Joining Forces: The Challenges of Multi-­Organizational Collaboration

This qualitative research project studies how organizations collectively join together in order to improve services and educational opportunities for Latino students. Utilizing semi-structured interviews, surveys and observations as the basis of methodology, this study analyzes the extent to which organizations participate in a collective impact model. This research provides three themes related to collective impact and the organization of this collaboration. The first theme discusses the roles of the backbone organization and the participating organizations. The second theme discusses the importance of a common agenda and shared measurements for partner participation. The third theme discusses the communication patterns between organizations. The findings of this study suggest that collaborations will struggle if elements within these three thematic areas are not met. This study also concludes that although collective impact models do holistically meet the needs of the community, all members must be invested in the effort and valued as an equal partner in order for them to be successful and the partnership long-term.

Joining Forces: The Challenges of Multi-­‐Organizational Collaboration By Kelly Robison Yeates A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Community Leadership Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah May 2014 APPROVAL Of a thesis/project submitted by Author's Name Kelly Yeates_______________________________________________________________ School Department School of Education / Master of Arts in Community Leadership Title of Thesis Joining Forces: The Challenges of Multi-­‐Organizational Collaboration The above named master's thesis/project has been read by the thesis advisor and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Westminster College Library. _________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Date Thesis Advisor, Dr. Jamie Joanou Approved for the School of Education _________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Date Dean, School of Education, Dr. Robert Shaw STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DUPLICATE THESIS & DEPOSIT/DISPLAY IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author Kelly Yeates______________________________________________________________ School/Department School of Education/ Master of Arts in Community Leadership Title of Thesis Joining Forces: The Challenges of Multi-­‐Organizational Collaboration With permission from the author, on the basis of an occasional and individual request, the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to make a copy of the above named thesis. The Giovale Library staff also has the right to mail or otherwise disseminate a copy to the requesting party and to be reimbursed by the requesting party for the cost of duplicating and mailing the thesis. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to duplicate as described the above named thesis. Signature of Author Date With permission from the author, the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in the future works such as articles or a book. Signature of Author Date The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn. Abstract This qualitative research project studies how organizations collectively join together in order to improve services and educational opportunities for Latino students. Utilizing semi-­‐structured interviews, surveys and observations as the basis of methodology, this study analyzes the extent to which organizations participate in a collective impact model. This research provides three themes related to collective impact and the organization of this collaboration. The first theme discusses the roles of the backbone organization and the participating organizations. The second theme discusses the importance of a common agenda and shared measurements for partner participation. The third theme discusses the communication patterns between organizations. The findings of this study suggest that collaborations will struggle if elements within these three thematic areas are not met. This study also concludes that although collective impact models do holistically meet the needs of the community, all members must be invested in the effort and valued as an equal partner in order for them to be successful and the partnership long-­‐term. Keywords: collective impact, backbone organization, roles, common agenda, shared measurements, communication, collaboration Dedication To my two guardian angels: Dad, you instilled in me a love for learning and an appreciation for hard work. This project was both of those. I love knowing you were watching over me throughout the process. And to Christopher, you are the reason I chose to go into the MACL program. I hope that I can embrace your spirit, your love for others, your generosity of self, and your joy for the smallest kindnesses of life. Life is short, but our love is forever. Acknowledgements To my mom, thank you! Without your help and support, I would not have been able to accomplish this goal. You and dad have always championed me and I am so grateful. I love you and I'm looking forward to some girl time. To Matt, thank you for taking on so much over the last two years, so that I could pursue my dream. Hopefully in the next two years you will spend more time with me than with the dogs. I love you more than you know. To Megan, everyday you give me something to be thankful for. I love you and am so proud of the woman you are becoming. Thank you for supporting me and putting up with crazy mood swings, demanding schedules, and lots of take out food. To my MACL family. I could not have picked more quality people to share this experience with. Every one of you has a richness of experiences and a heightened respect for life. I feel better knowing you are ready to save the world. To my advisor, Dr. Jamie Joanou, thank you for your patience and encouragement throughout this process. I am not the easiest person to work with and you never gave up on me. (Maybe you did, but thanks for not letting me know that you did.) I am very grateful. To all of my participants, thank you for your time and for your candid and insightful reflections. I appreciate the access you provided me, and all the work you completed to help me with my thesis. I learned so much from all of you. Table of Contents Chapter One Why We Collaborate ………………………………………………………1 Description of topic ……………..……………………………………………….1 Description of the project ……………………………………...………………...2 Participants …………………………………………………………...….3 This Study ………………………………………………………………..4 Primary issues and root causes …………………………………………………...6 English language learners and the achievement gap ………………....…..6 After school programs ……………………………………………………7 Collaboration ..............................................................................................8 Chapter Two Literature review …………...……...……………………………………...10 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...10 Overview of collaboration and collective impact ………………………...……..11 Collective impact ……………………...………………………………………...12 Collaborating with faith-based organizations ………………………...………....13 Collaborating with schools ……………………………………………...……....15 Benefits of collaboration ………………………………………………………...15 Importance of a third-party organization ………………………………...……...17 Difficulty of collaboration ………………………………………………………19 Communication …………………………………………………………...….....21 Accountability …………………………………………………………………...22 Gaps in literature ..……………………………………………………….………24 Chapter Three Methods ……………………………………………………….………...27 Methods overview …………………………………………………..………….27 The survey …………………………………………………………..………….27 Semi-structured interviews …………………………………………..…………28 Participants ………………………..……………………………………………29 Participant considerations ………………………………………..…………….29 Possible problems ……………………………………………………………...30 Ethical concerns ………………………………………………………………..31 Analysis of data ……………………………………………………………...…31 Validity …………………………………………………………………………32 Consent and data storage ……………………………………………………….33 Chapter Four Findings ………………………………………………………………….34 Role of Backbone Organization ……………………………………………..…34 Shared Data and Common Measurements ……………….…………………….42 Communication ………………………………………………………………...47 Chapter Five Implications ……………………………………………………………..52 Objectives ……….………………………………………………………………52 Limitations ………………………………………………………………………52 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………53 Establishing Roles ………………………………………………………54 Establishing Shared Measurements …………………………………….55 Establishing Better Communication ……………………………………57 References ………………………………………………………………………………59 Appendix A-H……………………………….………………………………………..…65 JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 1 Chapter one: Why collaboration? Description of topic My personal philosophy that guided this study on collaborations between schools and nonprofit organizations is generated from Joyce Epstein's theory of overlapping spheres (1987) which argues that it is necessary for schools, families, and communities to work together in order to socialize and educate children. "A central principle of the theory is that certain goals, such as student academic success, are of interest to each of these institutions and are best achieved through their cooperative action and support" (Epstein, 1987, as cited by Sanders, 2001, p. 20). Rather than competing for funding, resources, and students, these institutions should be working together to provide needed services for students, especially those who are struggling to keep up with their peers. In the community I studied, resources for education are plentiful. It is my contention that meeting the needs of struggling students is not a matter of needing more resource providers or better resource providers; it is a matter of enabling those resource providers to pool their strengths together in collaboration, in order to serve the whole student and their families. Epstein and Sanders (2000) found that, "Federal, state, and local social service and community programs, although numerous, are neither coordinated nor continuous, making it difficult for families to obtain the assistance they need for their children" (286). The partners I studied have made a commitment to work together, but are dealing with the complexities of coordinating all the resource providers and communicating effectively under a collective impact model. This study specifically explored the process by which community partners provide services for Hispanic English JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 2 as a second language elementary age students in an after school program as well as the collective partnership of Partner Mountain View to provide support services to students and their families1. Description of the project In my research, I studied how collective partners join together to provide academic and community support for struggling students. This study focused on how organizations communicate in these cooperative partnerships, how effective this communication was, and how a backbone organization helped connect people within the collaboration to fill communication gaps. Current research focuses on the results of collaborative efforts (Austin, 2000; Arenas, Sanchez & Murphy 2013; Seldon, Sowa & Sandfort 2006; Kania & Kramer, 2011). These studies discuss types of collaborative partnerships and the results for the communities that are served. My study focused on the process of how separate institutions communicate their actions, activities, and services to each other. I studied how well these organizations work together to form a collective partnership centered on a common agenda, shared measurements and communication pathways. This study provides valuable insight about some of the challenges of collective impact, specifically in communication strengths and weaknesses of the partnering organizations. It also explored the difficulty of working collectively in order to help students improve their academic success. For organizations entering into a partnership, this study provides information on how to foster better communication between partners and help them avoid some of the communication problems they may encounter. This study also sheds light on the importance of establishing common goals, clear role 1 All participants and organizations are referred to by pseudonyms in order to protect confidentiality as per the Westminster IRB Approval Agreement. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 3 expectations and consistent means for determining program and partner success. It is crucial to explore the topic of facilitating collaboration because "addressing social issues like education require many different players to change their behavior in order to solve a complex problem" (Kania & Kramer, 2011 p. 38). Participants. The focus of the study was on the collaborative process between three main partner organizations: a school district, Mountain View School District, a faith-based organization, Mission Ministries, and a backbone organization, Collective Partners. The school district consists of four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high, and one high school. It is located in an affluent city that serves a resort community in the inter-mountain west. According to the 2011 Census, from the 36,324 residents of Mountain View and the area served by the district, the median household income in 2011 was $99,000 a year, with 59% of its population holding a bachelors degree or higher (city website2). The demographic of this school district consists of 4,300 students with an ethnic minority, primarily Hispanic, of 17%. Eight hundred twenty-three students throughout the district are labeled as "economically disadvantaged" and 583 qualify as English Language Learners (district website3). According to the No Child Left Behind report completed in 2011, Mountain View students did achieve adequate yearly progress. However, in the third through eighth grade statistics, Caucasian students passed the Language Arts tests with a 93% pass rate, compared to Hispanic students who passed at a 68% rate, with English Language Proficiency rates dipping down to 57%, demonstrating a significant achievement gap between the subgroups. Comparatively, in 2 Information was obtained from the city's website, but the citation includes information that would compromise confidentiality. 3 Information was obtained from the school district's website, but the citation includes information that would compromise confidentiality. