will be more
successful than one organization working alone (Otterbourg & Timpane, 1986). Through coordinated
efforts partners are expected to strengthen not only the capacity of individual member organizations but
also the capacity of the alliance to better respond to the needs of target populations. Collaboration between
7
April, 2016
partners is a manifestation of these relationships and it is essential to reaching effectiveness in generating
adequate solutions to the complex issues partnerships usually address (Miller & Hafner, 2008). In general
collaborative relationships “lay at the heart of sustainability” (Northmore & Hart, 2011, p.9). In the
evaluation study of a university-community child health network, Wright, Williams, Wright, Lieber,
Carrasco, & Gedjeyan (2011) found that the ties that strengthen and sustain a partnership included trusting,
relationships, understanding and respecting cultural differences, communication, and shared power.
Our results show that group relationships within MBAES (specifically mutual reliance and sense of
collaboration) are related to all functioning dimensions (engagement, leadership, and perceived
benefits) and also to the two variables measuring sustainability. Group relationships is also
associated with partnership sustainability; however, while mutual reliance shows a strong and
positive relation to both likelihood to continue and likelihood to recommend; sense of
collaboration is associated only with the latest.
Perceived benefits have also been found to influence partner decision to remain members. Based on the
studies by Buttle (1998) and Hayes (2011), we expected that partners who value the benefits received from
being members in the partnership would be more likely to recommend, and more likely to remain partners
(Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos, 2005; Waterfield, 2006).
A significant correlation was found between perceived benefits and likelihood to continue, but no
significant association was found with likelihood to recommend.
Engagement is also considered an important piece for sustainability. Contrary to sporadic, probably
unrelated contributions, engagement implies contributions intentionally aimed towards positively
impacting the partnership itself, its projects and target communities. When partners are committed to the
success of the partnership they provide not only services and connections to the community; but also bring
their own network of contacts to help address specific community issues. As the networks of agencies,
services, funding opportunities, political influences, and resources grows through partners, the
opportunities to improve quality of service and affect the chain of factors that influence goal attainment
also increase (Sanzo, Alvarez, Rey & Garcia, 2013), positively affecting sustainability.
No direct association was found between engagement and sustainability. However, engagement is
associated with group relationships, which happens to be related to both likelihood to continue in
the partnership and likelihood to recommend. Further multi-variate analysis with larger
populations will help to determine the direction of the relationships and the potential of
engagement to affect sustainability through its influence on group relationships.
Finally leadership has been considered a factor that not only affects group relationships and collaboration
(Lasker, et al., 2001), but also sustainability (Schediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998).
A strong association was found between leadership (mission alignment) and group relationships
(mutual reliance); but no relationship was found between leadership and sustainability. A possible
hypothesis to be studied further is whether the effects of leadership on sustainability are exerted
through its influence on group relationships.
This preliminary analysis of the data suggests that in order to build the case for MBAES sustainability,
leadership has to be more intentional in aligning partners with MBAES goals by sharing results, and
8
April, 2016
clarifying partner roles in goal attainment. Results also suggest that MBAES leadership should pay attention
to building an environment for collaboration, since this feature, together with mutual reliance
demonstrated to be key to sustain the alliance.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Implications for further research
This is considered to be the first of series of evaluative studies to understand university-community
partnership functioning and sustainability. The study covers only the results of the analysis of quantitative
data for a lager MBAES study that includes qualitative data collected by the evaluation team using focus
group and interview methods. The project also comprises a separate study about MBAES impact on families
conducted by a graduate student working in the OCE Family, School and Neighborhood Engagement
(FSNE) office. All data analyzed together by the group of scholars involved in the project will shed light on
some of the results and some unobserved relationships.
One of the limitations of this study is that the small sample of survey respondents prevents from doing
further analysis to understand which factors are the most important in predicting sustainability. Factor
analysis was used as an exploratory technique to determine the structure of the data; however, further
analysis with a larger sample across different IUPUI partnerships is needed to increase factor reliability and
create a more robust evaluation instrument.
Practical implications for the IUPUI Office of Community Engagement
This study informs partnership leadership and members about the key factors that characterize the alliance
and the most important features that they must attend to in order to establish more sustainable
community-university partnerships. It also confirms to the OCE community the importance of building
relationships of mutuality and collaboration and creates awareness about how critical time and
communication are to build strong relationships.
