partnerships in transition: managing organizational and collaborative change
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 16 December 2014, At: 14:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Human Behavior in the SocialEnvironmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20
Partnerships in Transition: ManagingOrganizational and Collaborative ChangeJan M. Ivery aa School of Social Work, Georgia State University , Atlanta, GeorgiaPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.
To cite this article: Jan M. Ivery (2010) Partnerships in Transition: Managing Organizational andCollaborative Change, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20:1, 20-37, DOI:10.1080/10911350903256648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911350903256648
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20:20–37, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online
DOI: 10.1080/10911350903256648
Partnerships in Transition: ManagingOrganizational and Collaborative Change
JAN M. IVERYSchool of Social Work, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
Despite the abundance of literature on collaboration, very little
attention is devoted to exploring the how partnerships transition
over time. This article reports the findings of a study that exam-
ined how a mature partnership adjusted to a new administra-
tive team while moving forward with a strategic plan to advance
the partnership’s mission. Key informant interviews revealed that
when stable leadership is not present during transitional phases,
the broker organization’s capacity to facilitate the collaborative
effort will be limited when priorities shift toward maintaining its
organizational capacity for survival instead of the collective goals
of the partnership.
KEYWORDS Collaboration, partnerships, organizations, leader-
ship, capacity, sustainability
Homelessness is a social issue that requires local communities to provideservices to address the diverse and complex needs of individuals withoutpermanent housing. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty(NLCHP, 2007) reports that on any given night, there are approximately840,000 homeless people in the United States and, over the course of ayear, between 2.3 and 3.5 million individuals, including over 1.35 millionchildren, will experience homelessness. The United States Conference ofMayors (2008) found that the lack of affordable housing, poverty, unem-ployment, substance abuse, and mental illness were the primary reasons forhomelessness in U. S. cities. Most cities reported an increase in homelessnessand demand for homeless assistance over the past year. Thirty-seven percent
The author thanks the staff and partners of Tri-Cities Partnership for their assistance andparticipation in this project. The author acknowledges Jim Wolk and Elizabeth Beck for theirhelpful feedback on this article.
Address correspondence to Jan M. Ivery, School of Social Work, Georgia State University,P.O. Box 3995, Atlanta, GA 30302. E-mail: [email protected]
20
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 21
of homeless single adults and 10% of homeless adults in households withchildren have substance abuse issues, and 22% of homeless single adultsand 8% of homeless adults in households with children have mental healthissues (NLCHP). Owing to the stress of homelessness and living in unstableenvironments, the average life expectancy for a homeless adult is 42 to52 years, compared to 73 to 76 years for the general population (NLCHP).
As a result of the pervasiveness of homelessness in community life, it isdifficult for one group or organization to provide all of the services needed bydifferent segments of the homeless population. Human service administratorsand staff continuously seek ways to develop coordinated systems of care toprovide services efficiently and effectively within the social environment. Col-laborative partnerships are often used to nurture and maintain connectionsbetween social, economic, and political environments to expand resourcesand improve service delivery. Typologies and collaboration continua areplentiful in the literature that describe the differences in purpose and struc-ture of these relationships and the existing factors that promote their overallfunctioning. Scholars have empirically examined the relationships betweenconcepts such as leadership, communication, visioning, and organizationalcapacity to better understand what combination of factors leads to effectiveoutcomes. However, despite the abundance of literature on collaboration,very little attention is devoted to exploring the experiences of partnershipsas they mature and respond to change.
This study reports the findings of a study that examined Tri-Cities Part-nership (TCP), a collaborative partnership composed of homeless serviceproviders in a southeastern city, as it evolves and adapts to changes inleadership and mission. The primary research question addressed in thisstudy was what factors influence participation in and sustainability of a
collaborative partnership over time? The data were collected during a tran-sitional period in TCP’s history as it sought to adjust to a new administrativeteam while moving forward with a strategic plan to advance the partnership’smission. Key informant interviews with TCP board members, current andformer staff members, and task force participants examined perceptions ofhow changes within the broker organization may impact the partnership andfactors that influence participation, purpose, and sustainability. The findingswill contribute to the collaboration literature by providing a description of apartnership’s experiences as it matures and responds to changes within theorganizational environment.
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS: AN OVERVIEW
Collaborative partnerships provide an opportunity for organizations to lever-age financial resources, address complex social issues, and increase socialcapital. Collaboration is a decision-making process that involves two or more
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
22 J. M. Ivery
stakeholders. The partners are interdependent, decision making is owned byall partners, and each organization assumes collective responsibility for itsfuture direction (Gray, 1989). Essential components of collaborative partner-ships include equity and representativeness among partners, resources thatwill facilitate the process, the ability of partners to balance their responsibilityto and self-interests of their individual organizations and the partnership, aclear reason or purpose for the collaborative effort, commitment, commu-nication, and skilled leadership (Austin, 2000; Austin, et al., 1999; Chrislip& Larson 1994; Gray 1989; Johnson, Zorn, Kai Yung Tam, LaMontagne, &Johnson, 2003; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Wolff, 2001). Motives for partici-pation vary from the possibility of greater access to additional resources tomaking connections that will enable an organization to reach an underservedsegment of the population.
