High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

Powering 

the 

FUTURE: 

High-Performance 

Partnerships 

April 2003 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

About the Academy 

The National Academy of Public 

Administration is an independent, 

nonprofit organization chartered by 

Congress to improve governance at all 

levels: local, regional, state, national, and 

international. The Academy’s membership 

of more than 500 Fellows includes public 

managers, scholars, business executives and 

labor leaders, current and former cabinet 

officers, members of Congress, governors, 

mayors, state legislators, and diplomats. 

Since its establishment in 1967, the 

Academy has assisted hundreds of federal 

agencies, congressional committees, state 

and local governments, civic organizations, 

and institutions overseas through problem 

solving, objective research, rigorous 

analysis, information sharing, developing 

strategies for change, and connecting 

people and ideas. 

Most reports and papers issued by Academy 

panels respond to specific requests and 

needs of public agencies. Projects also 

address government-wide and broader 

societal topics identified by the Academy. In 

addition to government institutions, 

businesses, foundations, and nonprofit 

organizations support the Academy.

A Report by a Panel of the 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 

April 2003 

Powering the 

Future: 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIPS 

PANEL 

Camille Cates Barnett, Chair 

Christine Becker 

Peter Goldberg 

Sandra J. Hale 

Sara E. Melendez 

Michael Rogers

Officers of the Academy 

Carl W. Stenberg, Chair of the Board 

Cora Prifold Beebe, Vice Chair 

Philip M. Burgess, President 

Frank Fairbanks, Secretary 

Sylvester Murray, Treasurer 

Project Staff 

Connie Bawcum, Project Director 

William Shields, Jr., Academy Chief Operating Officer 

Anne Shackleton, Knowledge Manager 

Jason Yoo, Research Assistant 

Facilitators 

Carolyn Cukierman 

Pat Esslinger 

J.R. Holt 

John Lesko 

Stephanie Kron Raffetto 

The views expressed in this document are those of the Panel. 

They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution. 

National Academy of Public Administration 

1100 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 1090 East 

Washington, DC 20005 

First published April 2003 

Printed in the United States of America 

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American national Standard for 

Informational Sciences—permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,ANSI Z39.48.1984 

ISBN 1-57744-095-1 

POWERING THE FUTURE: HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIPS 

2 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................................7 

CHAPTER 1: THE POWER OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIPS..................11 

Organizational Relationships ......................................................................................................12 

Defining Characteristics ..............................................................................................................15 

Benefits 

More Strategic, Effective Results ...........................................................................................17 

Leveraged Resources...............................................................................................................18 

Stakeholder Commitment and Participation .......................................................................19 

Sector-Specific Benefits..........................................................................................................20 

Pitfalls to Avoid ............................................................................................................................20 

CHAPTER 2: FORCES BEHIND PERFORMANCE-BASED PARTNERSHIPS..............21 

The Sectors .........................................................................................................................................22 

Trends Supporting Performance-Based Partnerships......................................................................25 

Devolution: Doing More with Less............................................................................................25 

Performance-Based Reform ........................................................................................................26 

Collaboration: The Thing To Do ...............................................................................................27 

Customer Expectations in the Internet Age ...............................................................................28 

CHAPTER 3: PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDIES.....................................................................29 

Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax, Virginia) .............................................................33 

Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton, Virginia) ........................................................................38 

Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)...............................................................................42 

5 A Day For Better Health Program (National Cancer Institute)...................................................45 

Neighborhoods in Bloom (Richmond, Virginia).............................................................................48 

Family Strengthening Coalition and Coalition for Human Services Planning 

(Indianapolis, Indiana)................................................................................................................51 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery (Des Moines, Iowa) ...........................................................54 

Safe Passages (Oakland, California)..................................................................................................56 

Caregivers/Employers Project (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)..............................59 

The PODER Project (Denver, Colorado) .........................................................................................62 

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ..............................................................................................................65 

How To Meet Challenges To Results.................................................................................................66 

Defining Success...........................................................................................................................67 

Availability of Accurate, Timely Data To Measure Results ........................................................70 

The Cost of Measuring Results ...................................................................................................72 

The Data Trap ..............................................................................................................................73 

It’s Just Not Working....................................................................................................................73 



CHAPTER 5. LEADERSHIP ......................................................................................................75 

The Leadership Continuum ..............................................................................................................77 

How To Meet Challenges To Leadership ..........................................................................................78 

Strong Leader vs. Shared Ownership..........................................................................................78 

Surviving Transitions in Leadership ...........................................................................................79 

CHAPTER 6: MISSION AND PLANNING...........................................................................81 

How To Meet Challenges To Mission and Planning........................................................................83 

Lack of a Clear, Compelling Mission and Strategic Plan...........................................................83 

Balancing Planning and Action ...................................................................................................86 

Balancing Focus and Flexibility...................................................................................................89 

CHAPTER 7: RESOURCES.......................................................................................................91 

How To Meet Challenges To Resources ............................................................................................92 

Obtaining Adequate Resources……………………………………………………………..92 

Redirecting Partner Resources……………………………………………………………...96 

Coordinating and Maximizing Resources…………………………………………………..97 

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNICATIONS....................................................................................101 

How To Meet Challenges To Communications .............................................................................102 

Establishing an Effective Internal Communications Strategy .................................................102 

Creating a Full-Circle External Communications System .......................................................103 

Broadening the Partnership’s Support Base through Advocacy ..............................................106 

CHAPTER 9: ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ..............................................109 

How To Meet Challenges To Organizational Infrastructure .........................................................110 

Achieving the Right Mix of Capable Partners ..........................................................................110 

Developing a Supportive Environment.....................................................................................112 

Structuring a Partnership To Achieve Results ..........................................................................113 

