Collaboration:
One
of Seven Science-Based Prevention Strategies
WHAT
WORKS IN PREVENTION?
Researchers
at the national level are making great strides toward answering
this important question. In recent years, they have distilled
effective strategies and principles from the many programs that
seek to prevent and reduce substance abuse. Now, across the country,
more and more practitioners are coming to understand how critical
it is to identify and use science-based strategies that are likely
to be effective in meeting the needs of the people they serve.
For
the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Gardner and
Brounstein have identified principles of effective substance abuse
prevention.1
From
these, CSAP’s Northeast CAPT has specified seven effective
prevention approaches. (See chart before endnotes.) They are:
- Policy
- Enforcement
- Collaboration
- Communications
- Education
- Early
Intervention
- Alternatives
In
today’s world, there is no one prescribed formula for collaboration.
People—and the situations they face—determine how collaborations
come about, the level of trust established, what the objectives
and activities will be, and what actions will be taken. Collaboration
teams can start with as few as two reliable and motivated people.
These relationships can evolve from various levels: the state
or the community, interagency or intra-agency. Collaboration is
not static; it can move from informal to more formal relationships
and resource exchanges, and back again.
As
communities around the country are learning, the key to effective
prevention is to use multiple strategies, in multiple settings,
toward one common goal. Communities should examine their local
situations, identify their specific needs, and look for ways to
combine seven strategies that have proven effective: policy, enforcement,
collaboration, communications, education, early intervention,
and alternatives.
Multiple
strategies, in multiple settings, toward one common goal.
WHAT
IS COLLABORATION?
Collaboration
is a process of participation through which people, groups, and
organizations come together in a mutually beneficial and well-defined
relationship to work toward results they are more likely to achieve
together than alone.2,3
More
often than not collaboration is viewed as a technique by which
agencies and organizations pool their human resources to maximize
the dollars they have. However, in the field of prevention it
is also regarded as a value. Collaboration reflects a point of
view: that by working together partners, formal or informal, can
bring different perspectives to bear to solve a problem and bring
about change. Collaboration can have a positive impact on the
health and quality of life of a state or community. Thinking and
behaving collaboratively has been shown to be effective in raising
awareness about substance abuse and violence and in coordinating
prevention and treatment services.
SOME
HISTORY
The
increasing trend toward collaborative business partnerships was
evident as early as the mid-nineteenth century. Beginning in the
1860s, partnerships between two or more individuals flourished
in the United States, especially among tradespeople and retailers.
Since the early 1900s, there has been a dramatic increase in the
number of nonprofit organizations around the country beginning
to explore collaboration as a means to expand their capacity to
do business and deliver services.
In
the 1930s there was a resurgence of partnerships between the government
and the private sector. Three federal agencies—the National
Youth Administration, the Works Progress Administration, and the
Public Works Administration—had formal links to private sector
companies.
In
the 1940s, during World War II, President Roosevelt sought collaboration
between the federal government and industry, primarily to boost
production of goods for wartime. In the 1960s, in perhaps the
most prominent example of private/public collaboration, the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 was created, providing, among other things,
for the creation of Community Action Agencies—community-based
entities, mostly nonprofit agencies, that were funded directly
by the federal government. Community Action Agencies marked a
change in the pattern of funding streams, which traditionally
flowed from federal to state to local governments.4
McCambridge
and Weis suggest that today agencies and organizations are engaging
in an increasing number of collaborative activities for a variety
of reasons:5
- The
reorganization of public funding and new trends in public and
political thought, which now demand greater accountability for
the outcomes of social programs
- Infusion
of the managed care ideology and structures into both human
services and health care
- Competition
from both nonprofit and for-profit organizations
- Changing
community demographics
Collaboration
may take place at the state, community, agency, or intra-agency
level (see Types of Collaboration, below). For example, an increasing
number of community collaborations are developing from grassroots
efforts mobilizing residents to address neighborhood concerns.
These neighborhood collaborations may seek to:
- Design
their own solutions to community needs such as neighborhood
safety
- Ensure
a stronger voice and better representation of their interests
at the community level
- Negotiate
new service delivery arrangements in the neighborhood
- Engage
in community-building efforts that reweave the social fabric
of the neighborhood
- Increase
residents’ socioeconomic levels and job development opportunities
Neighborhood
efforts typically do not include those individuals with direct
decision-making authority over the allocation of resources at
the community level, but the efforts do seek to influence those
decision-makers.6 One example is the Butchers Hill
Association, in East Baltimore, Maryland.
Neighborhood
Collaboration: An Illustration7
Residents
of an East Baltimore neighborhood used a nuisance abatement strategy
to reduce youth access to illegal drugs by closing down a drug
house. The Butcher Hill neighborhood was first settled by German
merchants and Jewish tradesmen but has since grown to become a
diverse community representing a wide range of ages, ethnicities
and occupations. The Butcher Hill Association is the organizing
and decision-making body of the community, and promotes community
activities through its website and a monthly newsletter.
