MANY MODELS, MANY PARTNERS
Government Partners

Government at all levels has created both support and obstacles for these partnerships, according to partners in the various communities. Many partners acknowledge that federal legislation, regulations, and funds have been helpful - for example, the Workforce Investment Act's requirements for partnerships attached to the establishment of One-Stop Centers. In several communities, the creation of a One-Stop helped formalize and expand earlier, more informal community partnerships. In some others, the Even Start Family Literacy eligibility prerequisites supported partnership development.

Nonetheless, there are concerns. One partner suggested that the federal government should hold communities accountable for outcomes, give them more flexibility in providing services, and reward good work. Partners note that differing requirements from various government agencies for client eligibility, record-keeping, and data collection hamper their ability to serve clients effectively and use data for program improvement. One partner observed, "We deal with 17 different funding streams. By the time the legislation gets down to the people delivering services, it can be an issue." Partners find it a distinct advantage when government regulations and grant eligibility require or encourage partnerships, but register frustration that some regulations work against the integrated approach to services that they are seeking.

Other partners call some regulations unrealistic and unfair; for example, one staff member noted that current funding guidelines allow their impoverished, multi-problem clients less than six months to complete the equivalent of a high school education. Others voiced frustration at the lack of funding stability. State regulations and funding requirements sometimes encourage and other times discourage partnerships. On the positive side, three of the twelve states represented by partnerships in this study provide a kind of template for partnerships around adult education and workforce development and support for localities in establishing these partnerships. In Arkansas, the WAGE program is a state initiative designed both to prepare unemployed adults for entry-level jobs and to upgrade the skills of incumbent workers so they can meet changing demands in their jobs. The state provides training and certification that qualifies a community to start a local WAGE program. WAGE requires local programs to establish wide-ranging community partnerships and to survey local workforce needs and customize training to meet them. Fifty-one percent of the WAGE advisory committee members must be from business.

The Certified Literate Community Program in Houston County is also a local program based on a state initiative started in 1990 by a former adult education commissioner. Local communities must meet state criteria in applying to become CLCPs, including seeking the involvement and endorsement of a wide range of community organizations. Once accepted, the communities work toward certification by the state as a Certified Literate Community by improving their literacy rates by more than half over a ten-year period. Communities are given considerable flexibility in how they structure and fund their programs, allowing them to draw on their strengths and develop a model suited to their needs.

In Alaska and Idaho, a sparse population dispersed over a large geographic area has led to a regional approach to providing services. Partners say that Idaho's Adult Basic Education Office has always encouraged partnerships, and each regional adult education center is linked to the local postsecondary institution. In Alaska, the state adult education director brings the regional adult education directors together to collaborate on statewide issues such as improving teacher quality, developing a common intake form, and creating a centralized database. Local offices of state agencies are essential partners in every community. The partnerships include departments of health and welfare, labor, housing, economic and workforce development, vocational rehabilitation, and corrections, among others. School districts and publicly funded community colleges, housing sites, and libraries are also partners in most of these communities. These partners' contributions vary and include referrals, funds, office and classroom space, staff time, and supplementary services (i.e. childcare, healthcare, or transportation assistance), among others. In most communities, at least some of these agencies are also members of the partnership advisory council.

Despite the substantial support states provide, they sometimes have policies and practices that make it difficult for partnerships to develop and expand. State-issued grant application guidelines often are designed with one large provider in mind, failing to take into account that partnerships may include multiple providers. For example, they ask for descriptions of a single program and its background. Allowed only to write about one provider, partnerships find it difficult to describe the array of services they can offer. State reporting systems pose another barrier. Typically they are set up for individual providers and aren't "user-friendly" to partnerships. This costs partners additional time in preparing their reports and makes it hard to present data that show the effects of the partnership on learner outcomes.