CHAPTER 10: STAGES OF A PARTNERSHIP: 

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES MATURITY MAKE?................................117 

Results...............................................................................................................................................118 

Leadership ........................................................................................................................................120 

Mission/Strategic Planning .............................................................................................................120 

Resources ..........................................................................................................................................120 

Communications .............................................................................................................................121 

Organizational Infrastructure .........................................................................................................122 

CHAPTER 11: HOW DOES THE SCOPE OF THE PARTNERSHIP MATTER?.............................123 

Results...............................................................................................................................................124 

Leadership ........................................................................................................................................124 

Mission/Strategic Planning .............................................................................................................125 

Resources ..........................................................................................................................................125 

Communications .............................................................................................................................126 

Organizational Infrastructure .........................................................................................................127 

Summary ..........................................................................................................................................128 


CHAPTER 12: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND ATTRIBUTES ..........................129 

Public Sector Management..............................................................................................................131 

Nonprofit Sector Management .......................................................................................................131 

Business Sector Management..........................................................................................................132 

Civic Sector Management................................................................................................................132 

CHAPTER 13: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER..................................................................133 

APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................137 

Appendix A: Panel Member Biographies........................................................................................137 

Appendix B: Selected Bibliography.................................................................................................139 

Appendix C: Performance Management Glossary of Terms.........................................................143 

Appendix D: Design Lab Participants ............................................................................................147 

Appendix E: Excerpt from Lapham Park Venture Strategic Plan and Partnership Structure .....153 

Appendix F: Memorandum of Understanding: Highland Park—Neighborhoods in Bloom.....159 

FIGURES AND TABLES 

CHAPTER 1 

Figure 1-1: Continuum of Organizational Relationships................................................................13 

Table 1-1: Comparatively Defined Organizational Relationships...................................................13 

Figure 1-2: High-Performance Partnership Building Blocks ..........................................................16 

Figure 1-3: High-Performance Partnership Community Benefits..................................................17 

CHAPTER 2 

Figure 2-1: Cross-Sector Partnerships ..............................................................................................22 

Figure 2-2: Nonprofit Sector Revenues ............................................................................................23 

Table 2-1: Sector Differences.............................................................................................................25 

CHAPTER 3 

Figure 3-1: Design Lab Partnerships: Scope.....................................................................................31 

Figure 3-2: Design Lab Partnerships: Location................................................................................31 

Table 3-1: Design Lab Partnership Site Information .......................................................................32 

Table 3-2: Design Lab Partnership Characteristics ..........................................................................33 

Figure 3-3: Medical Care for Children Partnership .........................................................................34 

Figure 3-4: Medical Care for Children Partnership Children Served.............................................35 

Figure 3-5: Medical Care for Children Partnership 

Elements of a High Performance Partnership .............................................................37 

Figure 3-6: Healthy Families Partnership: Funding the Deep End.................................................38 

Table 3-3: Healthy Families Partnership Child Readiness for Kindergarten..................................40 

Table 3-4: Lapham Park Venture Budget and Funding....................................................................43 

Figure 3-7: 5 A Day for Better Health Program Structure ..............................................................45 

Figure 3-8: 5 A Day for Better Health Program Public Awareness Outcomes ...............................47 

Figure 3-9: Neighborhoods in Bloom Strategies..............................................................................48 

Table 3-5: Neighborhoods in Bloom Results....................................................................................49 

Figure 3-10: Safe Passages Middle School Strategy..........................................................................57 



CHAPTER 4 

Table 4-1: Tips and Traps for Measuring Performance ...................................................................67 

Table 4-2: Sample Performance Measures........................................................................................69 

Table 4-3: Examples of Output vs. Outcome Measures...................................................................69 

CHAPTER 5 

Figure 5-1: The 5 “C's” of Effective Leadership................................................................................77 

Figure 5-2: Leadership Continuum ..................................................................................................77 

Figure 5-3: Avoiding Burnout ...........................................................................................................79 

Figure 5-4: Leadership Collage..........................................................................................................80 

CHAPTER 6 

Figure 6-1: Mission, Vision, and Planning Collage..........................................................................82 

Figure 6-2: High-Performance Partnership Framework .................................................................83 

Figure 6-3: Mission Map ...................................................................................................................84 

Figure 6-4: Caregiver/Employer Program Mission Overlap............................................................85 

Figure 6-5: Healthy Families Partnership Mission Overlap ............................................................85 

Figure 6-6: Strategic Planning Cycle: For the Bureaucrat and the Amateur ..................................87 

Table 6-1: Bureaucracy vs. High Performance .................................................................................89 

CHAPTER 7 

Figure 7-1: Asset Mapping.................................................................................................................93 

CHAPTER 8 

Table 8-1: Internal Communications Tools....................................................................................103 

Table 8-2: External Communications Tools ...................................................................................104 

Table 8-3: Family Strengthening Coalition Communication Activities .......................................107 

CHAPTER 9 

Figure 9-1: Governance Approaches...............................................................................................114 

Figure 9-2: Converting Stakeholders to Investors..........................................................................115 

CHAPTER 10 

Figure 10-1: Seasons of a Partnership.............................................................................................118 

Table 10-1: Phases of a High-Performance Partnership................................................................119 

Figure 10-2: Phases of Leadership...................................................................................................121 

CHAPTER 11 

Figure 11-1: Partnership Scope .......................................................................................................124 

CHAPTER 12 

Table 12-1: Management Approaches: High Performance vs. Traditional ...................................130 

CHAPTER 13 

Figure 13-1: Components of a High-Performance Partnership ...................................................134 

Figure 13-2: Rowing Together for a High-Performance Partnership ...........................................135 

Table 13-1: High-Performance Partnership Checklist...................................................................136 


Public 

Business 

High 

Performance 


Nonprofit 

Civic 

Foreword 

American government is at a turning 

point. Social, economic, and 

technological changes are 

fundamentally altering the institutions 

on which citizens rely to meet their 

needs. Further, public discontent with 

politics and government has triggered 

self scrutiny, reform, and redesign. 