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 4 Mathematics, for third through eighth graders, 93% of Caucasian students passed end of year testing, 56% of Hispanic students and 45% of English Language Proficiency. The scores mirror this gap when examining economically disadvantaged students with 72% passing English Language tests and 59% passing Math tests (State website4 2013). Overall, these statistics represent a 20-30% difference between the test scores of Caucasian, economically advantaged students and their Hispanic, economically disadvantaged peers. The majority of students served by the Mountain View After School Program and who are assisted by the Partners of Mountain View (Partners MV) coalition are from Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, or English Language Learning groups and who also need academic support. Mission Ministries serves the Mountain View community by providing "youth education, prenatal health classes, legal immigration, and access to a variety of community resources for low-income children and families" (Mission Ministries homepage). This study focused on their partnership to provide after school services for economically disadvantaged, Hispanic elementary students in the Mountain View elementary schools. Mountain View School District and Mission Ministries have shared resources in the past, but are working towards a more meaningful collaboration with the help of Collective Partners, which is acting as a backbone organization to help coordinate services and aide in communication between the partners. This study. Through qualitative research, I interviewed participants about how they view the collective effort impacting student progress, how student achievement is communicated to the partners, and by what means information is shared through the three organizations. The methodology for this research included conducting interviews with 4 Disclosing website for state statistics would breach confidentiality. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 5 principals and program directors in order to understand their means of measurement for student progress, their lines of communication and their structuring of programming. I also interviewed program directors from Mission Ministries and the Collective Partners to explore how they communicate with their partners and how successful they view those partnerships to be. Additionally, I interviewed a teacher who has worked at two of the after school program sites to gain perspective on the actual program. I collected baseline information in an online survey to establish basic attitudes toward programs and to gage consistency about goals by the partners. In addition, I attended the Partner MV meetings in November, January and March, taking field notes and using the shared agenda. Finally, I attended a meeting with school district officials and principals from all four of the district elementary schools, held to determine after school program effectiveness and next steps. My study provides insight on the collaborative process and how communication can be improved. One primary objective of this study was to understand how the Collective Partners, as a backbone organization, affected the collaboration between Mountain View School District employees and Mission Ministries. Collective Partners is trying to coordinate afterschool programming, improve communication between organizations, collect data, and share that data with partners and families in order to help serve students better. I explored how each of these organizations perceives their role and how collaboration has affected their mission. Mountain View School District and Mission Ministries have worked together for several years, but there have been communication gaps in sharing information about students with all of the teachers and mentors and questions about which services will be provided by each organization. Collective JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 6 Partners, due to a funding grant, is able to aid this communication by hiring facilitators for programming, data analysis to measure student progress and field representatives to communicate between organizations and families. The following overarching questions guided this research: 1. How does the introduction of a facilitating organization impact collaboration and programming in the After School Programs (ASP) in Mountain View School District? 2. How do the organizations communicate and how has the introduction of a facilitating organization effected communication? 3. How do the organizations view program success within the partnership? 4. How can communication between collaborative partners be improved? Primary issues and root causes English language learners and the achievement gap. In the U.S., students who speak English as a second language (ESL) and who are from minority, low income backgrounds are falling behind in reading and math compared to their native English speaking peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Kieffer, 2011). Some attributed reasons for why "Latinos, seem to fall behind, [include] poverty, parents' education levels and/or lack of familiarity with the school system, stereotyping in schools, language barriers and other factors" (Schencker, 2013). Students are most often placed in a classroom with a teacher who does not speak their home language. Instructions, key academic vocabulary and cognitive exercises are completed in their second language (Kieffer, 2011). While students may seem proficient speakers, and show evidence of basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), their cognitive academic language JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 7 proficiency (CALP) may be much lower (Cummins, 2008). This means that students need access to academic language and need to master that academic language in their second language in order to be academically successful. Further, Kieffer asserts that, Language Minority learners will demonstrate English reading trajectories in the primary grades that are more similar to those of native English speakers, but that they may fall behind after third grade as the vocabulary and oral language demands of comprehending in their second language become more pronounced. (1190) Because of this, educators have looked to early interventions to help provide extra support for English language learners (ELL) to bring their skills up to grade level before they reach the third grade. In the region, the performance disparity between ELL students and their native English speaking peers is the sixth largest achievement gap in the nation "when it [comes] to math and reading scores between White and Latino fourth--‐graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2009" (Schencker, 2013). The growing number of English language learners, primarily from a Hispanic background, has increased in the last ten years. One elementary school, in the district I studied, has 38% English language learners, and 56% of their total student population coming from low-income households. The achievement gap is a major concern for the district and leveling the opportunities and the access to services, academic and social, is a high priority. After school programs. To address the problem of a widening achievement gap as well as to provide custodial care for students who need assistance, additional interventions outside the traditional school day are being implemented. Afterschool JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 8 programs across the nation have been successful in helping students fill academic gaps, while also providing extra support and structure to help create a sense of belonging in the school and with their communities. The presumed benefits of afterschool programs are "expanding learning opportunities, improving academic achievement, and closing the achievement gap by providing academic enrichment opportunities to at risk youth" (Maynard, Peters, Vaugh, & Sarteschi, 2013, p. 613). The afterschool program in this study focuses on improving academic skills, providing recreational activities and accessing community-based programs, which is consistent with services implemented throughout the country (Apsler, 2009; Hamann & Jurs, 2002). Similar programs in elementary schools report that the long term impacts of after school programs for ESL and low income students are "higher grades, higher test scores, on-time promotion, [and a] return to a regular track" (Burdumy, Dynarski, & Deke, 2007, p. 298). Other factors could influence these results such as increase parent interaction, in-school instruction, or outside interventions. Collaboration. Because of a lack of funding in the nonprofit world and in education, the after school program in this study found that it is beneficial for each of the partners to work together to form collective solutions to problems. One of the main advocates for collaboration is David La Piana, who in his research, Beyond Collaboration: Strategic Restructuring of Nonprofit Organization argues that funders of these nonprofits should encourage boards, executive directors and staff to engage in collaborations to increase productivity, streamline costs, address the issue of an "aging leadership" and help eliminate duplication of services (La Piana 1999). Before this partnership, Mission Ministries was running their own after school program with the cooperation of school JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 9 officials in the form of providing facilities and assisting with transportation. With the entrance of Collective Partners, the role of lead partner shifted to the school district. The school district's strengths are that they have facilities readily available, are familiar with the curriculum needed and have resources to offer students. Mission Ministries provides a values-based education with community outreach opportunities and, most importantly, has the trust of community members as being a source of religious and community support. By collaborating, both the school district and Mission Ministries benefit from the increased legitimacy of the other partner. "By integrating nonprofit organizations into fewer, stronger, more flexible and effective structures, resources and focus can be redirected to strengthening and advancing mission that…improve community outcomes" (La Piana 1999, p. 7). By partnering programs from the Mountain View School District with Mission Ministries and facilitating this collaboration through Collective Partners, the students served through this joint effort, called Partners Mountain View, will have access to better comprehensive services. Partners are reaching out to community resource providers, like the "Partnering" Health Clinic, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and enrichment organizations, and other officials to coordinate services for all students. Because of this collective effort, all of the organizations are working together to improve student's overall well being, improve student academic performance and improve communications between organizations and eliminate duplication of services. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 10 Chapter 2: Literature review Introduction In a time period of tightening budgets and shrinking resources, nonprofit directors and educators are pulling their resources together in order to provide services to their constituents. One way of accomplishing goals and honoring mission statements is through inter-organizational collaboration. "Research found that collaborations had a significant impact on programs operated by the collaborating organizations, with an increased array of services offered to families and improved quality of classroom facilities" (Seldon, et al., 2004, p. 421). Several strands of literature discuss collaboration (Selden, Sowa & Sandfort, 2006; Rogers, 2009; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Gray, Stensaker & Jensen, 2012), collective impact and community partnerships (Epstein & Sanders, 2000; Sanders, 2001; Acar, Guo & Yang 2011), but there is a gap in research dealing specifically with how schools effectively work with community partners, faith-based organizations or facilitating organizations to provide services. School districts are feeling increased pressure to eliminate achievement gaps between mainstream, English-speaking students and students for whom English is their second language (ESL). Agreeing with this, Kieffer (2011) notes, "perhaps more pressing is the need for instructional efforts and research that can identify effective approaches for prevention and early intervention for reading difficulties among language minority learners who enter school with limited English" (p. 1217-18). In order to offer the services necessary to meet the needs of all students, school districts are entering into partnerships with faith-based organizations, mentoring organizations and facilitating organizations to support students. My research JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 11 studies how communication in these collaborations take place, specifically, to provide after-school support services for ELL elementary students in the Mountain View School District (MVSD) after-school program as part of a coalition team called Partner Mountain View. This collaboration study includes four elementary schools in the MVSD, Mission Ministries, and the Collective Partners. This is important research because it provides a crucial bridge that is missing in current literature to explain the process of how organizations collaborate in the education sector and the nonprofit sector with the benefit of a third party organizations. Overview of collaboration and collective impact According to Gray (1991), collaboration is a "process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited visions of what is possible" (p. 5). The issue confronting the after school program is how to provide needed resources to ELL students to get their academic skills in math and English up to grade level. This collaborative effort assists in helping ELL students in particular because their focus is multidimensional in that the partnership has all of the service providers working together to make sure the needs of all students are fulfilled. Partner MV has modeled Gray's vision of collaboration, but has gone further than problem solving. When applying ideas of collaboration to nonprofit organizations, Guo and Acar (2005) further this definition by stating, "nonprofit collaboration is what occurs when different nonprofit organizations work together to address problems through joint effort, resources, and decision making and share ownership of the final product or service" (p. 342-43). In my study this definition of nonprofit collaborative model fits, in that the end service or product results JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 12 in student outcomes and academic proficiency. The collaborative team has agreed upon a shared mission statement, goals and direction for the future of the after school program and with Collective Partners' help, to increase their joint decision-making process and share ownership of the outcomes for their students. Collective impact In the theoretical approach to the study of collaboration, Partner MV After School Program (PMVASP) closely aligns to the Program-Centered Integration approach, which has characteristics of, "colocation, linked information systems, integrated staffing, and joint planning or funding, focus on changing the scope and implementation of program delivery" (Selden, Sowa, & Sandfort, 2006, p. 413). This Program-Centered Integration approach does not require the role of a backbone organization, which the Partner MV Program does