Northeast > Resources > Prevention Materials > Prevention Strategies > Collaboration Paper Collaboration Paper

Collaboration:

A Strategy for Prevention Practitioners

Developed by
CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)

We are pleased to welcome you to CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT). Since 1997 we have been working with six New England and five mid-Atlantic States, to effectively transfer knowledge to the local level and strengthen their capacity to prevent and reduce alcohol and other drug use in youth ages 12–17.

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is the nation’s lead agency for substance abuse prevention. In addition to funding studies to test research-based models, CSAP spreads the word about proven program interventions that will enhance the efforts of prevention practitioners, policymakers, and evaluators. We hope you will visit the CSAP website at http://prevention.samhsa.gov. CSAP’s Decision Support System (DSS) promotes scientific methods and programs for substance abuse prevention for use within communities and state prevention systems. To learn more about CSAP’s DSS, visit their website at https://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov.

This series includes documents on Policy, Enforcement, Collaboration, Communications, Education, Early Intervention, and Alternatives. Special thanks to Lisa Cacari Stone at CSAP’s Northeast CAPT for her assistance in creating this module.

Funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Grant #UD1-SPO8999-01.

© Copyright 2001 Education Development Center, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

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. 2^nd 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.

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 https://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov 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://cecp.air.org 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://hhspp.csumb.edu/community
  

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://captus.samhsa.gov/northeast/PDF/gardner/gardner-cover2.cfm

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.

⁵McCambridge, R. and Weis, M.F. (1997). Rush to merge. Boston, MA: Management Consulting Services, 5.

⁶Together We Can. (2000). The Community Tool: Improving results for children, youth, families, and neighborhoods: A rationale for the community collaborative wellness tool. Available online: http://www.togetherwecan.org/ccwtrationale-s.html

⁷Community Law Tips. Available online through Baltimore—A Link to the City: http://www.baltimoremd.com/

⁸Kagan, S. L. (1991). United we stand: Collaboration for childcare and early education services. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1–3.

⁹Himmelman, A. (1995). Collaboration for a change: definitions, models, roles, and a guide to collaborative processes. In Communities working collaboratively for a change. Minneapolis, MN: Himmelman Consulting Group.

¹⁰Winer, M. and Ray, K. (1994) Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 22.

¹¹What It Takes (1992). Structuring interagency partnerships to connect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.

¹²Himmelman, A.T. (1994). Collaboration for a change: definitions, models, roles, and a guide to collaborative processes. In Communities working collaboratively for a change.

¹³Winer, M. and Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey.

¹⁴Wynn, L. (1998). Coming together: Collaboration as a tool for change. Greensboro, NC: The South Eastern Regional Vision for Education.

¹⁵Minkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. (1997). Improving health through community organization and community building. In K. Glanz, F.M. Lewis, and B.K. Rimer (Eds.) Health behavior and health education, 2^nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

¹⁶Himmelman, A. (1995). Collaboration for a change: Definitions, models, roles, and a guide to collaborative processes. In Communities working collaboratively for a change.

¹⁷Bruner, C. (1998). Remarks from Head Start Focus Group on Collaboration, Washington, DC.

¹⁸National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (1999). Building safe and strong communities through collaboration. Washington: DC: The Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, USDHHS.

¹⁹Norris, T. (1993). The healthy communities handbook. The National Civic League.

²⁰Hargrove, R. (1998). Mastering the art of creative collaboration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

²¹National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (1999). Building safe and strong communities through collaboration.

²²Freire, P. (1973). Education: The practice of freedom. London: Writer’s and Reader’s Publishing.

²³Parker, E. and Eng, E. (1995). Conceptualizing community problem-solving capacity: Results of a grounded theory study. Unpublished paper.

²⁴Bruner, C. and Chavez, M. (1996). Getting to the grassroots: Neighborhood organizing and mobilization. Des Moines, IA: NCSI Clearinghouse.

²⁵The National Network for Collaboration. (1995). Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity.

²⁶Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.

²⁷Goodman, Steckler, and Kegler. (1991). Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement. In K. Glanz, F. Lewis and B. Rimer (1997). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice. 2^nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

²⁸CSAP Community Partnerships (unpublished document).

²⁹The National Association of Community Action Agencies (1998). National study on collaboration. Northhampton, MA: Fazzi Associates, Inc., 3-6.

³⁰Goodman, Steckler, and Kegler. (1991). Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement.

³¹Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services.

³²Malaville, A. I. and Blank, M. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

³³The National Association of Community Action Agencies. (1998). National study on collaboration.

³⁴CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. (1998). Science-based prevention strategies. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.

³⁵The National Association of Community Action Agencies. (1998). National study on collaboration

³⁶CSAP's Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (1998). Science-based prevention strategies.

³⁷Malaville, A. I. and Blank, M. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services.

³⁸Bruner, C. Remarks from Head Start focus group on collaboration. Washington, D.C., July 1998.

³⁹The National Network for Collaboration. (1995). Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity.

⁴⁰Bruner, C. Remarks from Head Start focus group on collaboration. Washington, D.C., July 1998

⁴¹The National Association of Community Action Agencies. (1998). National study on collaboration.

⁴²Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., and McLeroy, K. (1995). Dimensions of community capacity: An attempt at definition. Atlanta, GA. Centers for Disease Control Conference.

⁴³Kumpfer, K., Turner, C., Hopkins, R., and Librett, J. (1993). Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 359-374.

⁴⁴Bruner, C. Remarks from Head Start focus group on collaboration. Washington, D.C., July 1998

⁴⁵The National Association of Community Action Agencies. (1998). National study on collaboration

⁴⁶Rosa Parks (2001). The African American journey.

⁴⁷Hogue, T. (1994) Community-based collaboration: Wellness multiplied. Bend, OR: Chandler Center for Community Leadership.