Increasing the Capacity of Individuals, Families and Communities

Establishing Partnerships

Key Components of Partnership Development | Partnerships in Action

Categories of Partnerships

Once you decide to form a partnership, the next step is to define what type of working relationship you want with the partnership. Following are some categories of partnerships that will help you determine what kind of working and management relationship works best given your specific situation. The key for you to establish and maintain successful partnerships is to find a way to build on the strengths of all partners in various categories. In recent years, there has been a significant increase at the Federal, state, and local levels in the number of institutional "sponsors" of partnerships focusing on community improvement. Examples of institutional sponsors for partnerships are:

• Federal - The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) grants to institutions of higher learning to create partnerships with neighborhoods and to develop multidisciplinary neighborhood interventions. (OUP, 2002)

• State - The Tennessee Association of Community Partnerships uses information technology to support economic development through public/private partnerships. Community partners can be individuals or institutions working toward community and workforce development. (TNAC, Association)

• University - The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Center for Community Partnerships is a fee-for-service resource for business development partnering with insurance, advertising and finance organizations. (UWO, CCP)

• Corporate - The Allstate Insurance Company’s Model for Community Partnerships works on issues of crime, fire safety and abandoned buildings to prevent insurance losses in Philadelphia neighborhoods, viewing the neighborhoods not as social liabilities but as potential customers (McNeil, 1995).

• National Nonprofit - With funding from the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Civic League created a new division called Federal-Community Partnerships (FCP). The FCP serves as coordinator for the training and technical assistance program interventions targeted at young children in 11 cities around the United States. (National Civic League, FCP)

Partnerships Among Community-Based Non-profit Service Organizations
From a community development perspective, the test to determine if these partnerships are effective is whether they actually contribute to what will empower people for social and economic change.⁵ Organizations linking community and institutional interests list the following components regarding the share of the work: close, mutual cooperation, common goals, shared involvement in decision-making, sharing risks as well as benefits, common interests, responsibilities and power.

These components focus on both the process of the partnership (e.g., shared decision-making, shared power) and the capacity of each partner to assume responsibility for a share of the work.

Capacity of Partnerships
A growing body of research calls attention to the role of social capital, or community social capacity, as the source of the ability to identify problems and needs, achieve a workable consensus on goals and priorities and work in partnership with other organizations to achieve goals.⁶

The Rockefeller Institute identified the following four attributes of social capital or capacity in the Study of Urban Neighborhoods and Community Capacity Building.⁷

• Attachment/identification - Measured by such factors as the percentage of residents who feel stronger attachment to the neighborhood than to the city at large.
• Neighboring - Measured by what neighbors report as the frequency that they visit one another, help one another with tasks or the proportion of respondents who report that a large share of their neighbors are friends.
• Organizational/associational infrastructure - Measured by the number and type of organizations or groups present in the neighborhood, the proportion of residents who report the presence of groups that deal with neighborhood issues and the degree to which residents report having a sense that there are people in their neighborhood with whom to talk about and work together on issues.
• Political/civic engagement - Measured by electoral registration, turnout or membership in lobbying or advocacy organizations.

Let’s look at another framework for community capacity regarding "Theories of Neighborhood Change."⁸ This study suggested four fundamental characteristics:

• A sense of community, portraying a degree of connectedness among members;
• A level of commitment, investing time and energy in community well-being, often funneled into local organizations;
• Mechanisms for problem-solving, addressing issues and taking collective action with external organizations; and,
• Access to resources (human and financial) through commitments of institutional partners.

In the context of partnerships, without community capacity, neighborhoods are at risk of being merely the recipient of goods or services, rather than a true partner in revitalization efforts in their neighborhood. In addition to levels of social or community capacity, in order to function as a partner, each organization must have a degree of organizational capacity to manage projects and budgets and establish manageable objectives in order to keep people involved.

In other words, if only one side of the partnership is involved in actual project management, there is no assurance that it is representative of shared interests or that there is any capacity for sustainability.

Process of Partnerships
Along with the individual capacity of each partner, it is important for you to examine the process of the actual partnership. There are a number of properties that for you to assess when considering how the "community" and the "partnership" establish and sustain a relationship. The locus of control for these properties is critical to the sustainability of the partnership and the community development initiative.

Consider the following four categories of properties that are important in a community partnership:

1. Leadership – There are many styles of leadership in both formal and informal organizational structures. The key here is noting who is providing the leadership in the partnership.
2. Primary Funding – An institutional partner can bring resources to the table and limit discussion to those resources, can bring linkage to resources, or there can be a cooperative effort to secure unattached resources.
3. Goals – Goals can be set in the absence of resources. You can develop them through consensus decision-making or they can be accepted because one party in the discussion is the "expert."
4. Process – Decision processes in community organizations and community institutions can be either inclusive or exclusive. Important to community development is how actively, and deeply, was the community engaged.