When collaborative partnerships are created, they follow similar stagesof formation, conceptualization, development, implementation, evaluation,and termination. Selsky and Parker (2005) consolidate these stages into threedistinct phases: formation, implementation, and outcome. During formation,the emphasis is placed on exploring partner motives and willingness topartner to achieve a common purpose for the group. Tasks associated withimplementation included developing a common agenda and clear adminis-trative and communication structures and maintaining legitimacy with exter-nal stakeholders. When partnerships transition into the outcome phase, theirefforts are focused on measuring its impact on the target issue and stakehold-ers, increasing capacity and resources, and social policy/systems changes.
Because collaborative partnerships are developed to address complexcommunity issues, it is important for them to be able to sustain themselvesover a period of time to evaluate their short-term and long-term outcomes.According to Hargreaves and Fink (2003):
Sustainability is more than a matter of persistence over time. It concernsmore than the life and death of change. Sustainability does not simplymean whether something can last. It addresses how particular initiativescan be developed without compromising the development of others inthe surrounding environment, now and in the future. (p. 694)
Stability within partnerships is evolving. Sustainability is a challenge for part-nerships because (1) they often rely on voluntary participation; (2) the broadspectrum of stakeholders is inherent with diverse decision-making stylesand operational rules that can lead to misunderstanding and conflict; and(3) considerable time must be devoted to developing trust and the decision-making process in addition to focusing on achieving the partnership’s desiredoutcomes (Alexander, Comfort, Weiner, & Bogue, 2001). Owing to the dy-namic nature of organizational relationships, long-term partnerships requirethat participants cope with discontinuous change at multiple points in time(Nkhata, Breen, & Freimund, 2008). To appropriately respond to change,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 23
qualified and stable leadership is necessary to transition during these timeperiods. If it is not present, the capacity of the coordinating organizationwill be limited in its ability to facilitate the collaborative effort as the prioritymay be on maintaining its organizational capacity for survival instead of thecollective goals of the partnership.
Collaborative Partnerships: A Systems Perspective of
Adaptation and Change
When organizations share resources in a collaborative partnership, they forman organizational community in which the environmental opportunities andchallenges that affect a single organization affect the other organizationswithin the community (Baum, 1996). Systems are composed of interrelatedbut autonomous components whose interactions and interrelations betweenunits are emphasized as movement in one system impacts other aspectsof the system. Systems constantly adjust themselves to maintain a certainamount of order and stability to achieve stability and growth (Payne, 1997).
Collaborative partnerships provide the foundation for service deliverysystems that work together to leverage resources and accomplish commongoals A broker organization is at the center of the network and possessesoverlapping ties to different components of the network that integrate thoseties to form a system. A broker organization is a type of coordinating organi-zation. According to Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, and Vidal (2001), a brokerorganization is an intermediary organization that facilitates and promotesrelationships among organizations in the community. Broker organizationsassume responsibility for convening participants, facilitating network devel-opment, creating mechanisms for communication, and providing generaloperating support for the partnership. To achieve stability, broker organi-zations and the partnerships they facilitate must possess characteristics ofbasic organizational functioning such as problem identification, planning,implementation, and evaluation. In addition, venues for participatory deci-sion making, conducting effective task groups, and committee meetings arenecessary to move the partnership from planning to action (Speer & Zippay,2005). Competent and consistent leadership within the broker organizationsis essential to lead both the organization and the partnership. Although theseorganizations are central to the collaborative effort, they are not immune tostaffing changes and funding cuts within their individual organization.
Galambos, Dulmus, and Wodarski (2005) argue that because humanservice organizations are slower to respond to social, political, and environ-mental changes than corporate entities, they must develop the capacity todeal with new and emerging issues that threaten their sustainability. Orga-nizational change is a broad concept used to describe agency managementand modifications to the staff tasks, roles, and responsibilities in response tointernal and external factors. To successfully adapt and respond to change,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
24 J. M. Ivery
Galambos et al. identify five conditions that must be present: (1) a system ofcontinuous communication and feedback for those affected (internally andexternally) by the change/s; (2) organizational preparedness; (3) resourcesand technology to support the change process; (4) employee participation;and (5) using change to increase organizational capacity. If these conditionsare not present, changes within organizations such as a loss of fundingor new leadership will make it difficult for them to maintain a level offunctioning that is necessary to fulfill their mission.