have. Additionally, because Partner MV receives grants from the Collective Partners and the Mountain View Education Foundation, it leans more towards collective impact model, which "involves a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants" (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 38). My study used this theoretical description of collective impact to assess whether the members of the Partner MV coalition are actually engaging in all of the components of collective impact. Another characteristic of collective impact is that partnerships commit to a long-term common agenda for solving a specific problem (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 39), which fits with the intended goals of Partner MV. According to the 2012 Common Agenda of the Partner MV coalition, partners are working towards a goal to increase proficiency for ESL students by 10% in math and JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 13 English. Additionally, working with their partner organizations, Partner MV has also committed to vision screenings and a pilot parent program to increase involvement with parents and the community. All of these goals require a long-term commitment from the partners. Collaborating within faith-based organizations A key partner in the Partner MV program is Mission Ministries, a faith-based organization (FBO) that serves the Latino population in Mountain View by providing information and help connecting their members with community services such as child care, health resources, educational services and legal counsel. Research by Campbell and Glunt (2004) indicates that FBO's "show their worth as niche programs that offer services to a culturally distinct group, or location-specific programs that fill geographic gaps in the existing service delivery infrastructure" (as cited by Rogers, 2009, p. 328). Mission Ministries is under the guidance of a local Christian church and offers the school district important elements to help them understand and address language and cultural barriers: most of the facilitators speak Spanish and are able to communicate naturally between children and families; they are trusted in the community; they are an established organization and have become a resource for health and family services. Mission Ministries has offered an after school program for many years as a lead facilitator with the school districts assistance. The after school program provides families with a well-rounded, safe environment for their children that offer benefits from both core organizations. Mission Ministries and the school district. Research supports this type of collaboration for culturally diverse populations. "Schools must embrace and respect the JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 14 culture of the families they serve. Culture clashes appeared to undermine the expectations and hopes teachers and parents had for students" (Good, Masewicz, & Vogel, 2010, p. 336). A study by Seldon, Sowa, and Sandfort (2006) showed that, "Parents whose children were served through these collaborations believed they had a positive impact on school readiness" (p. 421). By offering these services, Mission Ministries and the school district help improve the relationships between the organizations and their constituents. Mission Ministries offers a strong connection between parents and their students' goals and helps both educators and families understand students' challenges. Collaborating with schools Guo and Acar (2005) suggest that the education system has been slow to embrace the benefits of collective impact and collaboration stating, "organizations are more likely to develop formalized collaborations when [they] are older, have larger budget size, receive government funding… and [are] not operating in the education and research industry" (p. 342). For years, the educational system has seemed to be in competition with outside organizations to keep children enrolled in public programs. However, in the past ten years, there has been "a ‘cultural shift' away from the district's ingrained tendency to be insular and disdain the potential contribution of ‘outsiders'" (Gold, Christman, & Harold, 2011, p. 200) to entering into these cooperative partnerships. School districts are embracing the idea of collaboration and searching out community organizations that are able to help improve student outcomes. Even though there are several organizations involved in the after school program (ASP), they have united under one mission statement to provide services: "While we remain separate organizations, when we come together to do things, we become one organization. In effect, the alliance JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 15 is an organizational process framework for collaboration, but in another sense, it is also an action entity with a merged identity that is distinct from each of the partners" (Austin, 2000, p. 75). Current literature explores the structures of these partnerships and how deeply they share resources (Good, et al., 2010; Seldon, et al., 2006; Gold, et al., 2011). My study focused on the process by which these partners combine their mission statements and how effectively they communicate with each other in order to serve students. The benefits of collaboration There are many benefits to collaboration for nonprofits and the constituents they serve. This service integration, combining programs and resources to maximize the services an organization can offer, empowers organizations like Partners MV because it will allow "collaborative service delivery, reduces duplication, improves coordination, prevents inefficiency, minimizes costs, and improves responsiveness and effectiveness" (Selden et al., 2006, p. 414). Not only will Partners MV benefit from streamlined costs, they will also gain "improved organizational survival, enhanced institutional legitimacy" (Sowa, 2008, p. 1016). Sowa (2008) illustrates the benefits of these relationships, noting that collaboration ultimately enhances an organizations competitive advantage. When applying this concept to Partners MV, collaboration of services eliminates a potentially competitive relationship and replaces it with a collaborative one in order to serve the needs of students. In addition, the collaborative relationships formed strengthen the presence for all of the organizations within the collaboration. Partner organizations can provide needed familiarity to instill confidence in programs through associations that community members recognize and trust. Quezada JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 16 (2004) found that the introduction of a faith-based organization helped bridge communication and cultural gaps between schools and students in the Latino community. According to his study, when the Texas Interfaith Education Fund partnered with the Texas school district, they were able to engage the community and empower students in a way they hadn't been able to before (Quezada, 2004). Quezada notes, problem schools have had a gap when trying to engage the Latino community, because "often [school officials] do not have the training or experience in collaborating with parents and communities, especially those of a different culture or economic background" (p. 13). Partnering with organizations that do have this trust builds relationships that might not otherwise be plausible. Mission Ministries can give the Mountain View School District some of their ethos within the community to help bridge cultural misunderstandings in a traditional educational setting. In a successful collaboration, "instead of being a transactional relationship like a commercial exchange, it is more like an equity-based relationship in a joint venture" (Austin, 2000, p. 75), meaning the Mountain View School District benefits through access to Mission Ministries' connections in the community and Mission Ministries benefits by being able to offer more rigorous curriculum for students. Quezada (2004) acknowledges firsthand how empowering these relationships can be between partners in his work studying school districts that partnered with interdenominational faith-based organizations. Quezada (2004) found that, It is incumbent upon these administrators, teachers, and secular or interdenominational [partners], that [they] visibly improve the resources available to enhance student learning or quality of life are defensible. Educators need not shrink from defending faith-based linkages that provide venues for school JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 17 improvement befitting all students regardless of their ethnicity, faith, or economic standing. (p. 25) This study examined this relationship between faith-based organizations and schools in order to understand how they are able to work together to serve the whole child. Mission Ministries is a key component in the Partner MV collaboration because of the trust they have built in the community as many of the families of ESL students are Christian. Importance of a Third Party Backbone Organization A third party organization works with two or more organizations in order to coordinate their efforts, improve services, improve communication and help partners unify their mission statement (Arenas, Sanchez, & Murphy, 2013). Kania and Kramer (2011) state, In the best of circumstances, these backbone organizations embody the principles of adaptive leadership: the ability to focus people's attention and create a sense of urgency, the skill to apply pressure to stakeholders without overwhelming them, the competence to frame issues in a way that presents opportunities as well as difficulties, and the strength to mediate conflict among stakeholders. (p. 40) In the Partner MV coalition, the Collective Partners is serving as this backbone organization. The Collective Partners, in addition to funding much of the after-school interventions within the school district, is committing to act as a coordinator of services. Their goal is to provide valuable connections and liaisons between organizations and most importantly, between schools and families. Studying the function of this communication and the processes by which organizations communicate with each other was a major component in this research. Milward and Provan (1995, 1998) found that "network effectiveness is enhanced when the organizations are integrated through a JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 18 central authority" (as cited in Seldon, Sowa, & Sandfort, 2006, p. 414). Needing this central authority differs from the model of collaboration proposed by Austin (2000) that focus collaborative attention on the continuum of working relationships, and Gray (1991) who advocates a bridge model between two collaborative partners. Neither Austin nor Gray propose that it is necessary for a central authority figure to be involved in collaboration in order to facilitate communication. In contrast to Austin (2000) and Gray (1991), Arenas et al. (2013) argue for a more dynamic partnership, one that focuses on a triadic relationship of partner organizations guided by a third party organization, or backbone organization (Arenas et al., 2013). This backbone organization's function is to "enable organizations to work together and "bridge" from confrontation to some type of collaboration" (Arenas et al., 2013, p. 733). While I agree that the third party organizer is essential to effective collaboration, I argue that organizations do not have to be in conflict in order to benefit from this type of triadic partnership. In the case of my study, the goals of backbone organizer Collective Partners are to aide communication and provide support services for both of the parties in the form of outreach coordinators, program managers and funding support. In the study by Arenas et al. (2013), the roles facilitating organizers can have within a dynamic organizational relationship increases the level of autonomy partners feel within the relationship. Collective Partners is fulfilling the role of a "participating ally" which "takes an active part in designing and implementing solutions" as well as fulfilling the role of "solution seeker" which provides "trust for its unbiased even-handed approach [and] is credible for its expertise" (Arenas, et al., 2013, p. 734). This study examined the extent to which Collective Partners facilitated the process for the JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 19 Mountain View School District and Mission Ministries by providing guidelines and suggestions to help all members work together in a more cohesive manner. Difficulty of Collaboration While collaboration has the potential to strengthen organizations, it also has the potential to weaken organizations within the partnership or allow decision-making to shift, favoring some partners, while excluding others (Guo & Acar, 2005). Zuckerman and D'Aunno (1990), acknowledge that, "formal types of collaborations allow stronger control of critical resources, yet these relationships are almost always accompanied by a greater loss of autonomy and thus involve relatively higher costs in terms of managerial autonomy" (Guo & Acar, 2005, p. 345). Sowa (2008) echoes this sentiment and warns, "reducing an organization's autonomy to act can introduce new complications into the operating environment of that organization, in terms of organizational structure, human resource management, and overall program delivery" (p. 1022). Similarly, Provan (1984) states, "arguably, the greatest cost of developing collaborative activities is loss of operating autonomy" (as cited by Guo & Acar, 2005, p. 345). Another potential concern that Boyd and Crowson (1993, p. 152) note is that "unresolved issues of information sharing, resource mingling and professional turf" can also be barriers to effective collaboration (as cited in Sanders, 2011, p. 21). In the unique situation of a school, a faith-based organization, and a nonprofit community organizer coming together, this power dynamic could easily be displaced. Schools are very careful to not disclose sensitive or personal information about students without express permission from families because of FERPA laws (Federal Education Rights of Privacy Act). In trying to serve the students in this after school program, some partner members JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 20 may want access to more information than the school can provide. Clear lines of what types of information will be provided should be defined for all parties prior to establishing a working relationship. Quezada (2004) found that among his participants in his study on faith-based organizations partnering with schools, "the conflicting roles as the classroom authority, academic expert, and community constituent placed [members of the study] in a difficult position" (p. 18). All of these roles need to be valued and expectations for performance must be discussed so that all parties know their responsibilities and their limitations. This is an important aspect of my study because unclear roles and expectations are often a result of poor communication. How the organizations deal with these questions of access and accountability are a key element in my study and are expanded on in chapter four and chapter five. Another potential issue in collaboration from the literature is that although organizations may have compatible goals, they might also have slight variations in their interpretations of how those goals should be carried out in the partnerships. For example, "each organization often has a slightly different definition of the problem and the ultimate goal… All participants must agree, however, on the primary goals for the collective impact initiative as a whole" (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 39). This is an issue with the after school program because the school district is most concerned with test scores and closing achievement gaps, whereas Mission Ministries also has the goals of providing asset based value education as well as health and family services. Prioritizing these goals in a cohesive manner could strain communication and autonomy between partners. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 21 Rogers (2009) notes that another potential problem with collaboration between schools, nonprofits and faith-based organizations is that, "nonprofits seeking to work with congregations may find that their prospective partners have a preference for relationships that are informal and relational in nature" (p. 330). Specifically, Mission Ministries might not require as much statistical data and program measurements as the Collective Partners or the Mountain View School District may require and may describe success in a more humanistic or holistic manner. Communication about these disconnects between organizations on how they measure joint outcomes became a major component of my study. Kania and Kramer (2011) argue that it is crucial in a collective impact partnership that partners have a common agenda and shared measurements. These differences seemed miniscule initially, but proved to be of greater importance as data were analyzed. Another aspect of this incongruence is that Mission Ministries may have a spiritual goal that is very important to accomplish, but this element of education might not be a priority within the measurement structures of the other organizations, specifically the school district, that tends to value harder data. This need for partners to articulate these subtle differences in priorities so that the measurements and assessments of the program reflect the priorities of all of the partners became evident throughout the study. Communication While much of the literature on collaboration discusses the structure of collaboration and levels of engagement among participants (Epstein & Sanders, 2000; Austin, 2000; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Guo & Acar, 2005), studies do not elaborate on the process of how to establish effective communication avenues between organizations. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 22 Some ways to evaluate effective communication are to look at the "frequency of communication originating from participants and from staff, and the extent to which communication influences the listener" (Julian, Reischl, Carrick, & Katrenich, 1997). This can offer a basis for quantitatively evaluating communication between partners. Regularity of communication influences the level of empowerment participants feel and the level of success organizations have in serving their constituents. Julian et al. (1997) studied how communication helps participants' engagement and their feelings of empowerment. The study by Julian et al., however, did not discuss how communication effects outcomes or facilitates the collaborative effort. My study draws conclusions on how communication affects perceived success in the collaborative effort. Rogers (2009) interviewed participants who echoed the importance of continued communication. "They emphasized purposeful communication regularly and frequently, formally and informally, in meetings large and small, and across all organizational units and levels" (Rogers, 2009, p. 341). The findings presented in chapter four discuss what types of communications are being practiced within the partnership, with how much regularity, and to what level of formality in order to understand how well participants are communicating, especially those communications between partner organizations. Accountability As mentioned above, defining roles within collaboration is key for establishing boundaries and determining accountability. Acar, et al. (2011) found that, while the problems associated with accountability have long been recognized, they become more salient in the context of the increased use of collaborative forms of governance, including multi-organizational/multi-sectorial partnerships JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 23 and networks where hierarchical authority and control is often weak or absent. (p. 158) Part of an effective collaboration is agreeing upon a common mission and agreeing upon the measurements to ensure the mission is being fulfilled, as well as defining specific responsibilities and specialties for each partnering organization. This difficulty was evident when researching the after school program. Some of the reasons why collaborations are hard to quantify are: (a) managers do not have hierarchical control over partners, (b) partners have a different level and type of power, (c) participants have different stakes in the collaboration, (d) many partnerships are voluntary, (e) participants may have normative and operational difference, (f) many partnerships are temporary, (g) partnerships are dynamic and emergent, and (h) performance is codetermined by all participants. (Acar, et al., 2011, p. 160) All of the challenges to quantifying collaborations that Acar, et al., (2011) outline exist in the Partner MV collaboration. All of the members of this partnership have committed to work together, but partners define their roles, levels of authority and expertise differently. Additionally, when trying to assess accountability in an after school program, quantitative data, like student performance on standardized tests, could be affected by outside variables and may not coordinate directly with the types of services offered in an after school setting. Additionally, when assessing qualitative data like parent or community perceptions, coming to a consensus on quality and effective programing is difficult to assess (Gold, Christman, & Harold, 2011, p. 189) because of the subjectivity of the respondents. More applicable to my research is the strain that assessing JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 24 accountability puts on collaborative partners by automatically putting one organization in a position of power over another. Organizations need to ensure fairness when assessing partner organizations by establishing measurements that take into consideration all of the variables that combining organizations factors in. Bardach and Lesser (1996) discuss the consequences of not establishing clear boundaries. Ultimately, "Partners may serve as an effective sanction mechanism, because they have the individual ability to ‘vote with their feet'… and the collective ability to drop a nonperforming partner in favor of another" (Bardach and Lesser 1996, as cited in Acar et al., 2011, p. 169). Because of this consequence, partnerships could fail. The likelihood of one of the partnering organizations "walking" due to lack of accountability is slim. However, organizations like the Collective Partners must have some form of data to show accountability for the amount of money and resources they are providing to these partners. If the organizations cannot find a means of accurately measuring accountability and program success, funding could be decreased. Part of my study examines how each of the partnering organizations define success and how student progress is being communicated to each of the organizations. Gaps in current literature. In my review of the literature, I found that there is extensive information about the models of collaboration and how organizations form hierarchies within collaboration and to what degree organizations typically collaborate with each other (Austin, 2000; Guo & Acar, 2005; Gray, et al., 2012). There are also copious amounts of case studies providing information on the impacts that collaborative efforts have made (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Rogers, 2009; Seldon, et al., 2006; Arenas, et al., 2013). However, "most JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 25 of the studies in the literature have focused on either collaboration or confrontation, and have usually neglected interactions that move from confrontation to collaboration" (Arenas, Sanchez, & Murphy, 2013, p. 724). This study focused on the communication between partners during the collaboration rather than on the results of the collaboration. Seldon, et al. (2006) note, "It is important to look deeper into these collaborative relationships, not simply for classifying them by type, but also modeling their intensity" (421). Intensity in this case refers to the extent to which organizations are collaborating, how often they are collaborating, and with how much interaction between partner organizations. My study examines the level of commitment within the Partner MV collective to provide services for students and examines the after school program to reveal how collaborative their partnership really is. This information will help partners evaluate strengths and weaknesses within the collaboration. By pinpointing key areas within a collective impact partnership, such as establishing roles within the partnership, establishing a common agenda and shared measurements and establishing formalized communication paths in order to increase trust, organizations will benefit from this study. This study also examines each partner and asserts that all are needed in order to provide the most complete array of services to students. In this competitive marketplace, "Funders search for more effective interventions as if there was a cure for failing schools that only needs to be discovered" (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 38). In this case, the partners must ‘cure themselves' in order to remain viable. "Research found that collaborations had a significant impact on programs operated by the collaborating organizations, with an increased array of services JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 26 offered to families and improved quality of classroom facilities" (Seldon, et al., 2006, p. 421). This study is essential because increases understanding about how these collaborations take place and what makes them successful and what keeps them from being as successful as possible. Many nonprofits have considered formalized collaborations, "yet most nonprofit leaders and funders have very limited knowledge of strategic restructuring" (Connolly & York, 2002, as cited by Guo & Acar, 2005, p. 344). This study exposes some of the challenges of the collective impact model. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 27 Chapter Three: Methods Methods overview This study is a qualitative study that relies on three main sources of information: online baseline surveys of ten members of the collaborative team, six formalized, semi-structured interviews of team members, and notes from observed meetings of the Partner MV partners and a meeting with school district officials, including the principals from the four elementary schools. The goal of these interviews was to gain an understanding of the process of collaboration and how organizations communicate in order to maximize their impact and serve their target population. The survey I began my study by contacting members of the Partner MV coalition to have them complete an online survey (Appendix I). I have an email list of all team members and composed a "Survey Monkey" (an online survey service) to find out basic information such as, general role, priorities of the collaborative team, perceived effectiveness of partnership, preferred means of communication and how well-informed team members about program progress. I used a data analysis sheet, similar to the one recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 80-81) to tally responses and help guide my questions as I move through my research. The surveys were anonymous and I included open text boxes for participants to provide context about their responses. At the Partner MV meeting, I met most of the members of the coalition, introduced my project and advised them that I would be sending out a survey for them to complete. I used this survey in chapter four to establish a baseline of opinions and get a starting indication of the level of cohesiveness within group members. I also began with this type of survey to JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 28 ask non-invasive questions and begin to build trust with my participants (Kvale, 1996). One question asked about priorities within the organization. The purpose was to establish how cohesive the partners were in establishing the goals of the program. Some of the options were to improve academics, provide custodial care or provide value-based information. Of the 16 people contacted to take the survey, ten responded: six who identified themselves as school district administrators, two nonprofit organization representatives, one program facilitator, and one community partner. Semi-structured interviews After project approval, I conducted six interviews in a semi-structured format with key people within the collaborative team. I chose a semi-structured format for interviews because it provided me with a thematic basis for framing and ordering questions while it allowed for "openness to changes of sequence and forms of questions in order to follow up the answers given and the stories told by the subjects"(Kvale, 1996, p. 124). The interaction that a semi-structure interview encourages proceeded "like a normal conversation but [with] a specific purpose and structure"(131). All interview questions are attached in Appendix I-VII. The goal in each of these interviews was to get respondents talking and sharing their experiences without filters. The questions were semi-structured and were intentionally open to eliminate as much bias as possible (Fontana & Frey, 2003). All interviews were recorded and transcribed with the participants consent. Kvale (1996) suggests that the "interviewer must establish an atmosphere in which the subject feels safe enough to talk freely about his or her experiences and feelings"(p. 125). By JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 29 suggesting a location of the interviewees choosing, it reduced the anxiety one might feel providing critical information. Monetary incentives were not offered to participants. Participants Participants in the interviews were two of the four principals from the schools participating in the after school programs and one school district official in charge of the after school program, one teacher from the after school program, the two directors of the programs from the faith-based organization, and one interview with the facilitating organization members. All tolled, I have six full length, interviews and several more informal ones. Due to the availability of participants, I shortened the duration of the interviews to half hour segments with the principals and the facilitating organization official. I conducted interviews in the principals' offices, at Mission Ministries and various locations in town in order to make it as convenient as possible to participate. Late in the study, I attended a meeting with all of the principals, a district administrator and a leader of Mountain View Education Foundation that evaluated this year's program and discussed possible programming for next year. I had planned to include a focus group of teachers in my sampling, but time did not allow for their input to be included. Participant considerations For all of these interactions, I masked identities of the individuals using pseudonyms. I also masked the school district and the organizations in order to maintain confidentiality and maintain the integrity of the research. No comments were omitted from consideration, nor did any participant ask to be removed from the sampling. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for accuracy. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 30 Project Problems One problem I encountered is that I constantly had to refocus myself on the goal of examining the process of collaboration. Because there are so many aspects of the project, including programming and assessment, with my background in education, I was drawn to engage in these conversations. The coalition, because it is looking at the whole child and the needs of the entire family, has much broader goals than just the after school program. Because of this, I eliminated some of the partners who have interests in healthcare and other outside services and don't pertain directly to the services provided in the after school program. Time definitely affected the breadth of the findings. These are very busy people who are wearing multiple hats, so meetings were delayed at times or cancelled. Ethical Concerns As an employee in the school district that I am evaluating, I have to work with most of the people in this coalition in some capacity in the future. Knowing this, I had two main concerns with my position in this partnership: 1. Is my background knowledge of partners, my historical knowledge of the district and my bias as a teacher going to cloud the results or my interpretations? This is a major concern that I actively checked as I reflected on interviews and arranged information in chapter four and while I made recommendations for the future in chapter five. To help minimize this problem, I did pre-plan my interview questions and maintained an awareness of bias. I did actively monitor my questions and look for verification in responses for any conclusions I make. I also allowed respondents to JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 31 control much of the interview so that their ideas were central. I actively worked to maintain my role as researcher, rather than teacher. Lareau and Shultz (1996) relate the idea that, "You need to know who you are and what you are doing there"(p. 207). Because I studied communication and collaboration, not instructional design, it helped remove me from my teacher role and helped me maintain objectivity on the subject. The next issue that I was concerned with was: 2. Will I try to soften my results in order to maintain positive relationships with all of the partners in the coalition? In order to safeguard against this, I have been transparent with my goals and I kept my project focused. By maintaining the goal to examine the process of the collaboration and look at how communication is facilitated, my results are informative for the partners rather than threatening. Some of my information will be about program offerings, but not about an individual's job performance or overall program success. This intended result served as a reminder to base my conclusions on data and shape my interpretations on the observations and comments my interviewees presented. Analysis of the data All data and interviews were completed by the end of March. Because of this accelerated timeline, I planned in advance interviews with my principals and program directors. Additionally, I coded the qualitative data into thematic categories based on the responses I received. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest a leveled coding system that could describe types of responses or "chunks" with an additional notation according to source (p. 57). The main codes I categorized data under were the agendas of partners, program assessment, funding issues, access to shared data, programming and defining JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 32 roles in leadership, in particular the role of the backbone organization. Because the collaboration category was an emphasis, I created three subcategories within collaboration: communication, collective impact and the role of a third party organization and examples/non-examples of collaboration. I color coded data within interviews, then compared categories cross-referencing data from each of the sources, so I could understand relationships and connections between my respondents (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 57). I further broke down information based on the type of communication described. Those were inter-organizational communications (between people who work for the same organization), trans-organizational communication (between people who work for different organizations within the collaborative team), gaps in communication, needs of participants, differences in perceived progress or program outcomes, and differences in desired outcomes. These were adjusted based on the direction the subjects focused on in the interviews (p. 61). Validity Lather (1986) acknowledges that to eliminate all bias in research is a naïve pursuit. She argues that researchers, "no longer need apologize for unabashedly ideological research and its open commitment to using research to criticize and change the status quo"(p. 67). Instead of eliminating this bias, she suggests "data credibility checks to protect our research and theory construction from our enthusiasms"(p. 67). The credibility check that I used in analyzing my data was triangulation. Triangulation uses "multiple measures to include multiple data sources, methods, and theoretical schemes [to establish] data trustworthiness"(p. 67). I weighed each of my sources against each JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 33 other to establish truth within the situation. This helped me maintain objectivity, especially when I came across conflicting data. Consent & Data Storage Consent was sought before formal interviews and group meetings were conducted. All participants were adults, over 21 years of age and all have participated in the planning or implementation of the collaboration. Attached is a copy of the consent forms given to participants (Appendix F). All data were kept on my personal computer. The computer is password protected and I am the only one with access to the data. Additionally, information was kept on a flash drive that remains locked in my home office. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 34 Chapter 4: Findings Through the lens of collect impact this study examined how three organizations worked with partners to provide services to Hispanic, low-income students in the Mountain View area. Collective impact models generally focus on forming a common agenda, constructing shared measurements, providing mutually reinforcing activities, supporting continuous communication and assigning the role of backbone support (Kania & Kramer, 2011). For the purposes of this study, I focused on three themes: the function of the backbone organization in relationship to the larger collaboration; the establishment of a shared data and creation of shared measurements; and facilitation of continuous communication in order to maintain unity among the partners. Data collected through surveys, interviews and observations were analyzed using the collective impact model. Generally, the Partners MV members are engaging in a form of collective impact; however, there are gaps in their implementation that may negatively affect program outcomes. Role of the Backbone Organization According to Kania and Kramer (2011), collective impact requires a "separate organization and staff with a very specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative" (p. 40). The reasoning for this separate backbone is that the participating organizations do not have the time to connect with each other, analyze successes, or strategically plan for the future. They are too busy running the day-to-day functions of their organization. Edmondson (2013) agrees with the concept of backbone stating, "[there needs to be] a person who wakes up thinking about how best to act as servant leader to a broad partnership to achieve a collective goal and move specific JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 35 outcomes every day." Collective Partners has been fulfilling this role for the last two years, when it entered as a financial funder for the collective impact effort and became a partner within the collaboration. One Collective Partner associate echoed this sentiment about mission focus stating, "Our role as backbone organization is to wake up everyday thinking about how we've got these things bubbling up and we have these pieces and how do we connect them?" From interviews and observations, I found that the intention for fulfilling this role is evident. Partner MV is a priority for the Collective Partners as well as the school district and the faith-based organization. However, implementation of the intended collective effort is more difficult than it seems. School Coordinator Position. One core issue with Collective Partners being the backbone organization is that the main liaison position, the school coordinator, for the organization remained unfilled for most of the year. According to a Collective Partners interviewee, this position is essential for successful collaboration. She describes this role as a "channel of communication lives in the school coordinator position. [The school coordinators] are pockets of activity and form a bridge between families, schools, the outreach aides and the partners." Another Collective Partner interviewee explained the role of school coordinator as, "a case worker for systems. If you think about what a case manager does for an individual person or family, the school coordinator does on a community level… They are managing the outcome for an entire community." This is a huge expectation for one person, who is responsible for managing outcomes of four elementary schools, a faith-based organization and community partners. To leave the position open for most of the school year sends a message to the partners that the role is not vital and the collaboration can function without the facilitation of the backbone JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 36 organization as an active partner. This impression severely limits the leadership role that Collective Partners wants to fill as the backbone organization for the collaboration. When asked about the role of the school coordinator, several of the people I interviewed were unsure of the function of the school coordinator, even when the position was filled at the beginning of the year. One said, "I don't really have any contact with any of the Collective Partners employees". Another mentioned that they only saw on occasion one of the two school outreach aides who work out of the individual schools, but who are employed by Collective Partners, but never had contact with a school coordinator. A district employee asked, "What was her role? I don't know what her role was and their [Collective Partners] view of what her role was." This confusion over the role also extended to confusion over the function of the backbone organization as a whole. Hanleybrown, Kania and Kramer (2012) advise that the "backbone organization must maintain a delicate balance between the strong leadership needed to keep all parties together and the invisible ‘behind the scenes' role that lets the other stakeholders own the initiative's success"(p. 6). While corporate employees for Collective Partners tried to maintain those relationships and continued conversations behind the scenes, strong leadership was not visible to the interviewees. Some of the interviewees questioned the need for a school coordinator since partners are providing the services they have agreed to provide. As the new Collective Partner employee assumes the position of school coordinator, it will be difficult to prove to the partners that this role is key to maintaining a healthy collaboration between partners. Role Definition. Another aspect of defining the role of school coordinator will be how active this person is in program planning. In the larger scope of the Partner MV JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 37 program, partners not only provide links for community organizations to meet the needs of students by connecting them with community resources, they also collaborate with partners to provide after school programs for students. A goal stated in the common agenda was to raise test scores in math and English for students participating in the after school program. In trying to meet this goal, the previous school coordinator for Collective Partners pushed for access to data on individual students as well as testing data to determine weaknesses, with the end goal being, "100% of the kids [involved in the after school program] graduate and go to college." According to a Collective Partners interviewee, Collective Partners could take the data and recommend programming for the after school program based on research about "best practices" in other schools. The qualifications of the school coordinator came into question though, by the school district. During an interview, a district official raised the following concern: The Collective Partners said that the former school coordinator could get all this data and can help decide what kind of extra reading support these kids might need and I'm thinking, ah no. That's not going to happen. That's the principals' job. We have reading specialists; that's their job. This is a valid concern. The principals and district staff have extensive training in curricular design. In order to further ensure trust of the partners, the school coordinator will have to have the credentials and training to validate a role in determining programming. When the same official was asked what they thought Collective Partners wanted from the school coordinator's position, he replied, The elementary school principals and myself had what we thought we needed and I think the former school coordinator understood that, but Collective Partners JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 38 were pushing her to do things that we don't need to be done. The