An example of a community-based partnership is the Nebraska Continuum of Services, Inc. We’ll discuss the details regarding the partnership and the organizational structure later in this guidebook in Examples of Effective Partnerships.

Partnerships Among Foundations
Foundations make grants to local FBCOs for program delivery and organizational support.

• Foundations can play a key role in building collaboration between organizations and governments. This can take place at both the national and local levels and brings multiple benefits. First, it serves to bring innovative ideas and skills into government agencies in both the design of social policy and the delivery of services to the public. Second, it enables organizations to access information and resources that increase their effectiveness. Third, it ensures that both public and private institutions are working together towards common goals, avoiding duplication of effort and ensuring maximum impact.
  
  
• Foundations, particularly corporate foundations, are well placed to facilitate cooperation between organizations and the business sector. Such cooperation can benefit organizations by bringing in additional skills and resources in areas such as financial administration, credit management and marketing. The business sector benefits from the advice of the FBCOs in strengthening the impact of their programs at the community level.
  
  
• Board membership can be a critical factor in facilitating the building of partnerships with other sectors. Those foundations that have leading representatives of different sectors on their boards are at an advantage when building collaboration and partnerships between sectors. They can draw on a wide array of personal networks to open up opportunities and build trust and confidence.⁹

Cross-sector Partnerships
Cross-sector partnerships are between community-based nonprofits and the business, government and/or academic sectors. External/community partnerships are relatively simple to initiate but are challenging to maintain, regardless of the goodwill of the participants. Two distinctly different institutional and organizational cultures must come together to create a productive environment. What initially might seem like the opportunity for misunderstanding holds the possibility for an opportunity for a successful partnership.¹⁰ The key here is to find common ground and language that underscores the shared vision of the partnership organizations.

A case in point is the partnership formed between University of Hawaii Center on the Family, the Hawaii Community Foundation and the Hawaiian Islands’ Ministries. As you can see, the partnership was formed between an academic institution, a foundation and an FBO. We’ll discuss the details regarding the partnership and the organizational structure later in this guidebook in Examples of Effective Partnerships.

Benefits to Partners
Why should potential partners participate in this relationship—what benefits will result in their favor? The answer lies in the very nature of FBCOs; they are connected to the community and are able to build infrastructures that can create long term capacity. They are more representative of the community concerns.¹¹ And while FBCOs are often required to provide certain geographic connections in order to maintain funding, these other organizations are not required to do so and can therefore enable access to greater funding resources. Moreover, the partnership between these organizations provides the FBCOs with greater citywide/region wide connections and provides the other organizations with greater grass roots connections. Another benefit for the governmental/business/academic organizations is the positive public perception regarding the interest and commitment to the community and its development. It also enables the other organization to participate in community development without having to deal with political and legal regulations, permit issues, etc. The result of a cross-sector partnership is a win-win situation for all the parties involved.

Additional Types of Partnerships
Some additional, specific types of partnerships are also available for your consideration. With each type, you will see examples of how this partnership might be expressed under typical circumstances.

Collaboration Characteristics: Greater autonomy; no permanent organizational commitment Organizational Partnerships (example) Sharing information Coordinating efforts, Not including shared, transferred or combined services, governance, resources or programs Having no integration

Strategic Alliance Characteristics: Decision-making power is shared or transferred Joint Programming (example) Management of a program of mutual interest to participating organizations missions Administrative Consolidation (example) Being agreement-driven Ongoing partnerships involving joint management of one or more functions (e.g., administrative or program related) Partners still operate independently

Integration Characteristics: Involves changes to structure and control Management Service Organizations (example) Established to provide some or all administrative functions (i.e., fundraising, accounting functions) Joint Ventures (example) Two or more organizations creating a new structure to advance an administrative or program-related function Parent-Subsidiaries (example) One organization—either new or a designated organization—overseeing functions of another Mergers (example) Previously separate organizations completely combining program, administrative, and governance functions 12

Funding Alliances established to provide share funds Characteristics: Greater autonomy; no permanent organizational commitment Separate organizations come together in a recipient/donor relationship or share a larger grant/donation Issues of fiscal and administrative management can be a great hindrance In order to mitigate issues, a separate body can be created to manage the funds and allocate them to each partner organization as determined in the original agreement

Cost-Sharing/Grant-Match Partnerships Cost sharing occurs when one organization provides certain resources and the other organization provides different resources (e.g., the universities provide the facilities, faculty and the new environment in which the Federal government selectively invests) Grant match occurs when one organization provides a grant and the recipient provides a match in services, cash, maintenance, voluntary effort or supplies Both partners share the benefits; both share the costs13

Key Components of Partnership Development | Partnerships in Action