U7D2-24 - Analyze the impact of current issues experienced by public service employees impacting efficient personnel management practices. See Details below

Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational

and Community Collaboration Danielle E. Parrish, Debra Harris, and Suzanne Pritzker

With an emphasis by both public and private funding sources on community-level service integration, many social service organizations have been required to shift from traditional “silo” models of service delivery to increased community-based collaboration and service coordination. There is a paucity of research to identify successful methods to achieve these goals. This article describes a self-study method used to engage service providers in a com- munity development effort designed to meet the needs identified by local residents within their community and empower a rural, unincorporated community with scarce resources. It also reports qualitative outcomes that assessed the utility of a self-study method to achieve collaboration and community empowerment. Communication, ownership, input, and investment among providers appear to be key components to achieving long-term sustain- ability and success. Implications for the utility of the self-study method for achieving com- munity service integration that aligns with basic principles of community development are discussed.

KEY WORDS: coalition; collaborative; community development; community-based services; empowerment

Opportunities to stimulate community-level service integration are increasinglyin demand, requiring social service organizations to shift from traditional “silo” service delivery models to increased community-based collaboration and service coordination (Austin, 2000; Bayne-Smith, Mizrahi, & Garcia, 2008; Jones, Crook, & Webb, 2007). In the current eco- nomic climate, limited financial resources and staff capacity force many agencies to streamline commu- nity service delivery. Funders, in particular, prioritize service coordination to meet community-identified needs through partnerships that empower and engage community residents in key service deci- sions (Bayne-Smith et al., 2008; Hardina, 2005). Numerous federal, state, and private funding sources prefer community collaboration to maximize exist- ing resources, preclude service duplication, and facilitate more efficient service delivery (Bailey & Koney, 1996; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Weil, 1996; White & Wehlage, 1995).

To meet these demands, social work administra- tors must develop stronger collaborative skills within and among diverse organizations and

communities (Bailey & Koney, 1996; Edwards et al., 1996; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Louns- bury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Hardina, 2005; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Mulroy, 2000; Short & Talley, 2000; Weil, 1996). However, there is scant literature on effective systematic efforts that strengthen and build interorganizational commu- nity collaborations in which the goal is partnership with and empowerment of the community. To address this gap, this article describes one aspect of a state-funded project to develop an interorganiza- tional community-based collaborative focused on providing early childhood development services to a small, rural, and primarily Spanish-speaking community. Specifically, we describe a self-study approach used to guide coordinated service delivery and implementation of community development principles through interorganizational collaboration between a lead agency and multiple service delivery agencies.

LITERATURE REVIEW Effective social service collaboration is both interor- ganizational and community-based. Himmelman

doi: 10.1093/sw/swt039 © 2013 National Association of Social Workers 354

(2001) described interorganizational collaboration as the

exchanging of information, altering activities, sharing resources, and a willingness to enhance the capacity of another for mutual benefit and a common purpose; it requires the highest lev- els of trust, considerable amounts of time, and an extensive sharing of turf. (p. 278)

In contrast, community-based collaboration means developing relationships with the community whereby the community residents’ knowledge and expertise are valued. Such collaboration empowers residents to make decisions regarding service delivery and other related community efforts, such as improv- ing neighborhood conditions and safety (Mizrahi, 1999; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). Together, these approaches enhance social service delivery by increasing effective communication between the community residents and the service delivery agen- cies, as well as between agencies. When successful, interorganizational and community-based collabora- tion may result in reduced duplication of services and an increased use of services by the community (Jones et al., 2007).

The extant literature suggests various avenues for strengthening organizational and community- based collaborations, including establishing organi- zational policies to support collaborative efforts (Mizrahi, 1999; Olson, 2003), systematic reflection on current service provider roles, preparation and practice with community residents (Short & Talley, 2000), stronger integration of social justice princi- ples (Graham & Barter, 1999), and creating specific community resident involvement structures (Bayne- Smith et al., 2008). Communication, attention to organizational and personal self-interest, trust, com- promise, interdependence, competent leadership, equitable decision making, flexibility, and the sharing of resources are also important ingredients for success (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Graham & Barter, 1999; Mattessich & Monsley, 1992; Mizrahi, 1999; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Olson, 2003; Perrault, McClelland, Austin, & Sieppert, 2011; Rosenthal & Mizrahi, 1994;Welch & Tulbert, 2000).