inference being that the former school coordinator was doing what the schools needed, which is outreach and services coordination, rather than data collection and curricular programming that Collective Partners wanted. Through interviews, it was established that other communities with more diverse populations and fewer resources would welcome this type of instructional help. Interviews with other participants revealed that there is a disconnect between the services offered by the backbone organization and what was needed within the community. Again, this highlights a lack of trust between the people within the partnership. The school district did not trust the school coordinator to make curricular decisions nor did they feel that the school coordinator was listening to the needs of the school due to a broader agenda. Let me caution though, these concerns were not with the role of the outreach coordinators, but with the necessity of the school coordinator role and how to proceed with providing services for the after school program students. Edmondson (2013) discusses the issue of roles and boundaries in collective impact warning, "The power struggles that often occur among the various entities that want to play this role [of backbone organization] often get in the way of progress and can derail an effort early on as historical issues of turf quickly emerge." While it does not seem that the struggle is over power, data indicate that the qualifications of the partners and trust in their decision-making is contributing to a lack of cooperation between organizations. All of the organizations want the power to contribute to overall program success. Decision-making and role of the faith-based organization. The school district maintains that the principals at each site should make decisions regarding the after school JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 39 program for their school complicating collaboration even more. Each school, although fairly similar in program blocking and modules, has a different focus and a different relationship with its collective partners. Much of the role of the school coordinator is to work directly with the principals and after school partners. The question is at what capacity? The principals must trust that the school coordinator has the knowledge-base and experience in order for the schools to allow curricular influence from Collective Partners. In addition to unclear perceptions about the school coordinator's role as a representative of the backbone organization, there is also confusion about the role Mission Ministries plays within the collaboration providing after school services. Mission Ministries has employees working in the after school program in three of the four schools. Initially, when Mission Ministries applied for a grant with Collective Partners, they applied as the lead partner, meaning they would be the organization in charge of the after school program. Collective Partners, though, when it accepted the application and awarded the contract, made the school district the lead partner. A Mission ministries interviewee said, They gave us funding, but made the school district the lead partner. My guess is that they wanted to fit the data collection in with whatever else they were doing in [other locations]. So we backed off and let them kind of get figured out. There are parts of it that I still don't think are figured out. While the decision to make the school district the lead partner seems logical, due to the schools resources and access to data, the choice to circumvent Mission Ministries was never processed with the partners and the power dynamic was never fully articulated. The JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 40 Ministry is working with Collective Partners and the school district, but sees their role devalued and their decision-making power or leadership role strongly reduced. When asked to define their role within the partnership, more than one Mission Ministry employee referred to difficulties within the partnership. One Mission employee said: If you look at the Partner meetings, the whole leadership is with Collective Partners and the school district and that's how it's set up with Collective Partners. So we're cooperative and if the school district asks us to do something, we try to cooperate. We kind of operate as guests of the schools and so that's how we have tried to strengthen our role. We ask how can we be good guests? How can we be good contributors that way? In the collective impact model, partners should not feel like "guests" in their own program. This is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed by the partners. An important aspect for successful collective impact model is that partners, "…build from what already exists; honoring current efforts and engaging established organizations" (Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer, 2012, p. 3). Mission Ministries has a long-standing history working in the community and championing the Latino population. They have increased the schools' credibility by endorsing its programs and encouraging school success to the community they serve. As a partner, they are too important to treat as a guest. Representatives interviewed from each of the organizations acknowledged that they were aware that there is tension between the groups, however it really is not discussed. Rogers (2009) emphasizes the importance of "the role of intermediary organizations [the backbone organization] to establish sustaining collaborative relationships"(339). Mission Ministries is in an awkward position within the partnership, JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 41 and is unsure of their status. While they have a strong relationship with Collective Partners and feel valued by them, there is evidence to reflect that relationship is not as strong with the school district. From my observations and research, Collective Partners is unaware of how deeply these tensions lie and unknowingly perpetuate this ‘guest status' by referring to Mission Ministries as a "Welcoming Center", a term that likens images of the greeter at Walmart, rather than a collaborative partner providing much needed services. While the role of Welcoming Center is important, because it provides students and their families a contact to the opportunities offered in the partnership, it is viewed as a diminished role within the Partner MV effort. Mission Ministries maintains, "We try to stay in conversation and bring our ideas to the table and it works on their end and works with their staff, that's good." It is debatable how much the ideas coming from Mission Ministries are valued. The same trust issues that the school district has with Collective Partners, they also have with Mission Ministries. From interviews with school district staff, some interviewees questioned the academic capabilities of Mission Ministries and the quality of programming they provide students. One interviewee stated, "I wouldn't call what [Mission Ministries] does as enrichment. I'd call it activities." Another stated, "I'm not really sure what [Mission Ministries] are trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's reading a passage. I get a lot of resistance from the kids." It is questionable whether the school district will value any partner to provide quality academics to students that comes from an outside source. It is also questionable, if the school district truly wants to engage in a collective impact partnership for programming the after school program. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 42 Thus far, these issues with role recognition and leadership have not been addressed with the partners openly. Kania and Kramer (2011) note that, "These differences are easily ignored when organizations work independently on isolated initiatives, yet these differences splinter the efforts and undermine the impact of the field as a whole when ignored" (p. 39). Establishing clear roles for each of the partners will be essential for each of the partners to remain in the collaboration. When asked about roles, a school district participant said, "We spent two years trying to talk about what each partner's role should be… nothing came of it." He added, " I never sensed a backbone from Collective Partners to step in and play hard ball with either one of us. Which, they are giving us money, they are giving them a lot of money… it's an interesting experiment." This statement indicates that the power dynamic between Collective Partners and the school district is unclear even before introducing Mission Ministries into the mix. A major area of focus for the new school coordinator will be bridging the relationship between the two partners and trying to establish trust between Mission Ministries and Mountain View School District. Shared Data and Common Measurements In all collective impact models, having a system to share data and measure progress is essential for gaging success and validating program expenditures. Hanleybrown, Kania and Kramer (2013) advise, "Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable" (p. 1). When collaborating, partners need to determine which means of measurement to use and what criteria or benchmarks should be employed. Collecting and sharing data have been a point of contention between the school district, JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 43 Collective Partners and its partners. In a perfect world, all the partners would have all the information available concerning students. The argument for shared data is so that partners can assess program needs and understand the needs and issues of individual students. It also helps validate funding to donors and validates programming expenditures. Additionally, when assessing program viability and effectiveness, program managers must examine data to determine if real progress is being made. When dealing with data collected about students, FERPA protection rights must be enforced. The school district must safeguard the anonymity of the students and protect their information from being used in a harmful way. Collective Partners insists that data on students should be shared so that appropriate services can be given to each child. Once privacy issues about sharing information are solved, the real question is what type of data is being used, for what purpose, and how is it being interpreted? Respondents stated from interviews that information is available on multiple levels, but each organization seems to question how the other will interpret the information and each also questions how the information will be used. Again, this indicates trust issues between the organizations. For example, a Collective Partners representative suggested "The school coordinator could help Big Brothers Big Sisters get access to data so they can understand what is happening there or looking at the Dibels (an elementary reading assessment) if that's the appropriate avenue." The school district in turn questions why Big Brothers Big Sisters would need access to a students testing and also questions if they have the expertise to interpret the data correctly. One school district official recalled: JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 44 They [Collective Partners] wanted ‘her' [the former school coordinator] to have all this data and ‘she' doesn't even know what this data means. We have a hard time [analyzing data], it takes us hours to really ask the hard questions, and you want someone to have all this data and do what with it? We don't need that. We don't want that. It doesn't make sense to us that you have a separate data interest when we're sitting for hours, and hours and principals spend hours and hours, and teachers spend hours and hours looking at the data on their individual kids. It's something that's completely useless to us and they [Collective Partners] really have a hard time with that. The issue here is in trusting the expertise of the school coordinator and the data specialists at Collective Partners. Deeper though, it speaks to the issue discussed in the leadership section above about needs. Is this a service the school district needs, or is it a means to validate funding? Both are valid reasons, but motivations behind data requests need to be articulated and may assuage the fears the district has about releasing information. District officials did clarify that they have no problem sharing data that describes program participants as a whole and add that the state has "tons of data". One issue with the data is that the collaborative partners are taking one aspect of a students day, the after school program, and trying to imply results without considering the impact of the daytime classroom and all of the interventions a student experiences during that time. Research supports this concern. "The traditional paradigm of evaluation, which focuses on isolating the impact of a single organization or grant, is not easily transposed to measure the impact of multiple organizations working together in real time to solve a common problem" (Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer, 2013, p. 5). Success rates of JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 45 students in the after school program also receive assistance from their daytime teachers, specialists and other interventions built into their schedules. Success also may be attributed to outside factors like family reinforcement, community programs or recreational activities. To attribute success or lack thereof to one factor would be an error. Shared data is not just an issue with the district sharing its information. In a district meeting, principals were discussing means of collecting data when one remembered that Collective Partners had already conducted a survey at the beginning of the year with parents that asked questions ranging from income, to parenting style to health care situation to attitudes and perceptions of the school, which were similar to the questions principals were asking. A representative from a funding source asked for the data on behalf of the principals and was given a blank copy of the survey. Then upon a second request was given the number of respondents. A Collective Partners employee responded by saying, "I have submitted a data request for this to be reviewed on Thursday by the data team. I just need to know how you will be using the data and who the audience is." At this time, no information concerning this request has been sent to principals or the funding manager. This situation is curious because none of the partners want to share their information, yet all the partners feel frustration with the lack of shared data from other participants. All of the partners worry about how the other partners are interpreting data and all want the data to look favorably on programming. Similarly, bi-yearly Mission Ministries completes a survey with students and families based on an Asset Development Assessment model. The Asset Development model measures "positive qualities that influence young people's development, helping JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 46 them become