 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
STRATEGIES FOR LEVERAGING RESOURCES Coordinating services is the main—but not the only—strategy that partners use to leverage resources. Partners coordinate their work for a variety of reasons, including reducing duplication of services, serving more learners, and meeting community workforce needs. In some cases, the partners have formal memoranda of understanding or contracts; others accomplish this informally, with a verbal agreement, for example. Several communities emphasize the need to play to each partner's strengths and match partners that offer different, yet complementary, resources. They suggest that partnerships should be viewed as a "continuum of involvement," depending on what each partner can contribute. LEVELS OF COORDINATION
Coordination typically occurs at more than one level in the partnerships. Many have some sort of governance structure, such as an advisory board or management committee. These groups can provide a forum for discussion of the community's adult education and workforce development needs or for a more formal needs assessment and planning process that helps the partners determine how best to meet those needs. At the staff level, partners share information about client needs and referrals; collaborate on professional development; and coordinate schedules and services. In some places, like Idaho and Alaska, the state's regional system of service delivery requires coordination among providers within regions. Coordination can be as formal as a joint annual planning process, or as informal as a telephone call.
Some communities, such as El Dorado, Coeur d'Alene, and Louisville, developed their partnerships within a well-established local tradition and expectation of collaboration. In Northern Idaho, for example, one partner observed, "We partner for survival and have never seen a reason not to partner." Other communities struggled in forming their partnerships. In the South Carolina Midlands, the partnership was not smooth at the beginning. As one partner said, "Old enemies were in the room." Some partners came to the early meetings because they believed the Midlands Literacy Initiative was a threat to their turf. There was no “magic bullet” that helped partners get past these difficulties. Some say they just kept talking and trying to understand each other. In Palm Beach County, partners learned to “leave their egos at the door.” In South Carolina, the United Way provided a “neutral forum,” where partners who didn't always agree could come together around the issues of literacy and adult education. In Louisville, the partners fostered an understanding of “mutual self-interest,” so that each partner sees the partnership as essential to doing their own work well, not just as an “add-on.” However, across the communities, there were some common factors that helped partners overcome turf issues and promote coordination - developing trust among partners, putting the needs of clients and the community first, and understanding clearly how the partnership could benefit clients, the community, and each individual partner. As one partner in Idaho put it, “Partnership is developmental. It happens over time, and it is not fast.” |