The
Association enables community members to work together to solve
problems. In 1993, for instance, community members recognized
that a vacant and abandoned house in the Butcher Hill neighborhood
had become a base of criminal drug operations. Working together,
members of the community notified the owner of the vacant drug
house that they would board up the property if he failed to do
so. When he did not, they boarded up the property, using plywood
anchored to frames of 2 x 4s, careful not to cause any permanent
damage to the property. They sealed the basement entrance, boarded
all doors and windows, and cleaned the backyard of drug paraphernalia
and trash.
The
community residents then took the owner to court to recover their
costs in labor and materials, and were awarded $340.15 from the
District Court. The drug house remained secure for months, eliminating
most of the drug dealing from the property and surrounding street
corners. The Butcher Hill residents plan to continue to use this
strategy to deal with the other vacant drug houses in their neighborhood
and take other steps to demonstrate a more stable and on-going
approach to strengthening the neighborhood.
How
can potential partners think constructively about creating effective
collaborations or improving the ones they are in now? What aspects
of collaboration are useful to focus on? This paper discusses
these elements:
- Continuum
of Collaboration
- Benefits
and Costs of Collaboration
- Types
of Collaboration
- Stages
of Collaboration
- Characteristics
of Effective Collaboration Leaders
Continuum
of collaboration
While
the word "collaboration" is widely used, it often means
different things to different people. It is useful to think about
collaboration as taking place along a continuum. Partners may
find themselves in relationships that vary from lower-intensity
exchanges, in which the players are more independent, to higher-intensity
relationships, in which they are more interdependent.
In
one model, these differences in intensity are reflected in four
common terms: networking, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration.8
Networking
Cooperation Coordination Collaboration
Lower-intensity
Higher-intensity
Independence
Interdependence
Figure
1: Continuum of Collaboration
Networking
Networking
is defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit. The most
informal of exchanges, it can be easily used to bring agencies
or individuals together to discuss common interests. Networking
often reflects an initial level of trust (but also reflects the
realities of limited time availability and a reluctance to share
turf.)9 For instance, one agency may invite several
others to come to the table to explore the issue of underage drinking
in the community. This might be the first step toward a coalition-building
effort to address the environmental issues: access to alcohol
and community norms that currently support alcohol use.
Cooperation
For
many situations, a cooperative arrangement is enough—not
every challenge requires full-scale collaboration. Agencies may
realize that they can expand their capacity through informal arrangements
in which they share information with other organizations without
clearly defining a mission, structure, or planning process.10
In a cooperative arrangement, participants help one another meet
their respective organizational goals, but do not make any substantial
changes in the basic services they provide or in the rules and
regulations that govern their agencies. Each partner retains complete
autonomy.11
Cooperation
requires some commitment of shared resources, including knowledge,
staffing, physical property, access to people, and money. Cooperating
also requires a substantial amount of time and a high level of
trust among participants.12 For example, several agencies
may join together, pool human resources and dollars, and apply
for and win a grant to jointly address the environmental issues
that affect underage drinking.
Coordination
In
some instances, organizations or agencies find that they can expand
their capacity through a more formal relationship. They decide
to focus their interactions around specific efforts or programs,
exchanging information and altering activities for their mutual
benefit to achieve a common purpose. "Coordination requires
some planning and division of roles and opens channels of communication
between organizations," say collaboration experts Winer and
Ray.13 However, although the participating agencies
contribute time, staff, and funding to make the events a success,
coordination does not require that they make changes to their
organization’s systems. Authority still rests with the individual
organizations, and the arrangement is limited to sharing resources
for a specific program or goal. For example, several agencies
may create a common training system to trainings and other professional
development activities that will promote knowledge and strategies
to apply science-based prevention.
Collaboration
In
some cases, organizations or agencies decide that the best way
to meet a challenge is to expand their capacity through a full
partnership or collaboration, sharing resources and leadership
to accomplish common goals on an ongoing basis.14
Collaboration
techniques are essential to achieving increased capacity because
they allow community members to identify problems and increase
the likelihood that they will reach consensus on goals and implementation
strategies.15 The qualitative difference between collaborating
and cooperating is the willingness of organizations (or individuals)
to enhance one another’s capacity for mutual benefit and
a common purpose. When organizations fully collaborate, they share
risks, responsibilities, and rewards. Collaborating is usually
characterized by substantial time commitments, very high levels
of trust, and extensive areas of common turf.16 For
example, members of a prevention coalition may work to develop
a common vision and mission for their agencies, articulate common
prevention goals, and share human resources to achieve them.