Responding to these dynamics, 

governments at every level—local, 

state, regional, and federal—must meet 

heightened citizen expectations with 

limited resources. This can only be 

achieved by improving performance 

and increasing results. 

The High-Performance Partnerships Logo was 

designed by Ellen Quigley, Family Strengthening 

Coalition (Indianapolis)

FOREWORD 

overnment is not alone in facing this challenge. The nonprofit sector also copes with 

G the pressure to compete for funding and produce more, often with less. In fact, the 

lines of demarcation among the public, nonprofit, and business sectors are fading. Yet 

new models for cross-sector collaboration have not fully crystallized, as the rules of engagement 

are evolving. 

For the past two years, the National Academy 

of Public Administration has explored a model 

that holds tremendous promise for meeting 

today’s challenges and achieving significant 

long-term results: the high-performance 

cross-sector partnership. This effort demonstrates 

how the sectors, working together, can 

more effectively serve the public. It also shows 

that customer satisfaction, performance measurement, 

and accountability are more than 

buzzwords. They drive many organizations, 

and they should. 

This report draws on the experiences of ten 

cross-sector partnerships—some well established 

and others newly created. The Academy 

brought them together in “design labs” where 

practitioners, citizens, and other key stakeholders 

shared their knowledge and experiences. 

These partnerships were specifically selected 

because of their diverse structure, scope, maturity,service 

responsibilities, operating environments, 

and geographic location. They are: 

Medical Care for Children Partnership 

(Fairfax County, Virginia) 

Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton, 

Virginia) 

Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin) 

5 A Day for Better Health Program 

(National Cancer Institute) 

Neighborhoods in Bloom (Richmond, 

Virginia) 

Family Strengthening Coalition 

(Indianapolis, Indiana) 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery (Des 

Moines, Iowa) 

Safe Passages (Oakland, California) 

Caregiver/Employer Project (Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services) 

The PODER Project (Denver, Colorado) 

This report identifies the characteristics of a 

high-performance partnership and how the 

approach differs from more traditional crosssector 

relationships. It describes how a highperformance 

partnership works in practice and 

why many communities are striving to implement 

one. Through this effort, public, nonprofit, 

and civic organizations can achieve better 

and more collaborative outcomes in the 

delivery of public services. 

This research effort was funded primarily by 

the Annie E. Casey Foundation, whose primary 

mission is to improve outcomes for families 

and children. The Casey Foundation recognizes 

that a community’s environmental and 

social factors play major roles in strengthening 

or destabilizing families. The Foundation 

seeks to nurture cross-sector partnerships that 

can integrate the service needs of communities, 

families, and children. 

The design labs were supported by two national 

organizations interested in this subject: the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) and America’s Promise. CMS, an 

agency within the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, is responsible for the 


Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the 

elderly and economically disadvantaged. In 

addition, it has extensive public education, information, 

and referral responsibilities. CMS seeks 

cutting edge models for cross-sector collaboration 

to achieve its mission. A valuable participant 

in the design labs, CMS was a major financial 

contributor to the initiative. 

America’s Promise, founded by Secretary of 

State Colin Powell in 1997, seeks to “mobilize 

people from every sector of American life to 

build the character and competence of our 

nation’s youth by fulfilling five promises: (1) 

caring adults; (2) safe places; (3) healthy start; 

(4) marketable skills; and (5) opportunities to 

serve.” The organization does not deliver services 

directly, but supports organizations that 

do at the local, state, and national levels. 

Partnering is fundamental to its operations. 

An expert Panel of Academy Fellows guided 

the partnerships project and produced this 

report. The members, who possess a wealth of 

experience in the public and nonprofit sectors, 

gave valuable advice on project planning and 

implementation. They were a sounding board 

for the design lab results. The members were 

Camille Cates-Barnett, Christine Becker, Peter 

Goldberg, Sandra J. Hale, Sara E. Melendez, and 

Michael Rogers. In addition, Academy Fellow 

Gail Christopher provided extensive advice and 

input for this effort. Ms. Christopher is 

Executive Director of the Institute for 

Government Innovation at Harvard University’s 

John F. Kennedy School of Government. 

I want to thank the Panel and Casey 

Foundation for giving their ideas, time, and 

resources to this important endeavor. Most 

important, I want to thank the representatives 

from the 10 design lab partnerships and the 

extraordinary facilitators who guided their discussion. 

The concepts and graphic illustrations 

reflected in this work were borne of their 

collective experiences and expertise. My special 

appreciation goes to the City of 

Richmond, Virginia, which contributed time 

for the project director, Connie Bawcum, to 

direct her talent and energies to this work. 

This report is not a definitive map for every 

community, but it provides a broad and 

thoughtful framework for seeking innovative 

and collaborative approaches to serious, compelling 

issues. 

Philip M. Burgess 

President & Chief Executive 




Business 





Civic 

The Power of 



Chapter1 

A high-performance 

partnership is a mutually 

beneficial and reciprocal 

relationship among entities 

that share responsibilities, 

authority, and accountability 

for results. The partnership is 

high performance when it 

achieves goals and outcomes 

that are meaningful and could 

not be reached by an 

individual partner alone.