Despite growing demand for collaboration, many agencies struggle to develop successful collab- orative relationships. This may be because collabora- tion is a learned behavior (Mulroy, 2000), or due to

deeply entrenched human services organizational thinking tied to dominant, deficit-based thought structures (Rose-Ackerman, 1986). Regardless, there is overwhelming agreement that successful inter- organizational collaboration and community invol- vement are essential for successful social service organizations. However, the question remains: What methods are useful for facilitating successful interorganizational collaboration and shared com- munity involvement? (Edwards et al., 1996; Gra- ham & Barter, 1999; Jones et al., 2007; Mizrahi, 1999; Mulroy, 2000; Olson, 2003).

One possible strategy to create and sustain inter- organizational and community-based collaborations is a self-study approach. This approach aims to raise consciousness and educate adults within a didactic and interactive environment (Friere, 1996; Hanna & Robinson, 1994; Horton, 1990). It is adapted from the transformative strategies of the adult edu- cation movement, including the Swedish study cir- cle tradition used with U.S. labor unions, within the civil rights era Highlander Folk Citizenship Schools, and by the Community Service Organi- zations led by Fred Ross, Sr. and Cesar Chavez. According to Hanna and Robinson (1994), these transformative strategies include a “small group orien- tation; an emphasis on self-directed (non-hierarchical) learning; an emphasis on interpersonal bonds; an analysis linking personal oppression to societal/ structural oppression; and a fully collective approach to group awareness, decision making, and social action” (p. 151).

We posited that a self-study process with admin- istrators from various partner organizations would help establish a successful community-based col- laborative by educating and raising the conscious- ness of service providers regarding the importance of basic community development principles when providing services in a disempowered community. Thus, a state-funded project whose goals were to achieve interorganizational and community-based collaboration to deliver comprehensive early child- hood development services implemented a self- study process. The lead agency intended this discourse to prepare service providers to join a larger collaborative effort with leaders from the target community. Ferguson and Dickens’s (1999) com- munity development principles—resident driven, neighborhood based, and empowerment focused— guided the project and collaborative. While the

Parrish et al. / Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational and Community Collaboration 355

self-study process was in progress with service providers, the lead agency conducted community one-on-ones (brief interviews conducted by trained resident leaders to identify neighborhood leadership and begin a dialogue that leads to a shared commu- nity vision), needs assessment surveys, and commu- nity forums to identify community needs to bring to the larger collaborative of service providers and local community leaders. Community leaders included both residents and leaders within agencies and businesses in the target area.

Given the paucity of research assessing the suc- cess of these strategies (Jones et al., 2007; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Short & Talley, 2000), the utility of this self-study effort was assessed using qualitative methods. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with service providers six months after the self-study process to answer the following three research questions: (1) Was the self-study method successful in achieving collabo- ration among service providers? (2) Were service providers aligned with the guiding principles of the collaborative following the self-study process? and (3) Did the service providers find the self-study process beneficial for their agency?

METHOD

Program Design and Context Using state early childhood development funding awarded to the lead agency, the collaborative’s pri- mary purpose was to integrate early childhood development services for children from birth to age five years into a small (less than 1,000), primar- ily Hispanic (94 percent) and Spanish-speaking, low-income, unincorporated, industrial, rural area of California. This community had scarce social services, child care, and public transportation access to the nearest city. Mindful of the need to partner with and respect the community during this pro- cess, the lead agency decided that all facets of the project would adhere to Ferguson and Dickens’s (1999) community development guiding princi- ples: empowerment focused, resident driven, and neighborhood based. These three principles, taken together, meant the project would build on com- munity strengths; seek to increase personal, inter- personal, and political power among its residents; rely on community expertise when identifying needs; and provide all services within the project’s geographic area. Therefore, a community-based

collaboration was conceptualized to empower the community to set priorities, control resources, and establish a process to integrate outside institutions. This necessitated fostering collaboration among service agencies to partner with one another and respect these principles when entering the com- munity. A self-study process was used to stimulate this discussion and raise service providers’ con- sciousness of these principles.

Self-Study Process Transformative strategies and principles associated with the adult education movement informed this self-study process to raise consciousness, educate, and transform the typical approach of service pro- viders. To ensure consistency with a community development approach focused on building trust, promoting sensitive partnership with the target community, and respecting resident decision mak- ing, the self-study process consisted of 10 small group meetings. The lead agency identified the focus for each meeting in collaboration with an external community development expert. All meetings involved discourse on the collaborative’s guiding principles, project planning, and reflection on various collaborative community outreach/ development events (community forums, meetings, and needs assessments). Collaborative members were full-time executive or program directors from service delivery agencies that were invited to provide community-based services or that were interested in this collaboration. None of these administrators lived in the target community.

