Active Partnerships: Example of a Working Collaborative

Active Partnerships: Example of a Working Collaborative

Southern Institute May 23, 2013

Presenters

Steve Pulliam, Executive Director, United Way of Transylania County

Barbara Boerner, Past President, UWTC

Stoney Bleveins, Director, Dept. Social Services, Transylvania County

Susan Grider, Executive Director, The Family Place

Southern Institute - May 23, 2013 2


Agenda

Background

What is True Collaboration?

UWTC Moves to Collaboration

Connect: A Working Collaborative

Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup

2008 Challenge

How to develop our long-term vision, goals and initiatives around the three focus areas put forth by UWW, rally all needed partners to be involved, and achieve improvements in community level outcomes with 1.75 staff members.


United Way of Transylvania County (UWTC)

• UWTC adopts the 3 focus areas - June, 2008• UWTC Board approves two potential partners in

December, 2008• Child & Family Coalition – Education• Land of Waterfalls Partnership for Health (LWPH)

– Health• UWTC – Financial Stability


Transylvania United

• Transylvania United formed - February, 2009 education, health, and financial stability

• Members recruited, Theory of Change training August ‘09

• Completed the vision mapping process December, 2009.• Identified Barriers to success and Community Level

Outcomes (Needed Improvements) to overcome those Barriers




Transylvania UnitedFirst Year Initiatives

Health Financial Stability Education

Prepare preschoolage

children forkindergarten

Create/Trainfor Living-Wage Jobs

Create Health & Human Service

AccessNetwork*

ReduceObesity

2010Year of Cooperation

UWTC integrated Focus Triangles with Allocation Process Identified “Owners” for 1st year initiativesFormed work groups around 4 Initiatives• Determine interventions (program/projects)• Create Plan for Implementation• Obtain funding

Transylvania United continued to: • Encourage collaboration• Resource leveraging• Avoid duplication of efforts



Agenda

Background




Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup


COOPERATION•STAKEHOLDERS LIMITED TO SYSTEM•IMPLIES POWER STRUCTURE •TIME IS THE PRESENT•LIMITED IMPACT ON FUTURE

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER

STAKEHOLDER

STAKEHOLDER

COOPERATIONON

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration to Enhance Your Organization's Effectiveness…

• Differences among cooperation, competition, and collaboration and provides

• Often overlooked advantages of small business in a small community. • Identifying stakeholders • Finding opportunities to…

• Share resources,

• Build collaborative efforts that can provide

• Provide optimum ROI of time, effort, and money.


COLLABORATION


STAKE-HOLDER

STAKE-HOLDER

COLLABO-RATION

STAKE-HOLDERSTAKE-HOLDER

• STAKEHOLDERS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED

• NOT LIMITED BY TIME

• IMPACT ON FUTURE

COMPETITION: FORCES CLASH AS FOES VIE FOR SAME BENEFIT


FOE FOEWINNER LOSER

RESULTING IN…

STAKEHOLDERS: WHO, OR WHAT, ARE THEY?

Someone or something that has a direct interest or investment in the success of your company


SELF INTERESTS OF STAKEHOLDERS

Depend upon the expectations of the stakeholders

In short, “What’s in it for me?”


POWER SOURCES OF STAKEHOLDERS

CUSTOMERSSUPPLIERSCOMPETITORSGOVERNMENTNGO’SCITIZENSOTHER?


BARRIERS TO COLLABORATION

SELF-INTERESTFEARINCONVENIENCELACK OF COOPERATIONMESSINESSLOSS OF INDEPENDENCESHARING OF CONTROL


BENEFITS OF COLLABORATION

• POWER IN THE MARKET• RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY• SHARED EXPECTANCIES• SHARED EXPERTISE• SHARED INFORMATION• SHARED AUTHORITY• INCREASED LEVERAGE


IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

THREE MAJOR APPLICATIONS for ORGANIZATIONS:

1.MERGERS OR ACQUISITIONS2.GLOBALIZATION3.SHARED SERVICES


WHAT DOES COLLABORATION DO TO, OR FOR, COMPETITION?