BENEFITS
AND COSTS OF COLLABORATING
"People
collaborate when they see there’s a win-win opportunity."17
—Bruner,
1999
It
is important that agencies find mutually satisfying benefits that
will have an impact on the community if they are to maintain their
motivation and commitment. Collaboration provides opportunities
to share human, financial, and informational resources. Well-implemented
partnerships benefit all parties by building strong relationships
among agencies, organizations, and/or community residents; enhancing
service delivery by reducing fragmentation and duplication; and
fostering a safer environment for children and families.18
Collaborations
can help improve health, quality of life, and socioeconomic levels
in communities. They can help achieve the following benefits:19
- Prevention
and health put high on the community political agenda
- Reduced
disparity in health status among citizens
- Improved
health status and quality of life
- Improved
conditions that have a direct impact on individual and community
health, such as housing, education, and the physical environment
- Different
groups and professions attracted to and included in the process
of improving health
Increased
capacity to address complex problems
- Improved
public policies and services that affect the health of the community
- New
partnerships established and sustained
Collaboration
costs are minimized when collaboration teams use basic practices
for successful collaboration. Yet, there are always some costs
to collaboration, such as:
- Committing
human and financial resources
- Committing
increased time
- Changing
individual and/or organizational behaviors to focus on working
together, and/or shared leadership, common vision, and decision
making
- Letting
go of competition and embracing cooperation
- Providing
ongoing training, conflict resolution, and negotiation
In
addition to the expenses of time and money, there may be a shift
in control: some degree of individual self-interest and organizational
interest may be compromised in an effort to reach mutually satisfying
outcomes and common benefits.
TYPES
OF COLLABORATION
The
history of the practice of collaboration suggests that changing
demographics and economic, social, and political forces stimulate
the development of collaborations, and that they do so in different
ways. While governmental resources for health and human service
programs are often allocated through top-down strategies, the
formation of collaborations is usually more multi-dimensional.
Some collaborations arise as a result of top-down approaches;
others spring from grassroots organizing.
Creative
collaborations are those that extend beyond organizational and
geographic boundaries. According to Hargrove, creative collaboration
means pulling together a wide range of people from different cultures
and backgrounds who then build new, shared understandings that
lead to innovative and dramatic activities.20 This
multi-dimensional model of collaboration:
- Designates
new possibilities and seeks creative, entrepreneurial results
- Builds
collaborative networks and new patterns of relationships and
interactions
- Promotes
an attitude of learning
- Emphasizes
the value of listening to deeply understand others
- Empowers
others on the job by acknowledging talents and gifts
"It
takes only one or two people to start successful collaboration
efforts."
—National
Study on Collaboration, 1998
Community
Collaboration
Coalition
building has been the most visible form of community collaboration
and has proven to be an effective approach to rallying local forces
in order to combat substance abuse. As the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services states, "There is a growing recognition
that more can be accomplished when all segments of the community
come together to address community needs and build on community
assets."21
The
theories of community organization and freeing underlie the effectiveness
of community collaborations. Community organization is defined
as the process by which community groups are helped to identify
common problems or goals, mobilize resources, and develop and
implement strategies for reaching the goals they have collectively
set. Implicit in this definition is the concept of empowerment,
that individuals or communities can take control over their lives
and environments.
In
the theory of freeing, Freire suggests that people become empowered
or "free" by being critically conscious.22
Consciousness both influences and is influenced by culture. Education
is the key to becoming critically conscious. Education and community
change occur through three stages: listening, dialogue, and action.
In addition, the structure and functioning of social networks,
and the extent of their connections within and across neighborhoods,
will affect a community’s ability to address problems at
various levels.23
In
practice, a coalition or community collaboration
is a team of individuals, usually representing different backgrounds
and fields, who organize to address a community concern that transcends
any one organization’s capacity to respond.24
A community may be loosely defined as a group of people residing
in a specific geographic area who are bound together by political,
economic, and social interests. In urban areas, a community may
comprise several city blocks, whereas, in more rural and sparsely
populated areas, a community may span several counties. (In broad
terms, a state can be viewed as a community, with common governances
and concerns.)
A
community collaboration focuses on setting goals to improve results
for children, youth, families, and neighborhoods across a broad
range of dimensions of well being, including socioeconomic improvements.
Often starting as a coordinating and planning body that involves
local government and major service funders, community-wide collaborations
usually seek to engage representatives from diverse sectors of
the community, from parents to policymakers, from business and
civic leaders to neighborhood leaders, and from public agencies
to community-based organizations. The National Network for Collaborations
has identified eight common guidelines for community collaborations:25
- Share
ideas and be willing to pull resources from existing systems.
- Ensure
the commitment of team members for a minimum of three years.
- Keep
all members involved in decision making.
- Define
roles and time commitments.
- Create
formal links with a written agreement.
- Develop
new resources and a joint budget.
- Share
leadership.
- Maintain
and value communication.
