“Collaboration
is a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered
into by two or more organizations to achieve
results they are more likely to achieve together than alone.”
 -Winer and Ray, 1994
Collaboration is often thought of as a way for agencies and organizations to
stretch their budgets by pooling human resources. But in the field of prevention,
collaboration also reflects a particular point of view: that by working together,
partners can bring different perspectives to bear on a problem, thereby bringing
about change.
There is no one prescribed formula for collaboration.
People—and
the situations they face—determine how collaborations come
about, how they work, and what they ultimately accomplish. Yet,
most collaborative activities ultimately fall into one of three
categories: coalitions of interest, interagency collaboration,
or intra-agency collaboration.
These form around a particular issue or to represent the needs of a particular
geographic community or population group. They typically consist of individuals,
usually representing different backgrounds and fields, who organize to address
a community concern that transcends any one organization’s capacity
to respond.1 Coalitions usually focus on setting goals to improve results
for children, youth, families, and neighborhoods across a broad range of
dimensions of well-being. They are most common at the local level but can
happen at the state, regional, and national levels as well.
For your coalition to be successful, you must be
able to do three things: get people to the table, keep them there,
and move them to action. To bring people
to the table, identify players who may have a stake in your issue and whose
participation is critical. Try to recruit and involve members whose positions,
expertise, or skills match the coalition’s purpose and plans. Make
sure to include representatives from different segments of the population,
including different religious, ethnic, age, and socioeconomic groups. Also
make sure to include people who don’t share your view. For example,
the University of Massachusetts discovered that including smokers in their
planning process helped them to develop a non-smoking policy that better
met the needs of all students and staff.
Once you know who you want, develop a pitch
for “selling” participation.
Most people want to get something specific out of their collaborative
experience, so appeal to their individual motivations. For example,
community leaders and professionals may want to seek outcomes or
accomplishments related to their organizational or political interests,
while community activists may be more interested in making their
communities better places to live.
Keeping
people at the table requires trust and respect. Allow ample time
for partners to get acquainted, understand what
each needs and can offer, appreciate
what constraints each operates under, and focus on shared goals. Make sure
that everyone has a clear understanding of the substance-related problems
they want to change. Then, establish a clear organizational structure,
provide strong leadership, communicate regularly, and generate
feasible objectives
that can be used to evaluate program progress and outcomes.
Moving people
to action requires letting people know what needs to be done
and then motivating them to do it. Begin by developing an action
plan
that
logically connects program objectives to measurable outcomes. Then, create
opportunities for partners to participate in highly visible activities
that provide recognition for the coalition and its members. It
is also important
to always be on the lookout for new or existing resources that could be
leveraged to support coalition activities.
This occurs when two or more agencies see the benefit of working together but
don’t want to form a full-fledged coalition. Interagency collaboration
typically occurs at the administrative level, but it can also happen among
workers at the service-delivery level, who are sometimes given incentives
or encouraged to collaborate.
Interagency collaboration can serve a number of purposes. It is
useful for coordinating efforts between public and private agencies
and between law enforcement and service providers.2 It is often
used to assemble teams that can work together to secure funding.
It can help you increase both access to and the quality of prevention
and treatment services. And it is also a good way to increase implementation
of effective interventions.
Intra-agency collaboration focuses on changing policies, systems, and practices
within a single agency or organization. Adjusting institutional practices
has two clear advantages. First, it immediately increases the agency’s
capacity to move its program objectives forward. Second, it increases the
likelihood that the prevention program will be sustained over time, which
will help you continue program activities beyond your funding cycle. In practice,
intra-agency collaboration can exist between frontline workers and others
in the same agency, particularly immediate supervisors.3
There are a number of ways to enhance the effectiveness of your collaborative
efforts. One way is to involve communities that are already mobilized or
ready to engage in community change.
Another way is to combine collaboration with communications and education strategies.
This can help you increase public awareness of a particular issue or program,
attract community support, reinforce prevention messages delivered in the schools,
and keep the public informed of program progress.
Finally, don’t reinvent the wheel! Look
at what the people around you are already doing to prevent substance
abuse, and build
on their efforts. You can learn from both their successes and their
mistakes.
You have completed Module 5.
Please proceed to Activity 5: Applying Collaboration
Strategies.
References
- Bruner, C. and Chavez, M. (1996). Getting to the
grassroots: Neighborhood organizing and mobilization. Des Moines,
IA: NCSI
Clearinghouse.
- CSAP Community Partnerships (unpublished
document).
- Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively:
Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s
services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.
|