The concepts of organizational change can be applied to collaborativepartnerships. When a broker organization faces challenges and uncertaintywithin the organizational environment, the relationship with the partneringorganizations will be affected as it shifts its focus to internal pressures. It isoften a challenge for broker organizations to balance the tension betweenorganizational and partnership capacity, especially if the internal structuresare not prepared to deal with change. Organizational and collaboration pre-paredness is important when facilitating partnerships, such as the Continuumof Care initiative, that involve a large cross-section of the community and/orgeographic region to achieve sustainability.
Housing and Urban Development Continuum of
Care and the TCP
In 1987, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Act, later named theMcKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, to provide federal funding forhomeless assistance programs such as emergency shelters and food pro-grams. During the early years of the program, the U. S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) did not require submission of acomprehensive plan to address homelessness. Instead, funds were awardedthrough a non-competitive process and were distributed to communitiesbased on a formula to determine eligibility. When communities applied forthe funds, very few were committed to developing a systemized approachto service provision and continued to function independently (Burt, 2002).
In 1994, the HUD developed the Continuum of Care, a competitivefunding process to promote a coordinated, strategic approach to developingprograms for individuals and families who are homeless (HUD, Office ofCommunity Planning and Development [HUD], 1996). Specifically, the HUDdefines a Continuum of Care as a ‘‘community plan to organize and deliverservices to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as theymove to stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency’’ (HUD, 1996, p. 3).The key elements of the approach are strategic planning, data collectionsystems, and an inclusive process that involves clients and service providers.The fundamental components of the system are (1) outreach, intake, andassessment; (2) emergency shelter; (3) transitional housing; and (4) per-manent housing and permanent supportive housing. The outreach, intake,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 25
and assessment component identifies an individual’s or family’s services toconnect them with the appropriate resources. Emergency shelter is intendedto provide a safe alternative to living on the streets. Transitional housingprovides supportive services such as recovery services and life skills trainingto help clients develop the skills necessary for permanent housing. Thefinal component, permanent housing, works with clients to obtain long-term,affordable housing (HUD).
HUD’s model of the Continuum of Care planning processes is composedof five steps: (1) organizing an annual Continuum of Care planning process;(2) conducting a needs assessment; (3) determining and prioritizing gapsin the Continuum of Care Homeless System; (4) developing an action plancomposed of both short-term and long-term strategies to address servicegaps; and (5) identifying action steps to implement the plan. Although thesteps are presented as distinct stages, the process of developing a Continuumof Care System is fluid.
TCP was created in 1998 to facilitate this collaborative process. TheTCP partners with groups and organizations that work with, serve, andadvocate for homeless persons to develop the funding application. Localgovernments;, service providers; the faith, academic, and business commu-nities; homeless and formerly homeless individuals; and concerned citizensare among the primary stakeholders involved in the planning process. Duringthe first 5 years of its existence, the TCP was staffed by four full-time membersand one part-time staff member, and oversight was provided by a 21-memberboard. Although 136 organizations were listed as community partners, ap-proximately 45 organizations were represented regularly in TCP planning ac-tivities (Ivery, 2004). Workgroups, task forces, and the United Way HomelessAction council were established as mechanisms to incorporate stakeholderperspectives in the decision-making process. The workgroups were used toidentify and prioritize issues and strategies used to address needs within eachtarget area. The workgroups also provided organizational representativeswith the opportunity to assume leadership roles within the collaborative.These groups were not permanent and were disbanded once the need forthem was met or new groups formed in response to emerging issues.
A previous study examined the TCP’s planning process within the con-text of organizational ecology theory (Ivery, 2007). Organizational ecol-ogy posits that environmental factors, such as cuts in funding, can forceorganizations into competitive interdependence for limited resources in acommunity (Aldrich, 1979). In response, organizations can either develop aniche for themselves in the environment or they can develop partnershipswith other organizations to meet mutually beneficial goals. The findingsrevealed varying degrees of involvement and capacity among organizationsas they sought to manage the tension between the priorities of their orga-nizations and the collaborative effort. The TCP emerged as a partnershipthat simultaneously exhibited characteristics of cooperation, coordination,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
26 J. M. Ivery
and collaboration. Cooperation, coordination, and collaboration are oftenused interchangeably to describe organizations working together to achievea common goal. Cooperating organizations generally share information thatwill support each organization’s activities whereas coordinating organiza-tions may co-sponsor events and activities without a high level of serviceintegration. At the highest level of service integration is collaboration inwhich participants develop common strategies to achieve jointly determinedgoals while maintaining their organization’s autonomy (Bailey & Koney,2000). A critical challenge for the TCP at that time was their ability tofacilitate a planning process that included varying levels of involvement andengagement among its affiliated organizations (Ivery, 2007).