Community
Collaboration: An Illustration
Fighting
Back was developed as part of an initiative by the city of New
Haven, Connecticut, to address substance abuse in the city. Since
1992, New Haven’s Fighting Back has been a catalyst for building
local anti-drug coalitions and promoting effective strategies
to reduce the demand for drugs and alcohol. The strength and heart
of the coalition comes from the community members who serve as
administrators and in other key roles. This diverse group represents
many of the community’s organizations, such as local hospitals,
city offices, fire and police departments, local businesses, and
a variety of neighborhood associations. It is their collaboration
that has lead to the success of Fighting Back.
Fighting
Back began by launching an aggressive public education campaign.
Through public forums and one-on-one sessions, community members
were educated about the dangers of alcohol and other drug use
and about the impact they, as individual community members, can
have in their community. Getting folks to the table was difficult
at first. But as community awareness grew, Fighting Back shifted
its focus from educating the public to building a "critical
mass" for change by recruiting key community members to the
coalition. As the members came together and saw how the community
would benefit from their efforts, they began to feel empowered.
Eventually community members took ownership of the problem. As
membership grew, the coalition developed a clear mission and an
action plan to guide program design and implementation.
Today,
Fighting Back is a very focused and productive coalition that
works with government agencies, private nonprofit agencies and
community organizations to address alcohol and other drug abuse.
This success would not have been possible without the strong community
collaboration that was built through gradual steps over time.
Interagency
Collaboration
Sometimes
two or more agencies see the benefit of working together, short
of joining forces in a full-fledged coalition or community collaboration.
These Interagency collaborations identify areas in which
a more coordinated approach among providers can help participating
agencies better understand the various roles each plays in the
prevention system. More fully aware of one another’s organizational
demands, each agency may become more willing to assume its rightful
share of the work and refrain from seeing other agencies as part
of the problem.26
Interagency
collaboration often occurs at the administrative level but it
can also occur among workers at the service-delivery level, who
may be given incentives and other types of support to encourage
joint efforts with staff in other agencies.
The
theory behind organizational change is that organizations work
together to link their efforts in order to create more comprehensive
and effective responses and is based on three types of network
development:
- Exchange
networks focused on a few joint activities
- Action
networks that share resources
- Systemic
networks that formalize long-term links to abet the joint production
of goods and services 27
In
practice, this kind of collaboration demonstrates the importance
of partnerships among agencies that have overlapping or related
missions. Understanding what programs already exist and which
agencies have the appropriate resources and skills to implement
an approach is important for prevention practitioners. Multi-agency
collaboration can:
- Increase
the coordination of efforts between public and private agencies
and between law enforcement and service providers28
- Assemble
teams that can work together to secure funding for substance
use prevention programming efforts
- Increase
access to and quality of prevention and treatment services
- Increase
implementation of effective interventions
A
study conducted by the National Association of Community Action
Agencies collected responses from 125 organizations in 45 states.
Most of the organizations were private, nonprofit, multi-service
community action agencies; each was involved in at least one collaborative
effort and most were involved in several. The study
found that in more than half of the collaborations examined, just
one or two people were instrumental in starting the effort.
These people tended to be known for their reliability (follow-through)
and expertise in the area of collaboration that the effort was
addressing. These people also continued in a leadership role once
a planning and coordination team was established to implement
the collaboration’s work plan.29
In
prevention, one common form of interagency collaboration is service
integration, which creates a continuum from prevention to intervention
to treatment to aftercare within a community. Unfortunately, a
review of the literature indicates that all too often insufficient
attention is paid to creating or promoting this type of integration.
As a result, many opportunities for collaboration are missed at
the federal, state, and local levels, resulting in either a redundancy
or a paucity of critical services.
Intra-Agency
Collaboration
Intra-agency
collaboration focuses on changing policies, systems, and practices
within a single agency or organization. Underpinning this kind
of collaboration, organizational change theory provides a fundamental
understanding of the ways in which an agency changes to innovate
toward new goals, programs, technologies, and ideas; and how an
agency develops to improve organizational effectiveness.
30
Adjusting
institutional practices has two clear advantages. The first is
an immediate increase in an agency’s capacity to move its
program objectives forward. The second is the increased likelihood
that the program will be sustained over time.
In
practice, intra-agency collaboration can exist between frontline
workers and others in the same agency, particularly immediate
supervisors. A collegial setting—one in which frontline workers
collaborate with supervisors, and other staff, both in handling
individual cases and setting agency goals—balances responsibility
with authority, and enhances the capacity of workers to collaborate
with clients.31
Intra-Agency
Collaboration: An Illustration
In
Massachusetts, three departments working for the City of Cambridge
collaborated to develop a middle-school survey, designed to identify
substance abuse behavior trends in area schools. Data from the
middle-school survey was used to develop various policy and program
changes, such as a major overhaul of the health curriculum in
the city’s middle schools. The three departments involved
in the collaboration were the Cambridge Prevention Coalition,
Cambridge Health Department, and Cambridge School Department.