Participants Nine organizations initially were involved in the first informational meeting; however, only five organizations participated in the formal self-study method and completed the interviews. These organizations included a public higher education organization; a private nonprofit job training and placement program; a private hospital; a nonprofit behavioral health agency; a small nonprofit parent and ESL education organization; and a small, newer nonprofit agency. Six individuals were interviewed from these five organizations, with two interviewed simultaneously from the same organization. This organization (Org. F in the results) had the shortest transcript and was mini- mally involved six months after the self-study. The same five organizations and six individuals were

356 Social Work Volume 58, Number 4 October 2013

present at all meetings, with the exception of the ninth meeting, where only three organizations and members were present.

Instrumentation and Study Design Qualitative data were obtained from a semistruc- tured, 14-item interview questionnaire (see Figure 1). Interviews explored three main content areas, con- sistent with the literature on successful collaboration: (1) level of input into the collaborative process, defined as the existence of “shared decision-making, ownership and universal risk” (Graham & Barter, 1999, p. 2); (2) communication (Homan, 2004; Mattessich &

Monsey, 1992; Welch & Tulbert, 2000), defined as perceived adequate communication with the lead agency and collaborative partners; and (3) level of investment (Graham & Barter, 1999; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Olson, 2003), encompassing both commitment to the collaborative and the provision of resources.

To assess potential change and collaborative par- ticipation, interviews were conducted six months after the self-study process, one year after the collab- oration began, but not so much later that partici- pants would forget. The same researcher completed and tape-recorded all interviews, and all participants

Figure 1: Interview Schedule

Parrish et al. / Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational and Community Collaboration 357

were informed that collected data would be kept confidential and de-identified. Interviews were tran- scribed into electronic format for analysis.

Data Analysis Procedures Content analysis was used to identify patterns and themes from participant interviews. Each transcript was first read to preview the data. Text was then rearranged using a word processor to aggregate all participant responses for each research question. Manifest content was analyzed using word count and search procedures, as well as manual counting of the occurrence of categorical statements. Latent content was also examined through an open cod- ing method. This enabled analyses of transcripts based on a defined set of themes taken from the research questions but also left the possibility for additional themes to emerge (Berg, 2004). Finally, an axial coding process was used to identify themes across these different thematic categories (Berg, 2004). Rules were documented for this analysis, and investigator triangulation was used to test for consistency and validity of the coding.

RESULTS

Was the Self-Study Method Successful in Achieving Collaboration among Service Providers? To examine whether the self-study was successful in achieving collaboration among service provider organizations and with the larger community, open-ended interview responses from organiza- tional representatives examined (a) perceived level of input into the collaborative process, (b) whether the communication has been perceived to be suffi- cient among collaborative partners, (c) level of investment in the project, and (d) feedback for the project leaders. Overall, major themes identified in each of these areas indicate that the self-study pro- cess was not fully successful at six months, largely because of a lack of communication and interest in providing input and somewhat low levels of invest- ment of service providers in the goals of the project.

Perceived Level of Input into the Process. Percep- tions of both the actual and preferred level of input varied among providers. For the most part, agency representatives preferred to partner with the lead agency only to provide services, rather than contrib- uting input on the implementation of the commu- nity development/collaborative effort. Participants

communicated a lack of ownership, limited stake in the success of the collaborative, and a perception that their input may not be valued or used by the collaborative:

I didn’t feel like they had to have a bunch of my input. It’s your project. I agreed to do some work for you. How you chose to imple- ment this is really yours. And it’s yours for good, bad, or indifferent. (Org. D)

***

I don’t think I’ve had that much. Are you talk- ing about the collaborative building? I don’t think we’ve had that much of an impact on it. I think our impact has been more on the resi- dents down there than it ever was for helping build what they . . . needed. (Org. B)

Org. C indicated that time was a main deterrent in providing input: “I don’t think I gave as much input as I was asked. . . . because sometimes you know, when you get involved with some of these projects, it can be very time consuming.” Finally, Org. F shared concern regarding whether the input provided had an impact: “Well, it’s an open setting, so everybody has the ability to provide input. How your input is used is, you’ll never know, because it’s left up to the developers how they want to develop it.”