Strong university-community partnerships are essential to the goals of OCE and FSNE; studying in depth
the features of the relationships built to improve quality of life in the neighborhoods of the urban core will
increase OCE capacity to be more responsive to the needs and expectations of community partners and
increase OCE effectiveness.
References
Afsana, K., Habte, D., Hatfield, J., Murphy, J., & Neufeld, V. (2009). Partnership assessment toolkit. Ottawa:
Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research.
Blank, M. J., & Langford, B. H. (2000). Strengthening Partnerships: Community School Assessment
Checklist.
Borthwick, A. G. (1995). School-University-Community Collaboration: Establishing and Maintaining
Partnerships for School Improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association San Francisco, April, 1995
Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of strategic
marketing, 6(3), 241-254.
9
April, 2016
Butterfoss, F. D., Center for Pediatric Research; Center for Health Promotion, South Carolina DHEC, 1994.
Revised 1998. Coalition Effectiveness Inventory
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations
for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Available
http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
publications.
Devane, T. (2007). Sustainability of results. In Holman, P., Devane, T., & Cady, S. (2007). The change
handbook: The definitive resource on today's best methods for engaging whole systems. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
DiVa Consortium. (2011). Handbook for Dissemination, Exploitation and Sustainability of Educational
Projects. Available http://www.aidlearn.com/eng//uploads//DiVa%20Handbook%20_%20FINAL.pdf
Ellis, B., & Leahy, M. A Mutually Beneficial Relationship. Gateways: International Journal of Community
Research and Engagement, 4, 154–67.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of stakeholder satisfaction, relationship
commitment dimensions, and triggers on stakeholder retention. Journal of marketing, 69(4), 210-218.
Han, C. H., Connolly, P. M., & Canham, D. (2003). Measuring patient satisfaction as an outcome of nursing
care at a teaching hospital of southern Taiwan. Journal of nursing care quality, 18(2), 143-150.
Hayes, B. E. (2011). Lessons in Loyalty. Quality Progress, 44(3), 24
Lasker, R. D., & Weiss, E. S. (2003). Creating partnership synergy: the critical role of community
stakeholders. Journal of health and human services administration, 119-139.
Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and
strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179.
Miller, P. M., & Hafner, M. M. (2008). Moving Toward Dialogical Collaboration: A Critical Examination of a
University-School-Community Partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110.
Northmore, S., & Hart, A. (2011). Sustaining community-university partnerships. Gateways: International
Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 4, 1-11.
Otterbourg, S. D., & Timpane, M. (1986). Partnerships and schools. Proceedings of the Academy of Political
Science, 60-73.
Reichheld, F. F., & Markey, R. (2011). The Ultimate Question 2.0: How net promoter companies thrive in a
customer-driven world. Harvard Business Press.
10
April, 2016
Reiker, P. (2011). Partnership evaluation guidebook and resources. Centers for disease control and
prevention, evaluation technical assistance document: Division of nutrition, physical activity, and
obesity (DNPAO).Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of extension,
37(2), 1-5.
Sanzo, M. J., Álvarez, L. I., Rey, M., & García, N. (2015). Business–Nonprofit Partnerships Do Their Effects
Extend Beyond the Charitable Donor-Recipient Model? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
44(2), 379-400.
Shah, S. C., Brink, K., London, R., Masur, S., & Quihuis, G. (2009). Community Schools Evaluation
Toolkit. Coalition for Community Schools. Available
http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/Evaluation_Toolkit_March2010.pdf
Shea, J. (2011). Sustainable Engagement? Reflections on the development of a creative community-university
partnership. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 4, 136-153.
Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health
programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health
education research, 13(1), 87-108.
Waterfield, C. (2006). The Challenges of Measuring Stakeholder Retention. Putting Stakeholder Assessment
to Work Technical. Note, 2.
Weiss, E. S., Anderson, R. M., & Lasker, R. D. (2002). Making the most of collaboration: exploring the
relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health Education &
Behavior, 29(6), 683-698.
Williams, M., & Buttle, F. (2013). Managing word-of-mouth: A nonprofit case study. Journal of Nonprofit &
public sector marketing, 25(3), 284-308.
Wright, K. N., Williams, P., Wright, S., Lieber, E., Carrasco, S. R., & Gedjeyan, H. (2011). Ties that bind:
Creating and sustaining community-academic partnerships. Gateways: International Journal of
Community Research and Engagement, 4, 83-99.
Wymer, W., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2016). Supporter Loyalty Conceptualization, Measurement, and
Outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 172-191.
11
April, 2016