THE POWER OF 


chapter one 

E 

xtraordinary results! How have these communities achieved them? In each case, the 

answer is a performance-oriented partnership involving public, nonprofit, business, and 

civic organizations. These communities understand the importance of activating every 

resource to solve complex and challenging issues. Concluding that no entity alone can produce these 

results, they have turned to the high-performance, cross-sector partnership. 

Despite its successes, this type of partnership is 

relatively rare. Why? It is difficult to create 

and even harder to sustain. Imagine harnessing 

the work, resources, and decision-making 

of several organizations with diverse orientations 

into a single, focused, highly coordinated 

effort. Then, imagine leading and structuring 

the entity so it can produce extraordinary outcomes 

for its constituency and the community 

at large. This is a challenge, but outstanding 

results prompt leaders to turn to this model. 

This emerging model holds real promise for 

tackling serious community issues. Based on 

the experiences of public, nonprofit, business, 

and civic practitioners, this report describes 

the prevailing characteristics of high-performance 

partnerships and the challenges that they 

must overcome. It also explores how to propel 

informal cooperative relationships to performance-based 

partnerships. Those highlighted 

here show the way. 

Here,“community” does not denote a specific 

geographic area, but a shared purpose or interest. 

It refers to any grouping—not merely neighborhood 

or local government—with a common 

scope, mission, or work plan. National cross-sector 

partnerships also serve a community. 

ORGANIZATIONAL 

RELATIONSHIPS 

Organizational relationships fall along a continuum. 

At one end, organizations may actually 

work on the same issues but compete for 

resources, recognition, and results. This competitive 

relationship can be destructive to the 

community and hinder positive impacts that 

the organizations may be trying to achieve. A 

Hampton,Virginia reduced child abuse and neglect by 

26.8 percent between 1992 and 2000, while the rate in 

its metropolitan region declined by only 3.4 percent. 

Ninety-six percent of residents of Milwaukee’s Lapham 

Park Apartments “age in place,” 91 percent resolve 

lease violations threatening their tenancy, and 75 percent 

have their health and personal needs met. These 

have resulted in more than $1 million in Medicaid 

nursing home savings annually. 

In six of its most distressed neighborhoods, Richmond, 

Virginia experienced a 15 percent drop in crime from 

2000 to 2002, compared to 5 percent for the rest of 

the city. Housing code violations in these same neighborhoods 

fell 57 percent from 1999 to 2002. 

Since 1986, Fairfax County,Virginia has linked almost 

60,000 uninsured children to medical providers. 

high-performance partnership is at the other 

end of the continuum where organizations 

work in an integrated structure and achieve 

meaningful outcomes beyond what any one of 

them could accomplish alone. Between them 

are such organizational interactions as coexistence, 

cooperation, contracts, collaboration, 

and simple partnerships. This array is illustrated 

below, though variations exist and the 

distinctions can be blurred. 

Organizations coexist when they work in the 

same community on similar issues, but do so 

independently. Our society has many examples. 

A neighborhood association might 


FIGURE 1-1 

CONTINUUM OF ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 

Degree of 

Difficulty 

Community Impact 

Cooperation Contract Collaboration Partnership 

Competition 

Community Change 



Source: Debbie Russell, Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) 

Definition 

TABLE 1-1 

COMPARATIVELY DEFINED ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 

Cooperatives 

Association of 

organizations 

that pursue a 

common benefit 

Accountability No common 

responsibilities, 

resources, or 

accountability 

Contracts/Grants Collaborations Partnerships 

Formal agreement 

between 

two or more 

organizations to 

undertake a 

specified service, 

but goal setting 

is one-sided 

Joint work 

effort with 

shared 

responsibilities 

for mutually 

defined 

goals 

Accountability for No prescribed 

outputs, but onesided 

decision- 

results 

making and goal 

setting 

Shared 

resources, 

authorities, 

and accountability 

for 

mutually 

decided 

goals 

Produces 

benefits but 

not outcomeoriented 

results. 

High- 




that produce 

results 

Achieves 

extraordinary 

results for 

communities 

and clients 

that could not 

be accomplished 

by 

individual 

partners 

Source: Lis Handley, 5 A Day Program (National Cancer Institute) 


THE POWER OF 


chapter one 

sponsor a streetscape beautification project 

while the city undertakes sidewalk repairs on 

the same street. In Fairfax, a state program 

and a county partnership both provide medical 

services for poor children, but work independently 

of each other. 

A cooperative relationship is a group of individuals 

or organizations that pursue a common 

benefit. Although the entities may coordinate 

some of their activities, they do not 

share responsibility, resources, or accountability 

for addressing the issues. 

The contract relationship has a formal agreement 

between two or more organizations to 

undertake a specified service. The public sector 

generally defines the service and selects a vendor 

through a procurement process. Contracts 

may have incentives for superior performance 

and penalties when results do not meet defined 

standards. Public-private contracts have existed 

for some time and provided valuable results. 

Yet the parties do not jointly determine the priorities 

or the most effective use of resources. 

The City of Richmond Ambulance Authority is 

an excellent example of performance contracting. 

Its performance contract with a private 

provider requires a specific response time—less 

than 9 minutes—to “priority one” medical 

emergencies in 90 percent of cases. There is a 

financial penalty for late responses, and the 

Authority can declare a breach of contract 

should the contractor fail this standard for 

more than one month. While this contract 

produces excellent performance, it is not a 

partnership. It has one-way decision-making— 

from the contractor to vendor. 

Similar to a contract, a grantor/grantee relationship 

usually defines specific products or 

services that a grantee must deliver in return 

for funding. These grant agreements may be 

formal, but they often provide greater flexibility 

than contracts and may even facilitate partnership 

arrangements within grant requirements. 

Collaboration occurs when individuals or 

organizations work jointly on a common goal. 