The
three collaborating departments began working together in 1992
to design and implement the "Student Health Surveys."
Two different surveys, targeting different education levels, are
administered to students on alternating years: the middle school
survey (odd years) and the high school survey (even years). The
procedure involves collecting completed surveys, analyzing the
data, and conducting a final evaluation by an executive committee.
The committee meets every spring to examine results of the previous
year’s survey and make policy recommendations for the coming
fall.
Such
a process took place in 2001 with an evaluation of the previous
year’s middle school survey. Examining the 2000 survey data,
the committee saw a positive correlation between rates of substance
abuse and school performance. After careful evaluation, the executive
committee decided it was necessary to develop policy changes that
would address the substance abuse trends identified in the survey.
As
a result, the collaborating agencies pooled their resources and
knowledge to develop a new health curriculum for the city’s
middle schools. This new curriculum will be delivered in fall
2001.
Without
the collaboration of each of the three departments, the survey
would not have yielded such results. It was only through the careful
coordination of activities and tasks, as well as the contributions
from each department, that the survey was administered, the results
evaluated, and meaningful policy changes implemented.
STAGES
OF COLLABORATION
The
Together We Can Model of Collaboration, based on the work of the
1991 Study Group on Services Integration convened by the U.S.
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, has been
adapted for state agencies, providers, and communities into four
stages of collaboration: getting together, building trust, developing
a strategic plan, and taking action.
Figure
2: Stages of Collaboration32
Getting
Together
In
this stage, a small group comes together to explore how to address
an issue or need of mutual concern. Initial members identify others
who may have a stake in the same issue, and invite them to the
table. The expanded group then explores initial ground rules for
working together.
The
developmental path of each effort is shaped by the players involved
and the circumstances of its birth. In some cases, one agency
or organization may extend an invitation to one or several potential
partners with a specific purpose in mind; for example, the invitation
may go out in response to a request for a proposal from a government
agency or foundation. In other cases, a community leader, recognizing
the potential benefit of a successful joint effort, invites representatives
of a broad array of community groups to explore ways that they
can better serve their customers through joint initiatives (e.g.,
to create affordable housing or to address an increase in community
violence).
The
National Association of Community Action Agencies collaboration
study found that fully half of the collaborations examined came
together in response to a crisis in the community.33
A third of the respondents said that the most compelling reason
for collaboration was to respond to funding source requirements,
with almost a third citing the need to respond to persistent and
growing community problems.
How
can we be effective at this stage?
There is no one formula for developing a successful collaborative
relationship. It may begin with:
- The
need to respond to a crisis
- A
purpose in mind (e.g., to respond to a request for a proposal)
- A
desire to explore common interests and concerns
- A
chance to take advantage of a funding opportunity
The
following principles are key to successfully initiating an effective
collaboration:34
- Focus
on how to work well together.
- Enlist
broad support and involvement from the community.
- Be
part of a comprehensive effort.
- Coordinate
with other community efforts.
- Promote
or involve communities that are mobilized and/or ready to engage
in community change efforts.
- Recruit
and involve members whose positions, expertise, or skills match
the purpose and plan of the coalition.
Building
Trust
In
this stage, team members make a joint commitment to become partners.
They may even commit start-up resources. Partners exchange information
and their views on the issue that brought them together. They
create a shared vision of what they hope to accomplish and revisit
their initial ground rules for working together. Partners have
specific, clear goals and expectations for the effort and for
each organization. They stay persistent and focused, especially
when challenges occur. They focus on the process of working together,
making their values explicit, working to stay open with one another,
and communicating frequently, striving to be inclusive, and creating
a flexible environment.35
How
can we be effective at this stage?
During this stage, the team works toward short-term successes
that can strengthen its relationships and demonstrate its potential.
The team often needs to work through embedded issues of race,
class, and gender, as well as other issues it identifies, in order
to strengthen trust and relationships among team members. Trust
is not automatically given; it takes time to create trust by getting
to know and respond to one another’s philosophies, priorities,
and services. Understanding organizational cultures and values
is a prerequisite for partners hoping to work together successfully.
Once the team has generated sufficient trust and ownership in
its shared work, it may begin to develop a strategic plan.
The
following principles are key to success at the trust-building
stage:
- Act
in an inclusive manner.
- Reach
out to different populations at risk.
- Respect
the opinions voiced by all team members.
- Listen
closely to one another.
- Take
the time needed to continue to build trust.
Developing
a Strategic Plan
In
this stage, the collaboration team defines the specific results
it seeks and identifies the changes desired in existing services,
supports, and opportunities, as well as new approaches to achieving
those results. The team also develops a strategy for accumulating
sufficient resources—from members and other sources—to
support its plan. The plan should include approaches to strengthen
parent, consumer, and neighborhood participation; develop leaders
and professional and paraprofessional staff who can operate in
new ways; and enhance the overall capacity to fulfill its mission.