Perceived Level of Communication. All agency representatives shared that the frequency of com- munication and meetings had decreased dramati- cally after the conclusion of the self-study process. Although some providers saw this as an opportu- nity to avoid an excessive time commitment, oth- ers began to feel disconnected from the project itself, resulting in low levels of trust in the lead agency. However, these feelings of disconnection reflected feeling left out of an opportunity to part- ner to provide services and receive funding rather than dismay at feeling left out of an opportunity to engage, empower, and collaborate with the target community:

And . . . we’re not meeting as often, but I don’t think we need to with the whole bunch of us, because I don’t think it’s really necessary. I suppose we could meet quarterly to talk about how we’re doing and what, if they see

358 Social Work Volume 58, Number 4 October 2013

any holes or gaps or whatever. I’m happy with . . . what our little piece of the pie is at this point. . . . I think that’s fine. You know, I’m not interested in a big splashy production. I’m just happy to be part of something. (Org. E)

When providers were asked if more meetings might be beneficial, responses indicated that this was not the preferred method of collaborating. For example, Org. C shared, “So, I would think if they had a success. . .then to send an email out to all of the collaborative members and say hey, guess what? This is what we’re doing. It’s been pretty successful.” Similarly, Org B stated:

I’m just uh, I meant a lot of the meetings we went to I just walked out of there and I said, same thing we heard last time we were here. Nothing new. . . . I guess I’m more of a person who likes to see actions.

Level of Investment. The level of investment in the collaborative appeared to be directly related to the quantity of services an organization was pro- viding or potentially able to provide in the future, suggesting that the level of investment is likely linked to an agency’s self-interest. For example, Org. C stated, “I would have to say small because we only identified three or four services we could possibly bring to the table.” Other provider responses reflected a somewhat higher level of investment as they anticipated providing future ser- vices to the target community. For example, Org. A shared that her agency’s investment was high because it was trying to serve the same target pop- ulation and saw this collaboration as an opportu- nity to “sustain itself as much as possible.”

In contrast, some providers indicated that their level of investment was based on prior positive relationships with the lead agency and a desire to support a successful project with this agency. Org. D’s personal desire for a successful outcome was high, but organizational investment was low:

You know . . . I want it to succeed . . . I like [the agency director] as a person. I think she’s trying really hard to make something work. . . . Philanthropically or whatever, it’s an excel- lent model, and I think it’s what agencies need to be doing more of, which is going out and meeting needs there and identifying strengths. . . . I thought well, you know, if we don’t go,

no skin off my nose. You know it’s going to look bad for [the project staff], which is too bad, because they’re trying really hard to do a good thing. So again selfishly, I think, well I hope it goes, I’d like it to go. If it doesn’t go, thank God it’s not me. Which is kind of selfish. But that’s reality.

Feedback for Improving the Collaborative. All providers, in some capacity, communicated frustra- tion with the length of time needed to secure a contract for services with the lead agency. These concerns likely indicated an expectation that these contracts would be established soon after the com- pletion of the self-study process, regardless of what the residents identified as their primary needs. For some, there was frustration and impatience in wait- ing for community residents to organize, commu- nicate their needs, and participate in the service delivery decision-making process. For example, Org. F shared, “It’s just frustrating to go for a year, and still not be started. . . . Yeah. If you’re going to provide services, provide them. If we don’t know what to provide, then we need to move on and pick another area.” Similarly, Org. E shared, “And I think that was, at times, frustrating for sev- eral of us at the table—providers. ‘Well what’s going on? What’s going to happen? Are we going to get out there? When are we going to get started?’”

For other providers, however, this frustration was somewhat tempered by the context of either trusting the lead agency or understanding and respecting the community development process. Org. A shared, “The only thing that I can say is that [the lead agency], from what I know of them, has a great track record . . . and I trust their process . . . but it seems like it’s going slow.” Simi- larly, Org C seemed to understand and respect the community development process: “Because I think it’s evolving, so you know, you can’t expect everything at one time.”