Ivery (2008) explored the TCP’s response to HUD’s collaboration man-date for Continuum of Care funding. The TCP’s collaborative process re-flected the challenge of implementing collaboration mandates that result inmeaningful participation. This study revealed that the TCP’s planning processwas primarily facilitated by a small, active group of organizations insteadof the broad cross-section of the community that was described in theirContinuum of Care funding application. Organizations that had the capacityto fully participate were able to do so whereas smaller organizations withfewer resources to devote the effort were not fully engaged in the planningprocess. The current study builds on the previous research by exploringhow changes within a broker organization affect a mature partnership andstakeholder perceptions of participation, sustainability, and future roles forthe TCP.
METHODS
A purposive sample was selected for the project to recruit key informantswho had different levels of participation and involvement so that a broaderunderstanding of the partnership could be obtained. Board members, staff,and community partners/organizational representatives were the initial cate-gories used for recruitment. The Principle Investigator (PI) requested andreceived a copy of the TCP’s current board membership (n D 22) andexecutive director’s group (n D 32) list. These lists were cross-listed withthe TCP’s partner list from the previous study (n D 130) to develop asampling frame composed of previous and current stakeholders. Six boardmembers and 18 executive directors/organizational representatives were newstakeholders. The current and former executive directors were also asked toparticipate in an interview. Six persons from each of the three categories wererandomly selected as potential interviewees. After reviewing the category list,the recruitment plan was expanded to include task force members who hadnot served on the board or provided direct service to homeless persons.Twenty persons were contacted, 16 agreed to participate, and 15 interviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 27
were completed. Informed consent was obtained from the key informantsafter the study was explained to them and their questions were answered.As this was a follow-up to an initial study by the TCP (Ivery, 2004), thequestions were developed from findings from the previous study and con-cepts found in the collaboration literature. The key informants were askedopen-ended questions that discussed length of involvement, perceptions ofleadership changes on the planning process, factors that will influence theTCP’s sustainability, partner motivation and participation, emerging issues inthe community, and what direction they would like to see the TCP movewithin 5 years. A $25 gift certificate to a local restaurant was given to theparticipants at the conclusion of the interview as an incentive.
The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed by a graduate researchassistant. The data were analyzed to identify central themes. The open-endedresponses were entered into a word-processing software program, groupedby question, and analyzed using an open coding process. Open coding(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) is the process of locating themes and assigninginitial labels to these themes during an initial review of the data. Paragraphswere selected as the recording unit for analysis and were identified andcategorized. The data were reviewed independently by the PI and the re-search assistant to identify the themes and assign them to categories. Thefinal themes were drawn from the results of the independent analyses.
RESULTS
Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed, and interview length ranged from30 minutes to 1 hour. The current executive director was unable to participatebecause of illness. Length of involvement with the TCP ranged from 6 monthsto 8 years. Table 1 illustrates the organizational affiliation and role of eachkey informant.
Leadership, a loss of momentum in the community, the TCP’s mission,and the importance of developing strategic partnerships were central themesthat emerged during data analysis.
TABLE 1 Key Informant Affiliation
Role N
Organizational representative 6Board member 3Task force member 2Current staff person/s 2Former staff person/s 1Former executive director 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
28 J. M. Ivery
Leadership
When the study was conducted, the new executive director had been inthe position for less than a year after the founding director resigned toaccept another position. Although the new executive director was knownby reputation in the community, she was not actively involved with theTCP’s efforts and was viewed as an ‘‘outsider.’’ Not long after the executivedirector assumed leadership, the administrative structure was reorganized,and three positions were eliminated. These positions were held by staffmembers who had been part of the TCP’s organization since its inception.During data collection, the executive director became ill, and the TCP didnot have an ‘‘official’’ leader. To fill the void, the TCP’s leadership wasundertaken by various staff members in anticipation of the director’s return.This period without leadership so soon after the new executive director washired contributed to the loss of the TCP’s momentum.
The administrative changes were perceived both positively and nega-tively by the key informants. To some, the changes were necessary to movethe TCP from visioning to implementation, but it was too early to determinethe long-term impact on the planning process. The former executive directorwas praised for his ability to initiate and foster relationships between stake-holder groups in the community. However, some key informants felt that adifferent type of leadership was necessary into to move the TCP toward adifferent stage of organizational development in which the TCP became morepolitically astute and aligned with the power brokers in the community toexpand their influence. For others, the changes were drastic and disruptedthe relationships that had been built between stakeholders because therewas sense of mistrust and uncertainty about the new leadership. A closeassociation between the TCP and the former executive director still existed,and it was clear that the TCP was more closely identified with its formerleadership instead of an independent organization.
I think it [leadership and staff changes] was the right thing to do. [When]TCP started off it was very much grassroots helping people come to-gether who may or may not have known each other and to explore oursimilarities, our challenges, and to work on a coordinated plan to solvea social issue. That was phase 1 of TCP. They required a certain skillset and I think [they] had the perfect team, a great group of people whowere excited and energized about that type of work. Now TCP is in theimplementation phase. The way it should work is [that] TCP will have lesshands on interaction with the providers but now at a different discoursewith other kinds of systems and other policies. So, a different team wouldbe necessary.
