Standards of Practice

Strengthening Community Collaborations:
Essentials for Success

As the challenges facing families change, so do the needs and resources of collaboration. It is unrealistic to expect one style of collaboration to be effective in all circumstances. Each community, like any other large human organization, has its own unique culture, and within that there typically exist several subcultures, each with its own patterns of process and communication. Users of this guide should employ the standards of practice suggested here in ways that respect the culture of their communities and their processes of collaboration.

The most-often-asked question about community collaborations is: “What will make our collaboration successful?” Through years of experience coupled with research, evaluation and development, we have learned that there is no single answer to this question. But there is an identifiable set of essential elements that form the basic ingredients for success.

99 KBKnowing the Destination

Community Conversation

Community Based
Participation

A Culture and Competency of Commitment

Forming a Collaboration Framework

Essential: Knowing the Destination

An old Irish proverb sums it up best: “If you don ‘t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.” Collaboration is the process of gathering people and their organizations together to help bring about a desired condition in the community. But before the process can work, the community must answer the question:

What is the desired condition?

Clearly defining the desired community condition is one of the single best investments that can be made to ensure successful collaboration. The desired condition will vary with each community and its problems. For example, a community threatened by youth gangs and violence may define its desired condition as “a safe and secure community for youth and families.”

Our community efforts lack a clear destination

Our community focuses on a clear destination

Who is responsible? Defining the desired condition will help spark a community conversation about another important question: “Who is responsible for bringing about this condition in the community?” Citizens ultimately come to the conclusion: “We all are responsible, but let’s figure out what each of us will contribute.” Thus begins the community conversation about roles and responsibilities.

The greater the diversity of people and opinions involved in developing and sustaining a collaborative effort, the greater the potential for tailoring solutions and strategies to the community. Citizens from different backgrounds often perceive the same issue differently. Bringing a wide cross-section of citizens — both youth and adults — together in conversation builds an important bridge between perception and reality.

How complex is/are the solution(s)? Three important principles play into successful community problem-solving efforts. First, communities must recognize that complex issues require complex solutions. Second, agencies and organizations that traditionally have dealt with the problems must realize that many of the problems grow faster than they have the capacity to address them. Third, citizens must be willing to increase their investment of time and leadership to improve the quality of community life.

Grasping these three principles helps the community shape practical and realistic solutions. The participation of citizens along with agency and organization staff often opens up the possibility of solutions that previously may have been seen as unobtainable.

Community solutions may be as straightforward as sharing information or as complex as defining whole new “systems” of services. For example, one community found the source of a perceived problem among social service providers to be duplication of services and turf issues; another community identified child abuse as the issue. The solution in the first case proved to be a collaboration in which information and decisions from all member organizations were shared. In the other community, a community dialogue addressing the issue of child abuse and the lack of care for children led to the creation of a diagnostic, treatment and counseling center entirely built, owned and operated by the community. This center was established within five years, and was the fruit of a collaboration that involved some 200 people, 23 civic organizations and more than 100 businesses. Public agency staff provide services at the site in partnership with private providers. This community found the solution to its problem involved building on existing resources and creating a whole new system of services.

What community connection will serve best?
To help people decide what connection or relationship will best serve the goal of bringing about the desired community condition, the COMMUNITY LINKAGES CHART has been developed. (See example on following page.) Often, members of a group will label the group a “collaboration” when in fact the definition and type of commitment may be very different for each. Understanding community linkages helps support and clarify the relationships among groups. In all cases, the defined linkage should serve the best interests of the group. In no case should the goal be to make all groups become collaborations; rather, in some cases, a coalition or a network or an alliance may best serve to support the group’s needs.

Essential: Community Conversation

Communities today have no shortage of problems or situations that require new or revised answers. Communities are stepping up their efforts at forging collaborations to invest existing community resources wisely, realign fragmented resources, increase common understanding and ownership of problems and solutions, and strengthen the community’s capacity to effect positive change.