LEVERAGE IS THE KEY…


Bring POSITIVE OUTCOMES

COLLABORATIVEFORCES act to


Agenda

Background


UWTC moves to Collaboration


Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup


2011Moving to Collaboration

Continue to evaluate TRAIN – the test Collaborative

“Push” idea with Agencies

Volunteers discussed potential collaboratives during program review process

Only one potential identified and no takers at this point

Decided must take more assertive action to accomplish

Laid out aggressive plan; committed to January, 2012 Mini-Advance with entire Board to develop and commit to plan of action

2012Collaborative Funding Process Initiated

• Revised Allocation Plan• Prioritize Collaboratives – 2 or more agencies

working together to break thru one of the defined barriers to success for a defined population

• Up to 1st $100,000 (35%) of allocations to go to Collaboratives

• 10 Collaborative LOI’s; 6 put to complete allocation. Interactive Negotiated Process

• 4 Collaboratives Approved for total of $72K


26

Future: Achieving impact by investing in:

Prevention & development services

Basic human-needs & crisis services

attitudes, networks, neighborhoods, organizations,

systems

Efforts to influence community

Focu

s on

com

mun

ity im

pact

Southern Institute - May 23, 2013

Collaborative Efforts: 25% & Increasing

Collaboratives – 1st Year: 2012-2013

TRAIN – Now with 7000 clients in database representing all low-moderate income familes in county

Health TRAIN – Van service for low income w/o transportation

Healthy Smiles – Elementary Dental Education and repair for children w/o insurance

Connect – Reducing the number of families at risk of youth abuse & neglect



Agenda

Background




Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup


Connect Prevention Collaborative Preventing child abuse and neglect in Transylvania County

Three separate organizations• Family Place of Transylvania County• Transylvania County Department of Social Services• The Children’s Center


Existing touch points• The Family Place/Children’s Center: Nurturing Parenting

Program• Children’s Center/Department of Social Services (DSS):

Supervised visitations• DSS/The Family Place: Existing Memorandum of

Agreement, board/Multiple Response System team membership




One Purpose, One Passion• Safe children• Stable families


Ideas• Collaborate on parenting education• Catch families screened out for Child Protective Services

(CPS)• Provide multiple services



Shaping the format• Role of each partner

–Space–Fiscal agency–Supervision

• Staffing• Budgeting• Name change



Up and Running• Weekly “staffing” meetings• Referral Services• Other players?



Adding Partners• County Health Department• County Schools



Layers• Executive Committee—primary structural decisions• Formal Partners—direct collaboration through formal MOA• Community Partners—Other organizations, not in formal

relationship with Connect, with whom we exchange referrals and non-confidential information



Year to Date Successes• 47 cases (representing 70 children) referred to Connect• 95% (representing 66 children) received assistance and

did not go into custody• Potential savings to the community: estimated $105,534*

(UWTC total investment to date: $27,000; ROI of 391%

* The median annual cost of one child in custody in NC is $1,599




Family Mediation6%

Counseling/Mental Health12%

Parenting Classes/Support11%

Housing7%

Public Health/Safety26%

Employment4%

Modified School Program

7%

Alternative Home Placement9%

Community Support

5%

CPS/Law En-forcement

8%

Refused Services5%Services Provided through CONNECT


Potential pitfalls• Inadequate budget• Improper staffing• Wrong partners

–Representation–Balance (inequality in commitment, input, and/or

influence)–Not enough/too many



Discoveries and lessons learned

The power of collaboration• Multi-dimensional • Increased level of commitment by partners • Egalitarian—no “Lead” agency• Organic—takes on a life of its own• Economy of Scale

–More people served–More efficiently–More effectively



Applying the model• Identify the change needed

– Whom will you serve– For what purpose– At what cost

• Identify groups already involved in addressing the issue• Identify what’s needed to effect real change

– Actions– Structure– Players– Resources

• Commit



Agenda

Background




Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup

1. Each person fill out on note cards suggestion for 2 collaboratives that might be implemented in your community. ID whether Education/Income/Health

2. Divide into Education, Income and Health Groups

3. Collectively list and prioritize 1-2 collaborative idea(s) per group

4. Using LOI instructions and Questions, develop LOI for this collaborative(s)

5. Prepare to present to the group



Agenda

Background




Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup

Report Out

1. Present the LOI to the panel of 4 presenters as if making a request for funding.

2. All tables can ask questions

3. Panel will both ask questions and give critique on quality of collaborative



Agenda

Background




Group Discussion

Report Out

Wrapup

Thank you


Documents

Active Partnerships: Example of a Working Collaborative