I think there are enough key players behind what’s happening at TCPthat will pull folks along. I think there may be some initial concerns : : :
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 29
it’s kind of an odd time but is also might be part of the natural changingof the guard. The staff turnover might be a good thing for the system : : :
maybe.
The friends I had established here had been sent a group email thatsaid ‘‘I’m out of job’’ and so what I perceived initially was here comes[the executive director] who cleans house and not with a whole lot ofexplanation to me.
Well I think it’s always good to have new leaders with organizations thatare started by a charismatic dynamic person because that in fact is proofthat the organization is not the individual and that it can sustain and growand evolve.
The TCP Mission
In March 2001, the TCP publicly launched its 5-year plan to combat home-lessness and move the Richmond community toward the development andimplementation of a Continuum of Care system of service delivery. In 2002,the TCP’s problem-solving process was recognized as one of the top fiveprocesses in the nation by the HUD. The TCP has been able to achieve itsgoals of establishing the infrastructure to support the partnership, developinga Continuum of Care application that was funded, opening a treatment centertargeting men who were homeless and a pilot testing a centralized intakesystem for providers.
Despite these earlier accomplishments, a consistent theme throughoutthe interviews is the perception that the TCP has lost some of its momentumin the community. This appears to be attributed to the fact that the TCP’s re-organization and the partnership’s exploration of strategies to move the TCPto the next level of its organizational development occurred simultaneously.Even though the TCP has continued with its planning process to develop a10-year plan to address homelessness, there is a feeling that the TCP needs toreconnect with the broader community to remain visible and articulate howthe mission, purpose, and goals are evolving to address current and emergingneeds. Although five stakeholders specifically discussed uncertainty aboutthe TCP’s goals and objectives, others suggested that when the TCP wascreated, the goals were clear because they focused on developing an initialneeds assessment and achieving specific milestones within a 5-year timeframe.
I’ve [heard that] some people are really uncomfortable : : : [they] don’tknow what’s going on, they haven’t heard from TCP like they used tohear from TCP and there is some concerns, why don’t we have as manymeetings? There is some of the transitional stuff but I really do think thatthey have a really good role to play in a way that will help the systemmove forward and navigate the politics of any changes.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
30 J. M. Ivery
What I see happening is TCP is not has prominent as it was : : : partlybecause of the shift of leadership, partly because of the change of focus.
I think the first thing [to keep momentum in the community] would bereally clarifying the vision to the community and being very specific about[the] goals to end homelessness.
I think it [the planning process] is data driven. I think it is goal oriented,I think it has been informed by the experience of the last couple of years: : : we basically have a road map for the next three years operationallyand it’s a ten-year plan that will link us with state and national effortswhich I think is important.
Importance of Developing Strategic Partnerships
Previously, the TCP’s planning process was implemented through work-groups, task forces, the board of directors, and the United Way HomelessAction Council. Participation in these groups provided a mechanism to in-corporate the perspectives of service providers, local governments, the faithcommunity, the business community, local universities, neighborhoods, andhomeless and formerly homeless individuals in the decision-making process.The workgroups were created to better utilize the expertise and experiencesof executive directors and agency staff. The workgroups also provided or-ganizational representatives with the opportunity to assume leadership roleswithin the collaborative. These workgroups were disbanded once the needwas met, and new groups were created when appropriate. The workgroupshave been eliminated, and the TCP is primarily composed of the senioradministration of affiliated organizations instead of the broad cross-sectionof stakeholders who were present in the previous study. According to onekey informant, the change was made to make the planning process moreefficient.
Despite the changes within TCP, stakeholders remain motivated to col-laborate with the TCP because they understand the complex needs of home-less persons and know they will not be able to provide all of the necessaryservices independently. The key informants also believe in their ability tomake a difference in addressing broader issues related to homelessness.Working with TCP, for some key informants, is not a choice but a require-ment because collaboration is often necessary to receive financial supportfrom the government and foundations. Specific motives for continued par-ticipation with the TCP include sharing resources and information, supportfrom other professionals, and improved coordination of services to preventone agency from having to meet the multiple needs of homeless persons.Organizational capacity was the most frequently identified reason for the lackof or limited participation by stakeholders. The ability to balance the dailydemands of their individual organization with TCP participation can be achallenge, especially for small organizations. Three key informants felt that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 31
some organizations have not been involved because they have not beeninvited to participate, and two felt that the stakeholders who should beinvolved have been active:
I think you need consistent leadership to encourage people to stay at thetable. I think sometimes it is a matter of people [who] are used to workingwithin their own entity and it’s just easier to do your routine work thantake the time to go to the meeting table, develop the relationship [and]do what you need to need to do to keep those relationships strong. Ifyou don’t have the contact and leadership that continues to nurture therelationships and encourage people to be at the table together and makethe linkages to people it’s not going to happen because people just don’ttake time to make to make it happen.