caring, responsible, and productive adults"(Search Institute, 2014). The questions are qualitative and provide valuable information, but are difficult to assess in coordination with the measurable quantitative data the district is using. No results of this survey have been shared with the district and I am unaware of this information being shared with Collective Partners. Principals questioned the validity of the Asset Development data because of its qualitative nature, yet in brainstorming how to collect data, asked many of the same types of questions the Mission Ministries data would provide, indicating that because the data came from Mission Ministries that it was more anecdotal than informative. No matter which organization generates the data the importance is that the measurements on how the programs are assessed are agreed upon and shared through all of the partners. Kania and Kramer (2011) advise, Agreement on a common agenda is illusory without agreement on the way success will be measured and reported. Collecting data and measuring results consistently on a short list of indicators at the community level and across all participating organizations not only ensures that all efforts remain aligned, it also enables the participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other's successes and failures. (p. 40) This was evident in the principal meeting, where principals discussed the priorities of the after school program. For one principal, homework completion was the primary goal, for another providing custodial care was a high priority. While the common agenda is a guide, it may need to be refined to meet measurable goals. On a very ground level, teachers and program coordinators for the after school program both reported receiving very little input as to the needs of their students or JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 47 specific information that would help them serve the individual better. One teacher reported that, "The daytime teacher occasionally would pop their head into the after school class and advise, ‘That's too easy.' Or ‘Have a certain student work on this', but that was the extent of communication given to teachers who interacted with the students daily. The question of data is tenuous with all of the organizations and each must be careful not to break laws or breach confidentiality. However, if a true collaboration is to continue, this matter must be addressed. While there are FERPA questions regarding shared data of individual students, there are ways to measure and share data within the collaborative team without breaking confidentiality laws. Teachers in the after school program would benefit from increased access to student progress so they can better serve those individualized needs. Communication All of the problems mentioned above stem from a lack of trust and a lack of communication. Maintaining strong communication lines through all levels of collaboration is key to being effective. In the Partner MV collaboration, individuals felt comfortable communicating with other individuals across organizational lines to address a specific issue. This communication included teachers speaking with teachers, program directors speaking to principals, or outreach coordinators speaking with service providers. This is a good start because as Kania and Kramer (2011) explain, Developing trust between nonprofits, corporations and government agencies is a monumental challenge. Participants need several years of regular meetings to build up enough experience with each other to recognize and appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts. (p. 40) JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 48 One participant noted, "Each group fulfills their own niche of services. I communicate with the people I need to when there is a problem, but there's not really a formal process of reporting interactions." The two outreach aides who work for Collective Partners and are housed in the schools have the most interaction with all of the partner organizations as well as families of students. They communicate with the most regularity with principals and Mission Ministries and they log their interactions to measure accountability and to note interactions. On an individual level, most respondents voiced that they could call any of the partners at any time and get results. One partner said, "I feel like I could pick up the phone and call any one of those principals we work with and say, hey, can you help me out with this or here's what's going on." This is consistent with most organizations where people talk directly to the person involved or needed. The conversations that had the most regularity and success were those that dealt with a specific student, a specific issue or providing a specific resource. Communications that did not happen on a frequent basis were more systemic conversations such as coordinating programming, planning curriculum, and clarifying roles. Both program directors and after school teachers reported that they little contact and few conversations with people outside of their own organization. Many reported that the programs offered by the district run more parallel to the Mission Ministries programs rather than collectively interacting. After school teachers and program directors reported that they had no collective training or formal training at the beginning of the year to guide their practice with students in the classroom. This is problematic because no shared expectations for curriculum in the after school program was shared between agencies or shared directly with the teachers. Rogers (2009) suggests that the key to maintaining JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 49 communication and trust between partners is through communicating shared expectations. "Employees at every level from all the partnering agencies learned about procedures, practice models, technical skills, and human resources, including teamwork" (p. 339). Because conversations about expectations, common goals and shared measurements are not being communicated to the staff members, organizations are loosing faith in the others' ability to deliver quality services to students. With training and shared expectations for curriculum, group instruction and management for all members involved in the after school program, partners could understand the expectations of each of the partners and fulfill those expectations in a more consistent manner. Communication between organizations is more problematic. An example of miscommunication between partners was when Mission Ministries applied for a grant for funding the after school program, outside of the Collective Partners grant. A district official states: We've had some challenges communicating, with Mission Ministries for instance. All of sudden we get these things where they've applied for a grant for three schools and well, they left one of our elementary schools out. Why would they do that? It would have been nice if they had sat around this table and said, here's what we're thinking. How would you guys like to be involved? It got a little weird. It is perfectly logical for Mission Ministries to apply for a grant; after all, grants are the organization's primary funding source. However, in collective impact, making programming changes that affect the collective partnership without adequate JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 50 communication can be hugely problematic. When three of four schools are included in a grant and special circumstances and qualifications apply, it creates a complicated situation. Also, it eliminates Mission Ministries in one of the schools that is supposed to be benefiting from this collective effort. In not communicating intentions beforehand, it also set up a dynamic of mistrust for future interactions. For example, when Mission Ministries proposed a new structure for after school programming next year, they met with each individual principal and did not communicate intentions or ideas with district officials. The principals in turn, shared the programming proposals in a meeting of district officials, where it was met with skepticism from some of the principals. As the principals and district officials discussed the proposed changes, the motivations of Mission Ministries were immediately called into question. One principal asked, "Doesn't that put the kibosh on the whole collaboration thing with Mission Ministries?" Then another brought up that part of the proposal is to extend time and days. A principal asked, "Is this another grant? That's what usually precipitates change with them." Immediately, the conversation turned to how this proposal would put financial demands on the district. Quickly the conversation turned to an ‘us versus them' mentality, without verification of intent or clarification of the proposal with Mission Ministries. This really was a conversation that should have included a representative from Mission Ministries and a representative from Collective Partners, but neither organization was included. The purpose of the meeting was to debrief on the after school program for the current year and discuss intentions for the next year. This method of compartmentalizing communication will harm the collective impact effort and perhaps dissolve the partnership, if not addressed. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 51 From Mission Ministries' standpoint they are trying to fulfill the mission of sustaining quality services for the underserved students in Mountain View and the surrounding community. A representative stated that the Ministry operates in a very different way from the school district and funding is a very real concern. They are constantly looking to the next year and the next five years to ensure sustainability. There is a clearly a lack of communication about funding going on between the partners. For example, a Mission Ministries representative announced at a Partner MV meeting that their funding for a three-year grant would be ending at the end of the year. A representative from Collective Partners said, "No, funding will remain in place until the job is done. We need to talk after the meeting." Both were surprised by the others responses and neither knew of the other organizations actions or intent. As the backbone organization, Collective Partners needs to communicate the terms of the partnership, how and when funding is decided and which organizations are making those decisions. Financial vulnerability pits organizations against each other as competitors rather than partners. Whether Mission Ministries was financially vulnerable or not is not the issue. The issue is perceived vulnerability and how it affects the collective impact of all partners. Fundamentally, these communication problems are keeping partners from collaborating on a deeper level. The mistrust of intentions from all three organizations needs to be discussed in an open forum with Collective Partners leading the hard conversations. All of the three main organizations have specialized skills they bring to the table and all are necessary in order to fulfill the promises of collective impact desired for these underserved students and their families. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 52 Chapter 5: Implications My goal when embarking on this project was to study how organizations collaborate to provide services to at-risk students in the Mountain View School District using the model of collective impact as my guide. This study is important because it examines three main areas of collective impact: the role of the backbone organization, the importance of shared data, and the necessity of communication. The three main organizations, Mountain View School District, Mission Ministries and Collective Partners, can utilize the findings from this thesis to build trust among partners and work to more effectively serve the student population. This study can help other organizations identify some of the challenges that are faced by entities that enter into collaborative relationships. My objective is that this study provides insight for members and ways of problem solving that they hadn't considered. It sheds light on some of the undercurrents of mistrust that can affect how partners provide services and interact with each other. Ultimately, I still believe in the power of collective impact as strongly as I did when I began this project. However, I do understand, on a deeper level, how historical differences can impede collaboration and how challenging it can be to engage in a collective impact effort. Limitations I began attending Partner MV meetings in November of 2013 and attended three over the course of the research project. To fully understand how the partnership formed and how it has evolved, interviews from a broader spectrum of the members of each service sector of the community involved in the partnership could provide additional information. I was limited in the number of people I was able to interview in the time period, as well JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 53 as the number of times I could meet with each one. In an ideal world, I would have met with each participant several times throughout the year and traced the progression of interaction between the partners during that time. In reality, I was limited to meeting with most of my interviewees just once for personal interviews, and then gaining additional information during casual interactions and at meetings. This study provides a snapshot of interaction over their years of collaborative partnering. Hanleybrown, Kania and Kramer (2012) acknowledge that it takes six months to two years for a collective impact initiative to research root causes, create infrastructure, establish a common agenda, engage the community and build public will (p. 4). The Partner MV collaboration is still young and still establishing and molding their norms, values and true objectives at the time of this study. Collective impact is designed to be a marathon rather than a sprint, so to view the findings in this thesis as a prediction of the collaboration in the future would be shortsighted. This thesis examined the partnership during a relatively short period of time, just five months; it is a glimpse of a partnership that has been forming for more than two years. Recommendations Partners MV is in the position to impact student lives in multiple ways due to their many supportive community partners, strong infrastructure and stable funding sources. By strengthening areas of collaboration to create trust, partners will generate more autonomy and feel more valued within the collaboration. After analyzing the data, my recommendations align with the three main categories of findings established in chapter four: establishing strong role definitions for the three main organizations; establishing common measurements and articulating parameters for sharing data; and JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 54 establishing communication patterns between the officials for the three organizations to establish trust and confidence between the lead collaborators. Establishing Roles. At the conclusion of this study, Collective Partners hired a new school coordinator to fill the backbone position within the collaboration. As stated in Chapter four, this person has an enormous task in front of her and establishing the relevance of her position and the necessity of her position to the other partners will be at the forefront of her job. "Collective impact requires a highly structured process that leads to effective decision making" (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 40). The members of the partnership need to understand that this leadership position is vital for their success. They need to see how the school coordinator position is going to improve their collective impact efforts in a very concrete manner and it is up to the new school coordinator to establish this importance. Because the position was vacant for such a long time during the school year, school district officials and Mission Ministries officials will need to help define what this position entails moving forward. This cannot be a top down approach coming from Collective Partners. Collective Partners must define the role of school coordinator with help from the school district and Mission Ministries defining the role based on the needs of the community. The school coordinator cannot be seen as someone who is duplicating efforts, but someone who will identify areas of improvement. Partners MV met for two years of planning, but the bulk of these conversations dealt with programming and connecting resources, not with clearly establishing the roles of the school coordinator. Although the process of defining roles can feel tedious, it is essential for a successful collaboration. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 55 Along with defining the role of the school coordinator, the partners need to work together to clarify the decision-making process in the after school program. The role, responsibilities, and boundaries of Mission Ministries and the school district need to be defined. Ideally, decisions about programming and running the after school program would be a conversation between the three organizations. However, the school district has been insistent about designing curriculum for the program at each individual site by principals and qualified educational staff. If programming continues in this direction, then the school district needs to provide clear directions and training for all members of the partnership so that expectations for performance, content and curriculum are consistent from teacher to teacher, class to class, and school to school. Assuming staff knows what these expectations are without consistent and continual training is an error and will lead to an ineffective program. This is a large task and if principals are not in a position to research best practices for after school programs, they need to be open to suggestions from members of Collective Partners and Mission Ministries on how to improve or enrich programming. Establishing Shared Measurements & Discussing Data. There are two key questions surrounding data: who should have access to data, and how are the data being used? Both of these questions relate back to the common agenda. It is recommended that partners reexamine the goals of the common agenda. Math and English were initially identified as the key curricular areas of focus to address the achievement gap in Latino students. In recent conversations with all three organizations, the focus seems to be shifting from English and math, to attendance, science and enrichment with the Engineering Adventures program being a key feature. Program planners have also JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 56 focused on homework, computer literacy and custodial care as important services to provide to students in the after school program. Partners must come to a consensus on what the goals of the program are, so that they can measure success with and collect data. "Progress depends on working toward the same goal and measuring the same things" (Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer, 2012). Currently, each organization is collecting data, each using a different measurement and each interpreting the data with different methods. In collective impact, partners need to agree upon a shared system of measurement. Part of the problem in trying to measure the results of the afterschool program is that so many other factors, such as home-life, family, teachers, school interventions and community interventions, can impact the progress of each student. The other issue with shared data is the question of how the data are being used. It is recommended that once a shared form of measurement is agreed upon by the partners, that plans are made for when this information is made available to the partners and whose responsibility it is to collect, analyze and distribute it. The concern with sharing data appears to be distrust of how the data will be used by the other partners. However, agreement about what is being measured and how it is being measured should not threaten any of the organizations. It should be used as a compass to guide programming into the future. Establishing Better Communication. Communication lies at the core of rewarding collaborations. I recommend in this case that the school coordinator with Collective Partners take the lead instigating some of the tough conversations that need to happen between Mission Ministries and Mountain View School District. Distrust between these two organizations is hindering the partnership. Collective Partners, as a neutral third JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 57 party, has the ability to mediate a conversation about areas of distrust, needs of the partners and common goals. This could really help both organizations gain insight into motivations of the other organization. Kania and Kramer, 2011 advise: "In the best of circumstances, these backbone organizations embody the principles of adaptive leadership: the ability to focus people's attention and create a sense of urgency, the sill to apply pressure to stakeholders without overwhelming them the competence to frame issues in a way that presents opportunities as well as difficulties, and the strength to mediate conflict among stakeholders." (p. 40) Collective Partners is the only partner in a position to play this leadership role. Taken seriously and implemented with strong intent, the partners can enhance their relationships and reduce much of the confusion and frustration surrounding the partnership and how each organization fulfills its role. My personal bias as I embarked on this project was that collaborations and collective impact will be the solution to many of the challenges nonprofits and schools face in the future. While I still believe in the power of collective impact and I see the benefits it is providing to Mountain View students, I also can more fully appreciate the difficulties that organizations face when trying to join forces in a true collaboration. Historical relationships and program ownership makes it difficult to move forward successfully. Program directors all have the best of intentions, but even with a clear mission statement and clear program goals, organizational priorities can cloud perspectives. I would recommend that when organizations enter into a partnership that it JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 58 is done with respect and positive intentions to work as partners. They also need to be willing to communicate information and problem solve together. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 59 References Acar, M., Guo, C., & Yang, K. (2011, November 16). Accountability in voluntary partnerships: to whom and for what? Springer Science-Business Media, 158-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115-0169-0 Apsler, R. (2009, Spring). After-school programs for adolescents: a review of evaluation research. Adolescence, 44, No. 143, 1-19. http://ehis.ebscohost.com Arenas, D., Sanchez, P., & Murphy, M. (2013, November 29). Different paths to collaboration between businesses and civil society and the role of third parties. Journal of Business Ethics, 723-739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1829- 5 Austin, J. E. (2000, March 1). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 29, 69-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089976400773746346 Burdumy, S.J., Dynarski, M., & Deke, J. (2007, December). When elementary schools stay open late: results from the national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 296-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373707309077 Cummings, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N.H. Hornberger (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, U.S., 487-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36 Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. (Chapter 2, Review of the literature) JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 60 Edmondson, J. (2013, December 3). Backbone Organization or Backbone Function? Striving for Change: Lessons from the Front Line . Retrieved from http://www.strivetogether.org/blog/2013/12/backbone-organization-or-backbone-function/ http://www.strivetogether.org/blog/2013/12/backbone-organization-or-backbone- function/ Epstein, J.L. & Sanders, M.G. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: new directions for social research. Handbookof the Sociology of Education. (285-306) (Chapter 12) Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2003). The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (61- 106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gold, E., Christman, J. B., & Harold, B. (2011, February). Blurring the boundaries: a case study of private sector involvement in Philadelphia schools. The American Journal of Education, 113 (2), 181-212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable.10.1086/510165 Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: bridging achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos & Education, 9, 322-339. http://dx.doi.org/10:1080/15348431.2010.491048 Gray, B. (1991). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. Gray, B., Stensaker, I.G., and Jansen, K.J. (2012, May 10). Qualitative challenges for complexifying organizational change research: context, voice, and time. The JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 61 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48: (121-134). http://dx.doi.org.10.1177/0021886312438866 Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005, July 27). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 34, 338-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764005275411 Hamann, M.S. & Jurs, S.G. (2002, December 1). Evaluations of after-school programs; a meta- evaluation of methodologies and narrative synthesis of findings. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 387-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300403 Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling Change: Making collective Impact Work. Stanford Social Innovation Review , 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impa ct_work Julian, D. A., Reischl, T. M., Carrick, R. V., & Katrenich, C. (1997). Citizen participation: lessons from a local United Way planning process. Journal of American Planning Association. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/docview/229718993/1 41469D32F063D34F2D/1?accountid=14989 Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation, 36-41. Retrieved from http://leveragingourstrengths.ca/reading/collective_impact.pdf JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 62 Kania, J. & Kramer, M. (2013, January 21). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity . Stanford Social Innovation Review , 6. Retrieved from References Kieffer, M. J. (2011, August 25). Converging trajectories: reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1187-1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419490 Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (285-306) La Plana, D. (1999, November). Beyond collaboration: strategic restructuring of nonprofit organizations. National Center for Nonprofit Boards, 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.lapiana.org/downloads/BeyondCollaboration.pdf Lareau, A., & Shultz, J. (1996). Journeys through ethnography. Realistic accounts of fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Lather, Patti (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, (17) 4, pp. 63-84. Maynard, B. R., Peters, K. E., Vaughn, M.G., & Sarteschi, C.M. (2013, June 4). Fidelity in after- School program intervention research: a systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 613-623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731513291150 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 63 Quezada, T. (2004). Faith-Based Organizing for School Improvement in the Texas Borderlands: A Case Study School Initiative . Academic Development Institute. 1-27. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/ss04/T%20Quezada.pdf Rogers, R. K. (2009). Community collaboration: practices of effective collaboration as reported by three urban faith-based social service programs. Social Work & Christianity, 36, 326-345. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of "community" in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal , 102, 19-34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002167 Schencker, L. & Winters. R., (2011, November 2). National report card shows undisclosed state achievement gaps persist. The Salt Lake Tribune. http://archive.sltrib.com/printfriendly.php?id=52805008&itype=cmsid Selden, S. C., Sowa, J. E., & Sandfort, J. (2006, May/June). The Impact of Nonprofit Collaboration in Early Child Care and Education on Management and Program Outcomes. Public Administration Review , 412-425. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3843921 Sowa, J. E. (2008, October 21). The Collaboration Decision in Nonprofit Organizations: View from the Front Line . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 1003- 1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764008325247 "Undisclosed State and Local Implementation of the NCLB Act." Volume IX: Accountability Under the NCLB Act, Final Report. US Department of Education, 20 Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 64 Zief, S.G., Lauver, S., Maynard, R.A. (2006). Impacts of after-school programs on student outcomes. Campbell Systematic reviews 2006: 3. http:dx.doi.org/10.4073/csr.2006.3 JOINING FORCES: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTI-ORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION 65 Appendix A Survey Questions - Given Online through www.surveymonkey.com November 19, 2013 start date 10 respondents of 16 partners Question One: Which of the following best describes your role in Partner MV? 6 School District Administration 2 Nonprofit Organization 1 Program Facilitator 1 Community Partner Question Two: Prioritize the following services provided by the after school program from (1), most imp