Shared responsibilities, resources, and rewards 

often characterize this relationship. But, the 

partners retain their individual autonomy, 

decision-making, and accountability mechanisms. 

In other words, there is no change in 

the organizational infrastructure. 

For this report, a partnership is a mutually 

beneficial and reciprocal relationship among 

entities that share responsibilities, authority, 

and accountability for results. Partners form a 

shared infrastructure and decision-making 

apparatus. The partnership is high performance 

when it achieves goals and outcomes that 

are meaningful and could not be reached by an 

individual partner alone. This definition is 

more structured than used elsewhere, but it is 

key to the discussion that follows. 

Distinguishing between partnerships and collaboratives 

sometimes proves confusing and 

conflicting. Some researchers treat these two 

terms synonymously, while others assign very 

different structures and attributes to each. As 

this report makes clear, these relationships 

have major differences, especially when the 

partnership becomes high performance. 

The following hypothetical situation illustrates 

the differences among these types of 

relationships: 

A city wants to increase the number of abandoned 

houses rehabilitated for homeownership. 

A nonprofit housing provider rehabilitates 

houses in distressed city neighborhoods. 

The respective relationships are: 


Coexistence: 

Cooperative: 

Contractual: 

If the city and the nonprofit each rehabilitate five houses somewhere 

in the city. 

If the city and the nonprofit each agree to rehabilitate five houses 

in specific neighborhoods and even coordinate their efforts to 

jointly purchase supplies. 

If the city develops a formal agreement with the nonprofit to 

rehabilitate 10 houses for a specified cost. 

Collaborative: If the city and nonprofit agree to work together to rehabilitate 10 

houses, and coordinate schedules and resources. 

Partnership: 


Partnership: 

If the city and the nonprofit jointly decide which 10 houses to 

rehabilitate, jointly develop work plans, and share resources and 

accountability for accomplishing the work. 

The city/nonprofit partnership rehabilitates 15 houses at the same 

total cost as the budget for 10 houses in a shorter period of time. 

DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS 

A high-performance partnership has two 

essential dimensions. First, it must have a 

structure for the individual organizations to 

share authority, resources, and accountability 

for achieving a mutually decided goal. Some 

reorganization, merger, or redefinition of 

authority and responsibility takes place when 

the partnership is formed. Second, it must 

produce significant results. So, the second 

dimension takes the partnership to a higher 

level. A partnership is defined by its organizational 

structure and approach, while a high- 

Perhaps born from Hoosier pragmatism or a Midwestern 

culture that values community and church involvement, 

Indianapolis has a long, rich tradition of collaboration. A 

succession of mayors has embraced public-private partnerships 

for economic development and service delivery. 

Cross-sector human services planning began in 1978 and 

spawned several partnerships, including the Family 

Strengthening Coalition. The involvement of major funders—the 

United Way, Lilly Endowment, and Community 

Foundation—also spurred collaborative ventures. In short, 

Indianapolis has a culture of collaboration. 

Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 

According to the 1990 Census, more than 120,000 people 

in the Milwaukee area were age 65 and older, with 14 percent 

older than 85. Mental health disorders and alcohol 

abuse are estimated to affect a significant portion of this 

population, perhaps as much as 35 percent. These elderly 

suffer serious health problems—including hypertension, 

arthritis, and coronary heart disease. They are potential 

candidates for nursing home care if they are unable to 

spend their years in an accommodating, service-oriented 

community. The urgent need to address these issues for 

low-income, fragile elders led to Milwaukee’s Lapham Park 

Venture, a partnership of local government, medical, and 

faith-based organizations. 

performance one is defined by what it produces. 

A high-performance partnership does 

not necessarily begin as a sophisticated operation. 

It can develop incrementally from less 

intensive forms of collaboration. 

External conditions must support a performance-based 

partnership and three environments—culture 

of collaboration, crisis, and 

funder-imposed—often provide the springboard 

for creating one. Collaboration is part 

of the social fabric in some communities that 

believe their long-term interests are best served 

by working together. With a history of cooper- 


THE POWER OF 


chapter one 

In 1998, Richmond faced a crisis. The city had more 

than 2,500 vacant and abandoned buildings, the violent 

crime rate was one of the highest in the nation, 

and more than 70 percent of houses in some inner 

city neighborhoods were blighted. Neighborhoods in 

Bloom, a partnership involving six civic associations, 

11 nonprofits, and the City of Richmond, grew out of 

this crisis. 

ative ventures, the environment permits—even 

encourages—experimentation, risk-taking, and 

innovation. Thus, the evolution to partnerships 

and high performance is incremental, 

building upon one success at a time. 

More frequently, performance-based partnerships 

develop in response to a crisis precipitated 

by severe financial conditions or a pressing, 

unmet community need. The crisis reaches its 

pinnacle when previous efforts have failed to 

adequately address the issue. Here, confusion 

and tension among service delivery agencies 

also can cause gross inefficiency and ineffective 

results. Whatever the specific circumstances, 

deciding to move to a high-performance partnership 

model is generally quick, given that an issue 

is ripe, the need is immediate, the system is broken, 

and the environment is conducive. 

A major funder can encourage a community to 

take a partnership approach. Sometimes, an 

external impetus provides the opportunity for 

organizations to explore new relationships, realize 

the benefits of collaboration, and embrace the 

model. Nonetheless, a “shotgun” approach 

between public and nonprofit agencies does not 

always work as a matter of practice. For example, 

funder-imposed collaborations in the health 

care arena exist on paper more often than not, 

according to one researcher (Lewin Group). 

Drawing on research and the collective experiences 

of the design lab participants, this report 

identifies six characteristics that contribute to the 

success and sustainability of a high-performance 

partnership. Each is treated individually in later 

chapters. They are: 

• Results: What the partnership accomplishes 

and how it is measured. This is the defining 

characteristic of every high-performance 

endeavor. 