Most key informants felt that the TCP will need to diversify its fundingbase and possibly become a conduit for funding within the region. Not onlywill this provide TCP with long-term fiscal stability; it will increase the TCP’sability to attract funding to the area and influence other stakeholders tobecome involved in the Continuum of Care planning process. When keyinformants were asked about factors that may influence the TCP’s longevity,three key informants questioned whether there would always be a need forthe TCP. They felt that if the community infrastructure is able to support acoordinated system of care for homeless persons and the TCP is no longerneeded to facilitate the planning process and perform its other tasks, theorganization should cease to exist.
TCP needs to work fairly quickly at re-establishing itself in the commu-nity. I think it has lost some momentum, at least from what I hear in thecommunity : : : even before [the new executive director] was sick so itis not their illness. In my mind[the] one thing to sustain itself is to reallyfairly quickly get itself out there again, do whatever it has to do in termsof strengthening relationships and being visible in the community.
One of the problems TCP has is that they have no real authority, theway they do in other cities where they are a funnel for money. The onlyway we can get people to continue to support them is by cajoling andsaying ‘‘if you’re not going to be in the Continuum of Care report thatgoes to the federal government, you are not going to get some of thosefederal funds you are getting.’’ They have to say ‘‘look, this is where weare going, this is where the future is, this is where money needs to bespent, if you want to develop those agencies in those directions, you’rewith us, if not, so long, we can’t help you and move on.’’
Well, it’s not really about TCP, it’s really about solving homelessness. IfTCP goes away in five years, it wouldn’t bother me if it did as long asit accomplished its goal[s]. I’m not sustaining TCP as an organization, in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
32 J. M. Ivery
fact, that’s really [the] kind of message we want to get to the providercommunity is that you shouldn’t be worried about sustaining your orga-nization, you should be worried about solving homelessness.
To be responsive to current and emerging issues related to homelessnessin the region, all of the key informants agreed that the TCP will need tocontinue fostering strategic partnerships and bring different stakeholders andsystems (i.e., criminal justice, mental health) together to address homeless-ness at the individual, community, organizational, and institutional levels ofintervention. According to one respondent:
I would like to see the [organization] continue as a catalyst. As theorganization that gets everybody together and make sure we’re goingdown the right path, that it continues to be the communication vehicle.I don’t care if TCP is actually overseeing any of the programs, if we couldget rid of some of the programs that are here now and there are someother organizations that are doing better, great. I really see the role ofTCP as the entity that kind of keeps things moving forward : : : governorschange, mayors change so I think there is always going to be that need forthat coordinating entity and some strong leadership to keep it running.
When key informants were asked ‘‘What would you like to see TCP andits organizational partners doing in the next 5 years?’’ advocacy, research,community education and technical assistance were the most frequentlyidentified areas in which the TCP could have been influential. Substanceabuse, mental health, services for women, and chronically homeless personswere identified as specific service areas that needed to be addressed withina coordinated system of care because they are areas in which partnershipshave not been fully developed.
Research and community education are two closely related areas inwhich the key informants would like to see TCP take a leadership role withinthe next 5 years. Although all of the key informants perceive the TCP as aresource for information about homelessness their comments suggest theyenvision the TCP’s becoming an expert on issues related to homelessness notonly by collecting data and publishing reports on homelessness at the locallevel but by monitoring trends at the state and national level. Specific exam-ples include developing and/or adapting an existing methodology to moreaccurately track the number of homeless individuals, identifying best prac-tices, and conducting environmental scans to assess changes (community,political, economic, organizational, etc.) that may impact housing policiesand service delivery. Knowledge dissemination and community educationare also important to the respondents. It is not enough for the TCP tocollect data and generate reports, it should be a priority for the TCP to usethe information to inform other stakeholders and the broader communityabout homelessness, its contributing factors, and solutions to the problem
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 33
and to confront stereotypes people have about homeless persons. Threekey informants felt that this type of education was critical in changing thecommunity perceptions of the homeless persons and shifting the philosophyof service delivery to a more holistic approach that emphasizes prevention.
The key informants view the TCP as an umbrella organization and wouldlike to see it continue to function in this role to coordinate service delivery.Technical assistance is an area six respondents identified as a future rolefor the TCP. Developing case management and service standards, assistingwith agency/organizational assessments, and centralized intake/informationsystems are three broad categories in which key informants felt the TCPmay be able to provide assistance based on their expertise and emergingopportunities.
[I] look forward to TCP being that advocate at the state level or federallevel or whatever to make sure we have the resources, the information,those connections so that we can be stronger and stronger with preven-tion strategies.