Other feedback included a desire to increase transparency and communication between the lead agency and provider agencies with regard to what services each agency can provide and how it fits with the project’s goals. Org. A suggested that the lead agency “spend a little more time with us ser- vices providers to know what we’re doing and pro- vide updates.” The provider from Org. D shared that she had approached the lead agency to

Parrish et al. / Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational and Community Collaboration 359

communicate regarding a lack of service contract- ing, and developed a better understanding of the process, which dispelled a previous belief that the agency was “. . . trying to set anybody up for fail- ure.” Finally, collaborative providers expressed a need to feel appreciated and to know that their efforts have been successful: “Let us know as ser- vice providers that they appreciate what’s been down there [in the community].” (Org. B)

Were Service Providers Aligned with the Guiding Principles of the Collaborative after the Self-Study Process? The transcripts were first analyzed using a word count, or manifest analysis, of the frequency of the interviewees’ use of guiding principles terminol- ogy: empowerment, neighborhood-based, and resident-driven. Total interviewee responses com- prised 23,870 words, only six of which included explicit use of the guiding principles. Only two references were made to empowerment, by two different providers. The term “resident driven” was used four times, three times by one provider and once by a second provider. None of the providers used the term “neighborhood based.” Only one provider used more than one term (“empower- ment” and “resident driven”), and this provider used each term once. Although this may suggest that the providers did not align with the guiding principles, the providers may not have adopted the same lan- guage to discuss these concepts. Thus, the latent content of this text was also examined for alignment.

The latent analysis examined the transcript for units of meaning that do not use explicit guiding principle language, but are aligned to some degree with the project’s guiding principles, coding them as “aligned,” “moderately aligned,” “somewhat aligned,” and “not aligned.” The constant com- parison method was then used to identify and code categories for further analysis. Examples of state- ments from each coding term are found in Table 1.

As shown in Table 2, the largest proportion of statements (43 percent) appeared to align with the guiding principles. The cumulative percentage of responses indicate that the majority (54 percent) of statements were at least moderately aligned with the guiding principles; however, the remaining statements were only somewhat or not aligned with these principles. In fact, the lack of align- ment evidenced by the second most frequent number of statements (29 percent) indicated some

T a b le

1 : T y p e o f S ta

te m e n ts

In d ic a ti n g A li g n m e n t w it h G u id in g P ri n ci p le s o f P ro

je ct

L e v e l o f A li g n m e n t

S ta

te m e n ts

A lig n ed

“ T h e p u rp os e an d m is si on

is to

em p ow

er th e re si d en ts of [c it y] .T

o su p p or t le ad er sh ip in th at co m m u n it y. T o so rt of u h ,f ir st of al l, to

te as e ou t le ad er sh ip .A

n d th en

on ce w e

fi n d ou t w h o th e le ad er s ar e, th en

b eg in to w or k w it h th em

an d h el p th em

d ev el op .A

n d u h ,I

kn ow

th e te rm

is re si d en t d ri ve n .”

“ . . .b u t ta ki n g th at [s er vi ce

d el iv er y d ec is io n s] fr om

th e co m m u n it y’ s p er sp ec ti ve .N

ot as co m in g in an d sa yi n g th es e ar e th e se rv ic es yo u n ee d .B

u t lo ok in g to

se e h ow

th e

co m m u n it y p er ce iv es th at .”

M od er at el y al ig n ed

“ D ev el op in g th e p ro je ct fo r th em

.B ec au se if yo u d on ’t ge t th e b u y- in an d if yo u d on ’t b eg in . . .I

m ea n h ow

w e p er ce iv e it an d h ow

th ey

p er ce iv e it co u ld b e co m p le te ly

op p os it e. ”

“ [T h e p ro je ct is ] su p p os ed

to . . .l et th e p eo p le kn ow

w e’ ve

go t al lt h es e p eo p le h er e w it h al lo f th is ta le n t ou t to

h el p yo u m ak e th in gs ,c h an ge ,t o ch an ge

th in gs in th e

co m m u n it y. ”

So m ew

h at al ig n ed

“ I’ m

n ot

re al ly p u sh in g to

b e a lo t m or e in vo lv ed ,b ec au se I d on ’t h av e a lo t of st af f to

go ou t an d d o go od

th in gs [w it h ou t] go od

at te n d an ce .”