• Leadership: The individuals and organizations 

that convene and mobilize the partnership, 

champion its mission, harness the necessary 

resources, and ensure its performance. 

• Mission and Planning: The shared, compelling, 

and clear purpose for the partnership. 

What is to be accomplished and how to get 

there. 

• Resources: Essential tools for implementing 

the partnership’s activities, including such 

tangibles as funding, staff, assets, technology, 

and information, and such intangibles as 

knowledge, access, relationships, political support, 

and in-kind contributions. 

• Communications: The exchange of information 

and ideas among the partners, funders, 

stakeholders, customers, community, and 

media. 

• Organizational Infrastructure: The entities 

that comprise the partnership and their organizational 

structure and capacity—individually 

and collectively—to perform effectively. 

FIGURE 1-2 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP 

BUILDING BLOCKS 

LEADERSHIP 

COMMUNICATION 

RESOURCES 

ORG 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

MISSION/ 

PLANNING 

INVESTOR STAKEHOLDER INVESTOR STAKEHOLDER 

STAKEHOLDER 

LEADERSHIP 

COMMUNICATION 

RESOURCES 

ORG 


MISSION/ 

PLANNING 

INVESTOR 

INVESTOR STAKEHOLDER INVESTOR STAKEHOLDER 

Source: Greta Harris and Susan Crump, 

Neighborhoods in Bloom (Richmond) 


Business 

FIGURE 1-3 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP COMMUNITY BENEFITS 


Civic 



Community 




Source: Johnny Maguina, PODER Project (Denver) 

All of these characteristics are important for 

achieving a high-performance partnership, but 

some more so than others. Thus, they are listed 

in order of their importance based upon 

design lab experiences. Without significant 

results, for example, a high-performance partnership 

cannot exist. Meanwhile, leadership is 

the second most important characteristic, 

closely followed by a clear and focused mission. 

The mission must be accompanied by 

sufficient planning to organize the work and 

clearly articulated roles and responsibilities for 

each partner. A successful partnership also 

must have adequate resources and organize 

them appropriately. 

Without adequate internal communications, 

partners cannot clearly understand their role 

and how they fit into the overall game plan. 

Without effective external communications, 

even an extraordinarily successful partnership 

will not be accorded the recognition and value 

it deserves. Although ranked sixth, a strong 

organizational infrastructure is critical. 

BENEFITS 

Establishing and sustaining a partnership are 

difficult. So, why invest valuable time, energy, 

and resources in such a high-maintenance 

organizational model? Simply put, the results 

are worth it. High-performance partnerships 

benefit the community at large and each participating 

organization. They also ensure that 

funders—foundations, government agencies, 

customers, and business contributors—receive 

a meaningful return on their investment. 

MORE STRATEGIC, EFFECTIVE RESULTS 

Producing better outcomes for a specific population 

and the general community is the most 

compelling reason to create a performancebased 

partnership. A single organization or 

sector alone cannot solve most of the complex 

problems that communities face, such as 

health care, neighborhood revitalization, economic 

development, and education. 

Collaborative efforts provide the opportunity 

for greater effectiveness in defining the issue 


THE POWER OF 


chapter one 

BETTER RESULTS: 

The National Institute of Cancer 

Research 5 A Day Program has 

increased public awareness of the 

need to eat five or more daily 

servings of fruits and vegetables 

from 8 to 20 percent between 

1991 and 1997. 

Oakland’s Safe Passages initiative 

experienced a recidivism rate of 

only 15 percent in 2001, compared 

with 72 percent for 

Alameda County’s high-risk youth 

population. 

From 1992 to 2000, Hampton, 

Virginia’s infant mortality rate fell 

from 13.0 per 1,000 live births to 

8.4 a drop of 4.6. The rate for 

the region dropped from 11.6 to 

9.0 deaths, only a 2.6 decrease. 

and exploring and implementing solutions. A 

creative partnership, which includes multiple 

organizations with different orientations and 

resources, gives a comprehensive approach to 

these community challenges. 

For the organizations involved, a partnership 

can minimize competition, duplication, and 

inefficiency. It also can enhance the opportunities 

for members to learn from each other. 

In fact, synergy is the “proximal outcome of 

partnership functioning that gives collaboration 

its unique advantage” (Lasker). Partners 

can bring diverse views to the fore, facilitating 

greater flexibility and innovation. By working 

together, a partnership encourages new ways of 

dealing with an issue and challenges traditional 

thinking, roles, and accountabilities. A performance-based 

partnership provides a multiplier 

effect that increases results. 

LEVERAGED RESOURCES 

A high-performance partnership leverages 

partners’ individual strengths, whether they are 

financial, political, organizational, or experiential. 

Since participants are focused on achieving 

specific quantifiable results, they pool 

LEVERAGED RESOURCES: 

“The Milwaukee County Department on Aging served 

50 elders living at Lapham Park. It sent a total of 20 

social workers into the building to assist these residents. 

Despite this deployment, they did not do outreach, 

and could not provide health care or assist with 

early intervention and wellness activities. By engaging 

in the partnership and aligning with key agencies, all 

these services were provided by two social workers 

and four nurses from the participating agencies.” 

Barbara Moore and Chriss Hess, Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee) 

Every dollar of funding provided by Fairfax County to 

the Medical Care for Children Partnership leverages 

$28 in medical care value. 

Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 


“Creating a partnership takes time. Folks must 

get comfortable with it. They must own it if the 

partnership is to survive.” 