Local government is not going to form a partnership with an advocacyorganization. If TCP wants to be a force for improving programs andpolicies through the local government as a partner, it’s going to haveto stick to [a] ‘‘these are the facts’’ [strategy] because the facts are prettycompelling whether you are Republican or Democrat.
DISCUSSION
Collaboration continues to be an important component of the TCP’s structureand process used to develop the Continuum of Care application. However,without a fully functioning partnership, it has been a challenge to facilitate aneffective process to develop and implement services for homeless individualsand adults. At the time this project was completed, the TCP was undergoinga period of transition in which a new executive director had been hired andstarted implementing program changes to advance the goals and objectivesof the partnership. Alexander et al. (2001) contend that ‘‘partnerships facea paradoxical need for both continuity and change in leadership’’ (p. 171).Though continuity helps foster the stability necessary to move forward to-ward long-term goal achievement, change can infuse a partnership with freshideas and new energy. It is often a challenge for partnerships to respond tochanges within their structure and the larger environment while continuingto function. This is especially true when the organization is closely identifiedwith its former leader. Hernandez and Leslie (2001) acknowledge that whenstakeholders are dependent on or associated with a charismatic leader, theyare likely to have split loyalties between the old and new leadership. TCPexperienced this as the key informants were divided between loyalty to the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
34 J. M. Ivery
former executive director and the future direction of the organization asoutlined by the new director.
Unfortunately, as the stakeholders were adjusting to the new leadership,the executive director became ill, and the responsibility for implementationwas divided among the staff with the guidance of the board of directors.This period without leadership contributed to the uncertainty about theTCP’s purpose and strategy. When the TCP staff focused on managing thedaily tasks associated with operating the organization, their attention tothe partnership tasks was diminished. Although they continued to serve intheir role as the broker organization, the TCP was not meeting as regularlywith their partners, and communication was not as frequent to inform thecommunity about the TCP’s recent efforts. As a result, some stakeholdersperceived a loss of momentum in the community and lack of clarity aboutthe organization’s mission, purpose, and goals. This was a challenging timefor the TCP as it sought to achieve a balance managing their organizationwithout a leader and moving forward with plans that will, in the words ofmore than one respondent, ‘‘take TCP to the next level.’’ This lack of clarityreflected the growing pains associated with partnerships as they transitionto the next phase of their development. It also highlighted how partnershipswithout consistent leadership are challenged in their ability to work towardgoal achievement if they do not have a clear sense of the purpose, structure,and strategy of the collaborative.
An organizational analysis of the TCP reveals how a lack of preparednessfor change can negatively affect overall functioning, both independently andas part of the organizational environment. Galambos et al. (2005) argue thatdeveloping a system for continuous discussion and feedback about the up-coming changes, organizational preparedness, education and training aboutthe changes, sustaining employee participation, and using organizationalchange as an opportunity to institutionalize change are important strategieswhen dealing with organizational change. TCP did not have a system ofopen communication that clearly informed its stakeholders of changes asthey were occurring and how they may be affected. This was articulatedby many key informants who expressed uncertainty about the direction ofthe organization. Since the executive director’s illness was not planned, theTCP has not anticipated, the need for new leadership so soon after a newexecutive director was selected. As a result, the TCP experienced a periodwithout leadership because no one was prepared to immediately provideleadership until a permanent replacement could be appointed. Although aformal education and training program may not have not been appropriate,minimal effort was made to inform the broader community about TCP’smission and organizational structure. TCP’s staff was actively involved withthe ongoing changes because they were forced to perform tasks and dutiesthat may not have been part of their job responsibilities. Although it wasnot discussed in any of the staff interviews, the current staff may have felt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 35
a sense of obligation or gratitude to remain committed because they werenot fired during the administrative restructuring. When the time the datawere collected, it was not clear how or whether the TCP would use thisexperience to prepare the organization for long-term sustainability despiteenvironmental uncertainty.
The key informants identified fund diversification, strategic partnershipswith local government, and credibility within the larger community as areasin which the TCP can expand/or develop their expertise and influence thatwill support the TCP’s long-term sustainability. To sustain itself, the TCPmust develop strategic partnerships and alliances at the local, state, andnational levels. At the state and national levels, it will be important for theTCP to align itself with broader initiatives on homelessness. For example,the TCP’s plan to end homelessness was based on a 5-year time frame.Since then, state and national plans to end homelessness have transitionedto 10-year plans, and the TCP is in the process of changing to a 10-yearplanning process. Locally, the TCP must maintain its credibility within thecommunity to build upon existing relationships, establish new partnerships,and continue its role as an authority on issues related to homelessness.Because of their previous accomplishments, the TCP is still perceived asa catalyst for facilitating relationships and communication between diversestakeholders and a resource for education in the community. However, tomaintain their credibility, consistent and competent leadership is necessaryto guide the partnership beyond this transitional period into the next phaseof their development.