“ Y ou

kn ow

p ov er ty w h en

yo u se e it . . .y ou

kn ow

th e la ck

of d iv er si ty w h en

yo u se e it . . .y ou

kn ow

th e la ck

of em

p ow

er m en t w h en

yo u se e it .A

n d so . . .y ou

kn ow

I gu es s

it ’s ju st ab ou t liv in g fo r a h u n d re d ye ar s. ”

N ot

al ig n ed

“ Y ou

kn ow

w h at ,I

h av en ’t re al ly p u t a h an d le on

th at [t h e m is si on

of th e p ro je ct ] . . .I

th in k or ig in al ly w h en

w e w en t in th er e, ou r m is si on

w as to

go in an d h el p th em

ge t

ab ov e th e p ov er ty le ve la n d ge t th em

p la ce d in so m e jo b s so

th ey

co u ld b e se lf -s u ff ic ie n t. ”

“ B u t w h en

I go t d ow

n th er e [i n th e co m m u n it y] ,I

fo u n d th at th ey

n ee d ed

m or e n u rt u ri n g th an

an yt h in g el se . . .s om

e of th em

h av e n o sk ill s, n on e w h at so ev er .”

360 Social Work Volume 58, Number 4 October 2013

disconnect with the guiding principles on the part of participants.

Did the Service Providers Find the Self-Study Process Beneficial for Their Agency? Overall, four of the five service providers agreed that the self-study process was beneficial. Some providers described benefit from sharing and examining information about their own agencies and other involved agencies:

It gave you an opportunity to not only learn more about your own organization or yourself or how you respond to that, or how you’re perceiving someone in the community, but it also gives you an opportunity to get a different perception or learn more about the other members participating in this. (Org. C)

***

I think it’s always good to share information, and I think we probably picked up a lot of information from the self-study that you would not have otherwise. And you also met with other groups who had the same or similar con- cerns that you would not have had, had you not shared with them. (Org. F)

Other service providers referenced the ability to plan and focus collectively on the goals of the pro- ject and how to enter the community together as beneficial:

But I do think it’s helpful in terms of looking at how we come into a community. How do you go in? How do you engage? How do you look at the assets and needs? How do you look at strengths? (Org. D)

***

I liked it. I really do because . . . I mean it’s a really focused project . . . and you have this kind of narrow way of getting where you want to go and you don’t veer from it. (Org. A)

Org. F shared that the experience of going through the self-study process was, “redundant, frustrating, time-wasting, but necessary.” Finally, one service provider (Org. B) did not find the self-study useful:

I don’t think that it had anything to do with changing my mind about any particular thing . . . I can’t really remember it, it didn’t really have like, such an impact that I was going to do anything extraordinary other than what we were doing.

DISCUSSION This manuscript described a self-study method used to facilitate collaboration among service delivery agencies to partner with and empower a small, rural community. Qualitative data assessed the potential promise of this self-study process. Although the small number of service providers limits generalizability, this case study contributes rich information regarding the perspectives of ser- vice providers engaged in a self-study process used to promote discussion and education regarding community development principles (empower- ment focused, neighborhood based and resident driven) in the context of a community-based ser- vice delivery collaborative. More specifically, these findings document the limited success of this self- study effort in stimulating interorganizational and community collaboration one year after imple- mentation.

The majority of providers’ statements indicate general alignment with the guiding community- based principles of the collaborative six months after the self-study process, although providers did not adopt the collaborative’s terminology for

Table 2: Alignment of Providers with Guiding Principles of the Project

Alignment No. of Statements % of Statements Cumulative % of Statements

Aligned 26 43.6 42.6

Moderately aligned 7 11.5 54.1

Somewhat aligned 10 16.4 70.5

Not aligned 18 29.5 100

Total 61 100

Parrish et al. / Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational and Community Collaboration 361

discussing these principles. Such alignment suggests that these service providers may have been open to incorporating an empowerment-focused, neighbor- hood-based, and resident-driven approach with the community. However, both the lack of use of speci- fied collaborative terminology and the substantial percentage of nonaligned responses suggest that this process may not have fully integrated participants into a community-oriented approach to service delivery. Consequently, the self-study process may be a useful screening method to strategically select collaborative members who are willing to commit to like principles. Although some may perceive this as not being truly collaborative or inclusive, we argue that community development efforts require such selection to ensure consistency of purpose, healthy collaboration, and a commitment to empower the community to promote sustainability and commu- nity health.