Jane Henegar, Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 

resources in a more coordinated manner and 

minimize service gaps and duplication. In 

addition, partners can leverage their expertise 

and other assets. Each agency contributes its 

own special know-how, set of contacts, and 

information sources to the accomplishment of 

the partnership’s overall mission. Through 

sharing, the partnership can harness more 

resources collectively than any one entity could 

on its own. This ensures that more assets are 

in place to work toward the established goals. 

A partnership also can maximize opportunities 

to obtain additional resources. It can activate 

new participants that bring added strengths, 

such as money, advocacy, marketing, experience, 

communications, research, and education. 

As these resources are added to the mix, 

the partnership can link its outcomes to the 

new partner’s mission. This is a sign of true 

commitment that ensures the partnership’s 

viability and sustainability. On a related note, 

collaborating on a jointly developed strategic 

plan can reduce the inefficiency that generally 

accompanies uncoordinated activities. So, cost 

savings—at least in terms of unit costs—can 

be an important by-product. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT 

AND PARTICIPATION 

A high-performance partnership creates relational 

benefits in the community. It can 

expand dialogue among stakeholders on an 

issue and galvanize them around an action 

plan. Increased public, business, nonprofit, 

and civic involvement raises awareness levels 

and the opportunity to better understand 

other cultures, values, and limitations. The 

partnership opens lines of communication 

among community-based organizations that 

“High-performance partnerships are a mechanism 

for leaving autonomy at the door and working 

together on a higher goal. Other relationships 

that reserve more control or require less commitment 

by each partner cannot achieve results that 

are as deeply rooted in the community. That commitment 

and relinquishing of control send a signal 

that inspires greater trust. You need trust to push 

through the hard choices and to work toward significant 

results.” 

Design Lab Discussion 

“Neighborhood Based Service Delivery puts a 

face on city government. That had not happened 

before, even though neighborhood associations 

worked with city officials for a decade 

prior to the partnership.” 

Maureen Van Syoc and Connie Cook, Neighborhood 

Based Service Delivery (Des Moines) 


THE POWER OF 


chapter one 

historically have been fraught with turf battles 

and competition. A partnership allows—in 

fact, requires—long overdue dialogue that can 

lead to shared goals. 

Most essential, collaborative efforts can build 

trust among the participants. Without trust, 

long-term success in solving complex community 

issues is problematic, if not impossible to 

achieve. High-performance partnerships are an 

iterative process with iterative benefits. Trusting, 

participatory, and communicative environments 

foster greater effectiveness, which ultimately produces 

better community outcomes. 

SECTOR-SPECIFIC BENEFITS 

Many of the benefits discussed above apply 

equally to public, nonprofit, civic, and business 

organizations. However, partnerships confer 

numerous sector-specific benefits, as well. 

The public sector benefits by its expanded 

capacity to deliver services which citizens expect. 

Governments need not “staff up” to provide 

every program, but can partner with experienced 

nonprofit and business organizations. 

The public sector also can reduce negative public 

perception or distrust by partnering with a community-based 

entity that enjoys a more favorable 

reputation. In so doing, government can 

gain credibility and legitimacy through its partners 

which are “closer” to the people. 

Meanwhile, nonprofit organizations can access 

funding to replicate their programs or bring 

them to scale (Fosler). The demand for performance 

and accountability makes them more 

effective in the competitive marketplace and 

contributes to their long-term stability. 

As partnerships focus on community results, the 

civic sector receives better services and outcomes. 

It has the opportunity to jointly participate 

in deciding the partnership’s goals and the 

best strategies to achieve them. In return, citizens 

and civic organizations contribute to finding 

solutions, not merely identifying problems. 

For the civic sector, partnership equals empowerment, 

responsibility, and accountability. 

PITFALLS TO AVOID 

There are many compelling reasons to cultivate 

high-performance partnerships, but there also 

are some areas of caution. 

First, an organization should not use cross-sector 

partnerships as a means to shirk or transfer its 

responsibility. This model is intended to provide 

an opportunity for each participant to maximize 

its contribution to achieve given outcomes. It 

should not be a vehicle for transferring accountability 

from one sector or partner to another. 

Second, there is a fine line between maximizing 

resources and shifting cost burdens. A key 

advantage of cross-sector partnerships is the 

ability to maximize available expertise and 

resources, a laudable objective that commonly is 

the force behind creating a partnership. The 

partnership should strive for greater value and 

efficiency for the resources expended. The public 

and nonprofit sectors should not enter a partnership 

only to cut or shift costs. 

Blurring differences among sectors is a third 

caution. Creating cross-sector partnerships may 

accelerate the homogenization of the sectors. 

This is part of agreeing on a common mission 

and relinquishing unilateral decision-making. If 

the public, business, nonprofit, and civic sectors 

merge and become indistinguishable, a healthy 

diversity of interests and strengths is lost. 

American society has a long and rich tradition 

of distinct sectors, each of which makes an 

important yet unique contribution to the 

nation’s well being. The checks and balances 

provided by the multi-sector society are similar 

to those of the three branches of government. 

Partnerships should celebrate and maximize 

their differences, not blur them. 



Business 





Civic 

Forces Behind 

Performance-Based 


Chapter2 

Heightened performance 

expectations and financial 

constraints affect all sectors—and 

can blur the historic distinctions 

among them. This chapter examines 

the forces that are pressing sectors to 

increase their performance and work 

more closely together. These forces 

pushing the move to performancebased 

partnerships include 

devolution, performance-based 

reform, collaboration, and customer 

expectations in the Internet age.

FORCES BEHIND PERFORMANCE-BASED 

PARTNERSHIPS 

chapter two 

U 

nderstanding these trends helps to conceptualize the emerging importance of the high-performance 

partnership model. Information on cross-sector partnerships is scarce, even though they are 

taking place across the country. This report broadens the awareness and understanding of them. 