IMPLICATIONS
In their review of the collaboration literature, Jones, Crook, and Webb (2007)found that there is a need to explore how collaborative partnerships canassist community organizations to position themselves in their environmentsfor service integration. This study explored how a mature partnership hasresponded to changes within the broker organization and the service envi-ronment. According to Roberts-DeGennaro (1997), leadership during periodsof transition is critical to a partnership’s ability to adjust and respond and is a‘‘predictable, repeated test of a coalition’s viability and commitment’’ (p. 104).A challenge for partnerships is to determine the ‘‘best fit’’ between the skillsand leadership styles of the facilitator with the needs of the partnership.For example, during the early stages of a partnership, the relationship andrapport-building skills of the leaders may be a priority whereas later stagesmay require a person with a different skill set for strategic planning, resourcedevelopment, implementation, and evaluation.
Social work administrators who lead collaborative efforts need to beproactive when developing the partnership’s by-laws to provide governance
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
36 J. M. Ivery
structure and leadership succession plans. Even though unexpected circum-stances, such as illness, may occur, it is still useful to ahve a plan in placeto avoid periods without leadership and/or limited partner participation. Be-cause partnering organizations experience staff turnover, it will be necessaryto recruit and retain representatives who are supportive of the partnershipsmission and goals. Within the broker organization, the leadership should beprepared to facilitate a process that will be inclusive and lead to consensuson the partnership’s purpose, function, and strategies (Mizrahi & Rosenthal,1995). It will important for the leadership to assess the relevance of thepartnership’s mission and goal with the stakeholders as part of the transition.By doing so, the stakeholders will be able to focus on the tasks related tothe partnership’s functioning and make adjustments as necessary as partof a strategy to achieve group consensus and a clear understanding of thedirection of the partnership.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.
Alexander, J. A., Comfort, M. E., Weiner, B. J., & Bogue, R. (2001). Leadership incollaborative community health partnerships. Nonprofit Management & Lead-
ership, 12, 159–175.Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub-
lishers.Austin, M. J., Martin, M., Carnochan, S., Goldberg, S., Duerr Berrick, J., Weiss,
B., et al. (1999). Building a comprehensive agency-university partnership: Acase study of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium. Journal of Community
Practice, 6, 89–106.Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human
services organizations: From affiliations to consolidations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Baum, J. A. C. (1996). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77–114). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.
Burt, M. B., Aron, L. Y., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Home-
lessness: Programs and the people they serve. Summary report: Findings of theNational Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Retrieved June 1,2008, from http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homelessness/
Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community
capacity. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.Galambos, C., Dulmus, C. N., & Wodarski, J. S. (2005). Principles for organizational
change in human service organizations. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 11, 63–78.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Partnerships in Transition 37
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappa, 84, 693–700.
Hernandez, C. M., & Leslie, D. R. (2001). Charismatic leadership: The aftermath.Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 493–497.
Ivery, J. M. (2008). Policy mandated collaboration: What really happens? Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 25, 53–70.Ivery, J. M. (2007). Organizational ecology: A theoretical perspective to examine
collaborative partnerships. Administration in Social Work, 31, 7–19.Ivery, J. M. (2004). Interorganizational collaboration: An examination of factors
that influence the motivation for participation in a collaborative partnershipof homeless service providers.(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia CommonwealthUniversity, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(1540).
Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Kai Yung Tam, B., LaMontagne, M., & Johnson, S. A. (2003).Stakeholder’s view of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration.Exceptional Children, 69, 195–110.
Jones, J. M., Crook, W. P., & Reid Webb, J. (2007). Collaboration for the provisionof services: A review of the literature. Journal of Community Practice, 15, 41–71.
Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. (2001). Complexities of coalition building: Leader’ssuccesses, strategies, struggles, and solutions. Social Work, 46, 63–78.
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2007). 2007 Annual report.Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/2007_Annual_Report2.pdf
Nkhata, A. B., Breen, C. M., & Freimund, W. A. (2008). Resilient social relationshipsand collaboration in the management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and
Society, 13, 1–12.Payne, M. (1997). Modern social work theory (2nd ed.). Chicago: Lyceum.Roberts-DeGennaro, M. (1997). Conceptual framework of coalitions in an organiza-
tional context. Journal of Community Practice, 4, 91–107.Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues:
Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873.Speer, P. W., & Zippay, A. (2005). Participatory decision-making among community
coalitions: Analysis of task group meetings. Journal of Community Practice, 29,61–77.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
United States Conference of Mayors. (2008). Hunger and homelessness survey: A
Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 25-city sur-vey. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_121208.pdf
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of CommunityPlanning and Development. (1996). Continuums of care for states. RetrievedSeptember 19, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/library/coc/cocstates.pdf
Wolff, T. (2001). A practitioner’s guide to successful coalitions. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29, 173–191.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:57
16
Dec
embe
r 20
14