While traditional solutions have often focused on using “model” programs, communities are recognizing the value

Community Linkages - Choices and Decisions

Levels	Purpose	Structure	Process
Networking	• Dialog and common understanding • Clearinghouse for information • Create base of support	• Non–hierarchical • Loose/flexible link • Roles loosely defined • Community action is primary link among members	• Low key leadership • Minimal decision making • Little conflict • Informal communication
Cooperation or Alliance	• Match needs and provide coordination • Limit duplication of services • Ensure tasks are done	• Central body of people as communication hub • Semi–formal links • Roles somewhat defined • Links are advisory • Group leverages/raises money	• Facilitative leaders • Complex decision making • Some conflict • Formal communications within the central group
Coordination or Partnership	• Share resources to address common issues • Merge resource base to create something new	• Central body of people consists of decision makers • Roles defined • Links formalized • Group develops new resources and joint budget	• Autonomous leadership but focus in on issue • Group decision making in central and subgroups • Communication is frequent and clear
Coalition	• Share ideas and be willing to pull resources from existing systems • Develop commitment for a minimum of three years	• All members involved in decision making • Roles and time defined • Links formal with written agreement • Group develops new resources and joint budget	• Shared leadership • Decision making formal with all members • Communication is common and prioritized
Collaboration	• Accomplish shared vision and impact benchmarks Build interdependent system to address issues and opportunities	• Consensus used in shared decision making • Roles, time and evaluation formalized • Links are formal and written in work assignments	• Leadership high, trust level high, productivity high • Ideas and decisions equally shared • Highly developed communication

Source: Community Based Collaborations – Wellness Multiplied 1994,
Teresa Hogue, Oregon Center for Community Leadership
Figure 1

of customizing or “tailoring” solutions specific to their unique circumstances. Although the research supporting the model program is important, the application to each community may be different. For example, a crime prevention solution that is very successful in New York is not easily adaptable to a rural community in Oregon.

Constructive community conversation is essential to the process of building and sustaining healthy collaborative efforts. Specifically, two types of community conversations are important:

Dialog — the conversation of exploring — opens the road to developing effective solutions by bringing out options and opportunities for problem-solving and “laying them on the table.” Dialog helps shape strategies that build on previous successes and the use of current resources including talent, leadership and commitment, and helps stage a positive course of action affecting a wide cross-section of people.

Successful dialog means facing the facts. It involves, first, recognizing that the problem exists; second, recognizing that the problem is really an opportunity to improve; and, third, recognizing that the real obstacle is not the problem itself, but finding the right approach for solving it.

Our community efforts focus on discussion only

Our community efforts balance dialog and discussion

Discussion — the conversation of decision-making — provides the basis for implementing practical solutions. While dialog brings out the options and in a sense prepares the “seedbed” for creative ideas, discussion lays the foundation for the implementation of solutions.


	Effective dialog and discussion help communities strengthen their capacity to bring about positive change. In balance, dialog and discussion improve the likelihood of: applying effective assumptions to a problem taking an effective approach to a problem involving effective people clarifying the perception of the whole problem, rather than focusing only on the visible part of the problem, or on the wrong problem addressing the problem with appropriate timing exerting effective control over the search for solutions focusing on broad, effective and comprehensive solutions, rather than accepting a predictable (but wrong) or incomplete solution.

Essential: Community-Based Participation

Our community efforts engage only a few people

Our community efforts engage a wide cross-section of people

While the catalysts driving a collaborative effort may be varied — a crisis, funding, interests, leadership, etc. — gaining participation from a wide range of individuals and groups is critical. Collaborative efforts that have successfully woven themselves into the fabric of the community are those that include a broad cross-section of people and organizations. This does not just happen; rather, it must be carefully planned as a core element of the collaborative effort.

First, the “community” must be defined. Is the issue best addressed by people who make up a community of interest? Is it best addressed by those within a specific geographic area? Or does the issue call for a combined effort including a community of interest and a geographic community?