The plan should also describe how the team would engage and inform
the public about its work.
A
collaboration will not necessarily address each element of systems
reform in its initial plan, given the complexity of the challenges
it faces. Over time, however, the plan should address all of the
elements of systems reform.
At
the end of this stage the team completes its plan and moves toward
implementation. At this point, the collaboration should review
its organizational structure to ensure that it can effectively
oversee the implementation of the plan.
How
can we be effective at this stage?
Strategic planning is effective at this stage when the team:
- Possesses
a shared vision of purpose and direction
- Follows
a structured organizational plan
- Avoids
elaborate organizational and committee structures
- Encourages
a leadership of ideas
- Has
specific measurable objectives and activities, which should
be time-limited, feasible (given available resources and other
constraints), and integrated so that they work together across
program components and can be used to evaluate program progress
and outcomes36
Taking
Action
This
stage is about putting ideas into action. Partners begin to implement
the strategies that define the plan. Program administrators and
members of governing bodies and policy groups must be brought
to the table, if they are not already involved, to approve the
plan’s interagency agreements. Sometimes partnering organizations
find that they need to commit resources beyond those already provided;
often, they need to revise or modify their organizations’
existing policies and procedures in order to support the plan.37
Truly
successful collaborations continue to achieve their mission long
after the thrill of the creative process has been forgotten. In
many cases, the pioneers who originally came together, built trust,
and developed a plan among their respective organizations now
hand off the work of the collaboration to other organization members
who will carry out the strategic plan.
To
ensure that the creation will continue to thrive, collaboration
architects need to put mechanisms in place for ongoing communication,
advocacy, evaluation, and problem solving among the organizations
involved. They also need to develop a supportive culture among
the partners.
How
can we be effective at this stage?
Performance data and parent and consumer feedback can enable the
team to modify its plans and begin to address the policies and
practices that are obstacles to achieving its goals. Leadership
and professional development activities will strengthen the capacity
of participating organizations to deliver more effective services,
supports, and opportunities and to build a foundation for expansion
of its strategies
CHARACTERISTICS
OF EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION LEADERS
Go
to the people. Live among them. Learn from them. Love them. Start
with what they know. Build with what they have. But of the best
leaders, when their task is done, the people will remark: "We
have done it ourselves."
—Chinese
Proverb
What
do we know about the characteristics of the people who
drive successful collaborations? As a rule, three things are true
of successful collaborators:
38
- They
are visionaries who are willing to take risks.
- They
are driven by principle, rather than regulations.
- They
are acutely aware of how their own services interconnect with
those of others in the community, because they view the world
through a systems perspective.
The
type of leader and his or her characteristics and skills will
determine the success of the collaboration. While leadership is
often defined as "who is in power," the definition of
leadership for successful collaboration is broadened to include
those who effect change within their communities, groups, and/or
organizations.39
In
general, three kinds of leaders can be found in a collaboration:
natural, active, and recognized. One person may fit all three leadership
types and all three are equally valuable.
- Natural
leaders have a knack for relationship building; they are
charismatic and know how to get people motivated.
- Active
leaders are usually the frontline workers—the people
who implement prevention programs on a day-to-day basis.
- Recognized
leaders are the ones a community defers to for direction
or facilitation that involves an outside organization or group.
Within an organization, the recognized leaders are the managers
or officials who are formally appointed to direct a prevention
project or initiative.
The
precise leadership qualities needed in a specific collaboration
are determined partly by the cultural context, need, and structure
of the state, the community, or the organization. Overall, however,
Bruner argues that the skills needed to make collaboration work
are different from the competitive skills required for success
within an organization.40
Leaders
everywhere have risen to the top of their organizations because
of their ability and willingness to make unilateral decisions
and carry through on them. Often, they have a specialized knowledge
in a narrow field. They also succeed because of their skill in
marketing both themselves and their organizations.
Successful
collaborators, on the other hand, require interpersonal skills
that allow them to share decision-making responsibility and practice
the patience needed to build consensus among parties with different
orientations. Rather than holding a specialist perspective, the
collaborator needs to understand the big picture and appreciate
the perspectives, needs, and resources that others in the collaborative
bring. Skilled collaborators do not seek to advance themselves
or their own organizations; instead they look for ways to advance
the agenda of the collaboration.
Respondents
to the National Association of Community Action Agencies study
identified several qualities as characteristic of successful collaboration
leaders.41 These characteristics and the percentage
of respondents citing each one are as follows:
- A
reputation for reliability—25.69%
- Expertise
related to the issue being addressed—24.31%
- Charisma—15.28%
- The
ability to relate to a cross-section of groups—13.88%
- In
a powerful position—11.81%
- Access
to money or important people—9.03%
It
is interesting to note the importance of reliability, expertise,
charisma, and the ability to relate to a cross-section of groups,
compared to being in a powerful position or having access to money
or important people. Clearly, natural and active leadership qualities
outweigh recognized formal authority.