At the same time, further research should exam- ine why some participants may not commit to these principles. In other words, is a lack of com- mitment attributed solely to the types of barriers that emerged in this study, or might there be an underlying problem with the self-study process itself? For example, several statements reflect a mis- trust of the lead agency; perhaps an objective out- side moderator trained in community development might have alleviated this distrust while increasing the quality of the self-study sessions. Alternatively, more frequent sharing by community leaders of information regarding their needs and strengths might have been beneficial. Although the project sought such information during the self-study process, as with many community development efforts, it took longer than expected for project staff to build trust within the community and to iden- tify community needs and leadership (Mizrahi, 1999). Allocating more time up front to develop these community relationships and identify needs prior to bringing service providers to the table might be beneficial. As one of the providers in the study suggested, early exposure to the community during the self-study process and transparency of the larger community development process may have pro- moted more buy-in to the process, a better under- standing of the community, and less frustration.

Findings suggest that disconnect from the project and mistrust toward the lead agency also resulted from decreased communication after the self-study. The maintenance of trust may be contingent on

frequent, ongoing communication throughout the collaborative process (Homan, 2004; Mizrahi, 1999). Continuation of collaborative meetings after completion of the self-study may have contributed to a more successful collaboration at the end of the first year when the interviews were conducted. This study also suggests provider resistance to investing the time and resources required to provide input and communicate regarding joint efforts (Wisch- nowksi & McCollum, 1995). For example, some providers discussed how time consuming the pro- cess could be, as well as the limited number of ser- vices they could bring to the collaborative and its need to “sustain itself.” The conflict of “scarce resources” may apply here: organizations with lim- ited time and resources are brought together in a sit- uation where they are expected to give more than they receive (Chavis, 2001). This is in direct contrast to the necessity of “shared decision-making, owner- ship and universal risk” for successful collaboration (Graham & Barter, 1999, p. 2). However, despite the vocalized aversion to investing substantial time, all service providers regularly attended the self-study meetings, suggesting that additional time might have been invested if communication was sustained and trust specifically cultivated.

These data suggest that agencies that do not identify substantial self-interest may have limited investment in collaborative activity. Acknowledge- ment of individual and organizational self-interests in addition to the collective interest may better stimulate collaborative activity (Alinsky, 1989; Chavis, 2001; Mizrahi, 1999). As Mizrahi (1999) notes, “Coalitions must identify what people want to get out of participating as well as what they are willing to contribute” (p. 20).

Consistent with Homan (2004), this interorgani- zational and community collaborative could have been more successful through improvement in communication so that potential conflicts could be recognized, advanced planning of tasks to prepare collaborative partners for their current and future roles in the process, and recognition of the contri- butions of collaborative partners. Because organi- zations have disparate abilities to contribute or invest resources, different levels of commitment and contribution should be accepted (Mizrahi, 1999). More explicit communication about the amount of time involved in organizing and engag- ing the community could have improved the collaborative’s relationships, given the obvious

362 Social Work Volume 58, Number 4 October 2013

expectation by all providers that the process would occur more quickly. Despite the barriers faced by this collaborative, the majority of providers felt that the self-study process was beneficial. Although social desirability bias may have played a role in some responses as the first author was a member of the evaluation team who conducted both the interviews and observed the self-study process as a nonparticipant observer, all participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses, and providers were forthcoming with views that were not particularly favorable. Providers offered differing reasons for finding the process beneficial, including opportunities to share and learn about each other’s agencies, learn more about themselves and their agency, and discuss how to focus on the project and enter the community in a uniform way. These reasons are congruent with the self- study purposes of educating and creating a collec- tive and sensitive response to community needs. Yet very few service providers identified specific areas of growth or increased awareness that occurred on a personal or organizational level, suggesting that the self-study was less successful in creating individ- ual or organizational change.

An extended self-study process that maintains consistent meetings throughout the collaborative process may be more successful. Future research should examine the impacts of an extended self- study on collaboration across agencies and with communities. Furthermore, research on the role of a self-study process in strengthening interorganiza- tional and community collaboration should move beyond process evaluation toward developing tools that measure and quantify these variables and constructs, to more rigorously assess the various theories and ideas of collaborative, community- and empowerment-based service delivery.

Although unique characteristics contribute to the success of each collaborative (Perrault et al., 2011), these findings provide directions for future collabo- rative efforts and research that test ways to not only initiate, but also sustain, such collaboration. Specifi- cally, findings suggest a need for funding agencies and social work administrators to recognize that community-based collaborative efforts require sub- stantial time to get started, including up-front plan- ning and relationship-building time; taking the time to select organizational partners who are committed to both the collaborative and empowering the com- munity is important; self-interest is an inherent part

of an organization’s motivation to participate and to be cognizant of these needs; the efforts of collabora- tive partners, who often donate large amounts of time and effort to support community development efforts, must be recognized; ongoing, consistent communication is important in developing and maintaining true collaboration and trust among col- laborative partners; and a self-study process may be useful for initiating collaboration among providers and with the community.

