 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 2002, the Community Partnerships for Adult Learning (C-PAL) initiative supported by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) of the U.S. Department of Education has been exploring how community partnerships can enhance the quality and quantity of adult education services. In 2003, Community Partnerships for Adult Learning (C-PAL) staff visited twelve communities across the country to learn about how their partnerships have enabled them to expand and improve adult education. The partnerships include publicly and privately funded adult education providers, state and local government, workforce development and social service agencies, businesses, and other community organizations. These twelve communities were chosen because they exhibited characteristics of effective partnerships identified through research, such as strong leadership and common goals based on the needs of the community. They vary in size, composition, and location, and they represent all regions of the country. At first glance, their differences may seem more striking than their similarities, but all share a strong commitment to strengthening services to adult learners and meeting the educational and workforce needs of their communities. The twelve site visits and other materials submitted by the partnerships produced the information contained in the twelve individual Partnership Profiles. This report summarizes the findings from these twelve communities:
Among other findings, the report notes that partners coordinate their activities to reduce duplication of services, serve more learners, and meet community workforce needs. Coordinating services allows partners to stretch limited resources and obtain new funds for which they could not qualify individually. Shared in-kind resources, such as staff time, space, and administrative assistance, are a significant element of most partnerships, and funding arrangements vary widely. Partners leverage funds in a variety of ways: joint grant applications and fund-raising activities, shared fiscal agents, combined funds, and agreements to coordinate proposals to avoid competing for the same limited funds, for example. Collaboration allows partners to exploit each other's programmatic strengths and make the most of their individual expertise. Some partners, for example, divide both the client population and the funding, according to which partners can provide services most effectively to specific groups of learners. Partners say this allows them to do what they do best to meet their own and the partnership's goals, while still enabling learners to get the array of services they need. Coordination among providers gives the partners greater visibility—and, as some noted, credibility—in their communities. This allows them to raise community awareness of and support for adult education and literacy services and, in some cases, to influence policy. Since many adult learners face considerable obstacles to self-sufficiency (poverty, healthcare needs, childcare and transportation needs, etc.), coordinating services enables partners to marshal the necessary resources to help clients address these obstacles and move forward. In some communities, learners receive guidance and support in making the transition to postsecondary education, job training, or employment as a result of the collaborations. In most partnerships, this coordination also makes services more readily accessible to learners, for example, when partners share office space or staff or coordinate their referrals. Sharing professional development among staff from different agencies who are serving the same learners also aids coordination by allowing staff to build relationships and understand each other's services and procedures. Communication—formal or informal, but frequent—makes these partnerships work. Partners accomplish this through meetings, serving on each other's advisory boards or task forces, or simply through e-mail and phone contact. Some have memoranda of understanding outlining partners' responsibilities, while others make their arrangements with a handshake. In addition to good communication, other key attributes of these partnerships, in general, are strong leadership, creativity in seeking and using funds and resources, shared goals, flexibility, and broad community support. Appendix A provides more detail about the site selection process, and Appendix B offers highlights from each of the twelve partnerships. |