Research
also demonstrates that how leaders lead is a factor in
ensuring successful and satisfactory community participation.
Characteristics such as leadership and decision-making style,
networking and visibility, and political efficacy are related
to the maintenance of coalitions and community groups.42
Kumpfer et al. defined an empowering leadership style as one in
which team leaders encourage and support team members’ ideas
and planning efforts, use democratic decision-making processes,
and encourage networking and information sharing. 43
This style, they found, is related to the quality of coalition
work plans,member satisfaction, perceptions of team efficacy,
and member knowledge.
Collaboration
ultimately occurs among people and not among institutions. While
participants can and should bring with them the power to influence
activities within their institutions, collaboration itself occurs
as a social process among people."44
—Bruner,
1999
Final
Points on Successful Collaborations
Rather
than having to "re-invent the wheel," we can learn from
others’ successes and mistakes. What have other groups and
organizations learned about creating a successful collaboration?
According to the National Association of Community Action Agencies
study, the key elements of successful collaboration are these:45
- Successful
collaboration addresses an important community need.
- Members
of the collaboration focus on how to work well together.
- The
collaboration has broad support and involvement from the community.
- The
collaboration is inclusive.
- Collaboration
members are willing to invest the time needed, and see the collaboration
as a long-term effort.
- The
collaboration emphasizes shared decisionmaking.
- The
collaboration frequently requires participants to change the
way they do things in their own organizations.
"I
have learned that in order to bring about change, you must not
be afraid to take the first step. We only fail when we fail to
try."
—Rosa
Parks46
|
Table
1: Continuum of Collaboration47
|
| Level |
Purpose |
Structure |
Process |
| Networking |
•
Provide dialogue and common understanding
• Create clearinghouse for information
• Create base of support |
•
Non-hierarchical
• Loose/flexible link
• Roles are loosely defined
• Community action is primary link among members |
•
Low-key leadership
• Minimal decision making
• Little conflict
• Informal communication |
| Cooperation
|
•
Match needs and provide coordination
• Limit duplication of services
• Ensure that tasks are done |
•
Central team acts as communication hub
• Semi-formal links
• Roles are somewhat defined
• Links are advisory
• Group leveragesraises money |
•
Leaders who facilitate
• Complex decision making
• Some conflict
• Formal communication within the central team |
| Coordination
|
•
Share resources to address common issues
• Merge resource base to create something new |
•
Central team consists of decision makers
• Roles are defined
• Links are formalized
• Team develops new resources and joint budget |
•
Autonomous leadership focused on issue
• Central and subgroup decision making
• Frequent and clear communication |
| Collaboration
|
•
Accomplish shared vision and impact benchmarks
• Build interdependent system to address issues and opportunities
|
•
Consensus is used in shared decision making
• Roles, time, and evaluation are formalized
• Links are formal and written into agreements |
•
High leadership, trust level, and productivity
• Ideas and decisions equally shared
• Highly developed communication |
COLLABORATION
RESOURCES
Print
Materials
Bruner,
C. and Chavez, M. (1998). Getting to the grassroots: Neighborhood
organizing and Mobilization. St. Paul, MN: Child and Family
Policy Center, Center for the Study of Social Policy and Family
Resource Coalition of America, National Center for Service Integration
Clearinghouse. Guidebook 6 in A Matter of Commitment: Community
Collaboration Guidebook Series. This guidebook addresses neighborhood
and consumer participation and involvement in constructing those
services and supports and other conditions required to ensure
sound futures for children and communities.
The
National Network for Collaboration. (1995). Collaboration framework:
Addressing community capacity. The Collaboration Framework is
designed to support collaboration among universities and community-based
programs to marshall faculty and program resources to directly
respond to the economic, social, and human stresses faced by children,
youth, and families. Access the complete document online at: http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/framework.html
Together
We Can. (2000). Improving results for children, youth, families,
and neighborhoods: A rationale for the community collaborative
wellness tool. The Wellness Tool is designed to (1) strengthen
the capacity of community-based collaborative efforts that seek
to change how public, private, and community institutions work
together to support children, youth, and families, and (2) build
bridges between these efforts and the community development and
community organizing arenas to strengthen their efforts to create
healthy communities. Available online: http://www.togetherwecan.org/ccwtrationale-s.html.
Iowa
Forum for Children and Families in collaboration with the Iowa
Empowerment Board. (1999). Community empowerment board toolkit.
Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center. This guide provides
information for community initiatives on collecting information,
developing community ownership, establishing effective collaboratives,
and using outcomes to develop strategies and measure progress.
Mattessich,
P. W., Murray-Close, M., and Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration:
What makes it work: A review of research literature on factors
influencing successful collaboration. 2nd Edition.