REFERENCES Alinsky, S. D. (1989). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage

Books. Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and

businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (1996). Interorganizational community-based collaboratives: A strategic response to shape the social work agenda. Social Work, 41, 602–611.

Bayne-Smith, M., Mizrahi, T., & Garcia, M. (2008). Inter- disciplinary community collaboration: Perspectives on successful strategies. Journal of Community Practice, 16, 249–269.

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods (5th ed.). Bos- ton: Pearson Education, Allyn & Bacon.

Chavis, D. M. (2001). The paradoxes and promise of com- munity coalitions. American Journal of Community Psy- chology, 29, 309–321.

Edwards, R. L., Cooke, P. W., & Reid, P. N. (1996). Social work management in an era of diminishing federal responsibility. Social Work, 41, 468–479.

Ferguson, R. F., & Dickens, W. T. (Eds.). (1999). Urban problems and community development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collabo- rative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 241–261.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Con- tinuum Publishing.

Graham, J. R., & Barter, K. (1999). Collaboration: A social work practice method. Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80(1), 6–14.

Hanna, M. G., & Robinson, B. (1994). Strategies for commu- nity empowerment: Direct-action and transformative approaches to social change practice. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press.

Hardina, D. (2005). Ten characteristics of empowerment- oriented social service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(3), 23–42.

Himmelman, A. T. (2001). On coalitions and the transfor- mation of power relations: Collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 277–284.

Homan, M. S. (2004). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Horton, M. (1990). The long haul. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

Jones, J. M., Crook, W. R., & Webb, J. (2007). Collabora- tion for the provision of services: A review of the liter- ature. Journal of Community Practice, 15, 41–71.

Mattessich, P. M., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work—A review of the literature on factors

Parrish et al. / Assessment of a Service Provider Self-Study Method to Promote Interorganizational and Community Collaboration 363

influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Mizrahi, T. (1999). Strategies for effective collaborations in the human services. Social Policy, 29(4), 5–20.

Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. B. (2001). Complexities of coalition building: Leaders’ successes, strategies, strug- gles, and solutions. Social Work, 46, 63–78.

Mulroy, E. A. (2000). Starting small: Strategy and the evo- lution of structure in a community-based collabora- tion. Journal of Community Practice, 8(4), 27–43.

Olson, L. M. (2003). Pathways to collaboration. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11(4), 236–239.

Perrault, E., McClelland, R., Austin, C., & Sieppert, J. (2011). Working together in collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration. Adminis- tration in Social Work, 35, 282–298.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1986). Altruism, nonprofits, and eco- nomic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701–728.

Rosenthal, B., & Mizrahi, T. (1994). Strategic partnerships: How to create and maintain interorganizational collaborations and coalitions. New York: Education Center for Com- munity Organizing.

Short, R. J., & Talley, R. C. (2000). Services integration: An introduction. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 10(3), 193–200.

Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building com- munity practice. Social Work, 41, 481–499.

Welch, M., & Tulbert, B. (2000). Practitioners’ perspectives on collaboration: A social validation and factor analy- sis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(3–4), 357–378.

White, J. A., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Community collabora- tion: If it is such a good idea, why is it so hard to do? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 23–38.

Wischnowski, M. W., & McCollum, J. A. (1995). Manag- ing conflict on local interagency coordinating coun- cils. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15(3), 281–295.

Danielle E. Parrish, PhD, is assistant professor, Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204; e-mail: [email protected]. Debra Harris, PhD, is associate professor, California State University, Fresno. Suzanne Pritzker, PhD, is assistant professor, University of Houston. The authors would like to acknowledge Mark Hanna, California State University, Fresno, who conceptualized this project; Holly Oxhandler, student at the University of Houston, who provided valuable assistance with the literature review; and Nalini Negi, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who provided valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. This manuscript is dedicated to Mark Hanna, a great thinker, generous mentor and educator, and champion of social justice.

Original manuscript received August 2, 2012 Final revision received November 12, 2012 Accepted December 21, 2012 Advance Access Publication September 26, 2013

364 Social Work Volume 58, Number 4 October 2013

Copyright of Social Work is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.