In the early stages of building and maintaining collaborative efforts, identifying the people and groups who currently contribute in a meaningful way and the people and groups who potentially can contribute is often as valuable as the work itself.

This process can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Developing a PARTICIPATION MATRIX (see Appendix A) not only identifies people and groups within the community, but also generates expectations and helps start the process of defining roles and responsibilities.

Standards of Practice
Main Menu

Main Menu

Essential: A Culture and Competency of Commitment

Individual and group commitment to a desired condition and to a collaborative effort to achieve that desired condition goes well beyond signing a memorandum of agreement, confirming attendance at meetings or agreeing to serve as a committee chair. While these are important, a culture and competency of commitment is essential. The ultimate goal is to create a climate in which broad-based citizen commitment to community problem- solving is expected, and in which a wide range of individuals and groups have the opportunity, skills and resources to act on that commitment.

Throughout the process of collaboration, giving people and groups who will be affected by the solution opportunities to take part in its development increases the potential for a high level of “buy-in” to the solution and a higher level of competency. The criteria for community competency have been broadly identified by the Aspen Institute. Competent communities and their collaborations are characterized by:

PARTICIPATION: Expanding, diverse, inclusive citizen participation.
LEADERSHIP: Expansion of the leadership base through participation, skill building, and opportunities to practice leadership in a safe and nurturing atmosphere.
SKILLS: Strengthening individual skills and expectation of participation.
SHARED VISION: A widely shared vision of the community and its direction.
STRATEGY: An accepted strategic community agenda.
PROGRESS: Consistent, tangible progress toward goals.
SYSTEMS: Effective community organizations, institutions and systems.
RESOURCES: Effective resource utilization within the community

Again, a community culture of commitment and competency does not simply happen; it has to be carefully fostered. One way to do so is to help citizens perceive that their participation benefits not only their community, but also themselves.

Recently, a survey was conducted asking Oregonians about their values and beliefs. Of 20 personal activities listed, “attending public meetings” was least valued; however, at the top of the list was “learning new skills for advancement.” The study also indicated that the driving forces behind citizen participation is twofold: First, people will participate in something that is meaningful to others and will make a positive difference; second, they will participate if their involvement helps them expand their skills and expertise.

When members of a collaboration were asked “What has kept you involved?” the answers typically fell into three categories:

RESPECT AND VALUE: “The group respects my opinion and provides positive ways for me to contribute.”

EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS: “The roles and responsibilities are clearly mapped out and everyone does his or her job. Together this makes the whole collaboration valued among the participants and valued in the community.”

ACCOMPLISHMENT: “The collection of people are really committed to their goals and work hard toward them. As time goes on people recognize the value of working together on common agendas rather than in competition.”

Our community exhibits a low level of commitment

Our community exhibits a high level of commitment

	Essential: Forming a Collaboration Framework
	Any type of collaborative effort is like any other complex human enterprise. It has its own unique culture, and typically, within that, several subcultures, each with its own patterns of process and environment. Collaboration members face a variety of challenges. When little risk is involved, the time it takes is usually the principal challenge. Participants in a collaborative effort often report that the culture of the collaborating group is different from that of the agency or group they represent. As the collaboration matures, its own culture develops and becomes more of an influence.

The Collaboration Framework

8 CHECK THE ENVIRONMENT
As a group, place an “X” on the scale to identify where you believe your community is today. Then place an “O” to indicate where you believe the community realistically can be in three years.

Our community efforts are not based on any of the collaboration framework elements and are fragmented Our community efforts are based on the elements in the collaboration framework and have a clear course of direction.

The COLLABORATION FRAMEWORK serves as a guide for communities in establishing or advancing their culture of collaboration. The standards of practice should be regarded as a tool to help the community, rather than a restriction.

Standards of PracticeMain Menu

Main Menu

Standards of Practice
Main Menu