St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. This literature review
summarizes existing research literature on factors that influence
the success of collaborations and reports the results so that
people who want to initiate or enhance a collaborative effort
can benefit from the experience of others. This edition also includes
the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory.
Melaville,
A. I., Blank, M. J., and Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can:
A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human
services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. This book was developed to help communities
improve coordination of education and health and human services
for at-risk children and families. A five-stage collaborative
process is outlined with case studies describing the personal
experiences of study group members.
The
National Association of Community Action Agencies. (1998). National
Study on Collaboration. Washington, DC: Fazzi Associates,
Inc. The National Association of Community Action Agencies collaborated
with the federal Office of Community Services and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and Fazzi Associates to conduct a national study
on collaboration. The purpose of this study was to identify strategies
that contribute to successful collaboration.
Weiss,
E., Miller, R., and Lasker, R. (2001). Findings from the national
study of partnership functioning: Report the partnerships that
participated. New York, NY: New York Academy of Medicine.
The National Study of Partnership Functioning was undertaken in
the Summer of 2000 to: (1) assess the validity and reliability
of the measures of partnership synergy and partnership functioning
developed for this study; (2) test the main hypothesis that synergy
is directly related to the following six dimensions of partnership
functioning: leadership, administration and management, partnership
efficiency, non-financial resources, challenges with partner involvement,
and challenges related to the community; (3) collect more in-depth
information about the strengths and weaknesses of the partnerships
in the study areas; and (4) collect additional descriptive data
in order to gain a broader understanding of the perspectives and
experiences of people in partnerships. Access the full-text document
online at http://www.cacsh.org/pdf/StudyReport.pdf.
Winer,
M. and Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining,
and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder
Foundation. This guide focuses on how to get a collaboration going,
define the desired results, determine roles, create an action
plan, and evaluate the results. The handbook includes a case study,
worksheets, and special sidebars with helpful tips such as what
to do at your first meeting.
Training
CSAP’s
Northeast CAPT has developed a training on collaboration as an
effective prevention strategy. This training is part of a series
of trainings in development, with videos, that will build practitioners’
capacity to incorporate each of the seven prevention strategies
into their efforts. For more information on upcoming events, contact
the CAPT at (888) EDC-CAPT.
Organizations
and Websites
- CSAP’s
Decision Support System (DSS) at http://www.preventiondss.org
promotes scientific methods and programs for substance abuse
prevention for use within communities and State prevention systems.
You can use this site to learn how to assess your needs, gain
insight into how to further develop your agency capacity, and
choose among effective prevention programs.
- Center
for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health. The
purpose of the Center is to help partnerships, funders, and
policymakers realize the full potential of collaboration in
order to improve community health and the functioning of health
systems. Access their website at http://www.cacsh.org
or contact them directly at:
Center
for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health,
Division in Public Health
New York Academy of Medicine
1216 Fifth Avenue, Room 452
New York, NY 10029-5293
Tel: (212) 822-7250
Fax: (212) 426-6796
E-mail: pubhealth@nyam.org
- Center
for Effective Collaboration and Practice. The Center's mission
is to support and promote the development and adjustment of
children with or at risk of developing serious emotional disturbance.
To achieve that goal, the Center is dedicated to a policy of
collaboration at Federal, State, and local levels that contributes
to and facilitates the production, exchange, and use of knowledge
about effective practices. Access their website at http://www.air.org/cecp
or contact them directly at (888) 457-1551.
- Institute
for Community Collaborative Studies. The Institute examines
how human service delivery systems can function collaboratively.
Their website provides information on partner projects. Access
their website at
http://www.monterey.edu/academic/centers/iccs/
- National
Community Building Network. The Network supports community-building
efforts to achieve social and economic equity by providing advocacy,
conferences, information, and technical assistance. Access their
website at http://www.ncbn.org
CSAP’s
Northeast CAPT |
CSAP |
| Policy |
Environmental
Approaches |
| Enforcement |
Environmental
Approaches |
| Collaboration
|
Community-Based
Processes |
| Communications |
Information
Dissemination |
| Education |
Prevention
Education |
| Early
Intervention |
Problem
Identification & Referral |
| Alternatives |
Alternatives |
ENDNOTES
1Gardner,
S. E., and Brounstein, P. J. (2001). Science-Based Prevention
Practices. Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention. Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention, Division of Knowledge Development and Evaluation.
Available online: http://www.northeastcapt.org/resources/csap/papers/gardner-cover2.html
2The
National Network for Collaboration. (1995). Collaboration framework:
Addressing community capacity. Available online: http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/framework.html.
3Winer,
M. and Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining,
and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder
Foundation, 22–24
4The
National Association of Community Action Agencies (1998). National
study on collaboration. Northhampton, MA: Fazzi Associates,
Inc.