There already exists a wealth of research and literature on public-business partnerships, many of 

which are based on vendor contracts for services. Indeed, privatization has dominated the discussion 

of public-private relationships for some time. 

“In spite of the differences among the sectors, 

they can come together to make a difference in 

outcomes for the community.” 

David Kears, Safe Passages (Oakland) 

In 2001, the Pew Partnership for Civic Change 

conducted a poll of 600 leaders in the public, 

nonprofit, and business sectors in the 200 

largest metropolitan areas. The results provide 

significant insight into cross-sector partnering. 

The nonprofit sector more readily acknowledges 

that many serious community issues 

exceed the capacity of any one sector (Pew). 

Yet all sectors overwhelmingly agreed that 

working together to solve problems is more 

effective, if more time consuming. 

Before exploring the forces driving performance-based 

partnerships, it is important to 

define the sectors: public, nonprofit, civic, and 

business. Their description is general and 

somewhat stereotypical because they are not 

monolithic or homogenous. Each one is composed 

of an enormous array of organizations 

that vary considerably. Despite these differences, 

some broad trends and legal distinctions 

are instructive in the context of creating and 

sustaining high-performance partnerships. 

This sector, which exists to serve the public good 

and preserve democratic values, has a special 

obligation to ensure social equity, openness, 

fiduciary responsibility, and decision-making in 

the best interest of the entire population. The 

public sector comprises more than 85,000 units 

of government and their various instrumentalities—almost 

all of which are at the local level, 

such as municipalities, counties, school districts, 

and special service districts. 

FIGURE 2-1 

CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS 

Civic 

Beneficiaries 


Government 

Business 

THE SECTORS 

The public sector is the collection of individual 

political entities that operate under a statutory 

framework and deliver essential services. 

Source: Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 


FIGURE 2-2 

NONPROFIT SECTOR REVENUES 

INDEPENDENT SECTOR REVENUES BY SOURCE. 1997 

Other 

Revenue 

11.4% 

Government 

31.3% 

Private 

Contributions 

19.9% 

Dues, Fees, 

and Charges 

37.5% 

DISTRIBUTION OF INDEPENDENT SECTOR REVENUES 

BY SUBSECTOR. 1997 

Civic, Social, 

and Fraternal 

2.7% 

Social and 

Legal Services 

11.5% 

Religious 

Organizations 

11.5% 

Education 

Research 

17.9% 

Arts and Culture 2.3% 

Foundations 5.1% 

Health 

Services 

49.0% 

TOTAL 1997 REVENUES: $664.8 BILLION 

Source: New Nonprofit Almanac 

Involved with nearly every aspect of community 

life, government establishes the “legal and 

policy context for the private market and nonprofit 

community” (Fosler). The public sector 

must increasingly work with and rely on the 

business and nonprofit sectors to deliver services 

that communities require and deserve. 

This emerging need to share responsibility for 

serving citizens can chafe governments that are 

accustomed to a high degree of control. 

Governments operate under extraordinary 

public and media scrutiny and must provide 

an opportunity for everyone to be heard. 

Given its legal obligation to fairly represent the 

public interest, government’s emphasis is heavily 

on process and making sure that all the 

“rules” are met. The focus on results is too 

often on short-term accomplishments and 

parochial concerns. The rigidity of public 

organizations is legendary for good reason, 

posing a significant challenge for cross-sector 

collaboration. 

The nonprofit sector (also known as the independent 

sector) is composed of a wide variety 

of organizations that support and provide 

charitable, educational, and cultural services 

and activities. Nonprofit groups range from 

small neighborhood-based operations to international 

conglomerates, from religious institutions 

to entrepreneurial service providers. 

Some function similar to businesses in that 

they must generate sufficient revenue to cover 

their expenses. The nonprofit sector also 

includes foundations and other major funders. 

Six percent of all U.S. organizations are nonprofit, 

and they collectively represent nearly 7 

percent of the nation’s economic activity and 9 

percent of its employment (New Nonprofit 

Almanac). Greater detail about the nonprofit 

sector’s role in the nation’s economy is included 

in Figure 2-2. 

Despite its diversity, the nonprofit sector has 

some common characteristics. Generally, nonprofits 

are organized around a specific, altruistic 

mission that drives their activities and ability 

to obtain the volunteer and external contributions 

that support many of their operations. 

The organizations serve a common good that 

is not served by businesses. Thus, they are 

granted tax-exempt status, making them legally 

distinct from the business sector. Due to 

their service orientation, nonprofits engender 

community support and develop expertise not 

generally present in other sectors. However, 

they increasingly are becoming entrepreneurial 

and results oriented to survive the competition 

for limited resources. 

As shown in Figure 2-2, 31 percent of all nonprofit 

sector revenue comes from government 

contracts and grants. Yet nonprofits some- 



PARTNERSHIPS 

chapter two 

“Lapham Park combines city, county, state, and federal 

resources—as well as civic, nonprofit, private, 

and faith-based contributions. Although it is the 

smallest (one building) of the projects in scope in 

this design lab, it packs a wallop when it comes to 

strategic use of all sectors in our community.” 

Lapham Park Partnership (Milwaukee) 

times believe that government is overly 

bureaucratic and fragmented, and that collaboration 

might dilute their primary mission and 

limit their independence. Data collection and 

reporting requirements, essential to a performance-based 

partnership, also can prove daunting 

to nonprofits with marginal working capital 

and organizational capacity. Nonetheless, 

these reservations are mitigated by the benefits 

that accrue to a high-performance partnership. 

The potential for extraordinary results, coupled 

with national trends that encourage crosssector 

collaboration, have set the stage for 

communities to consider these arrangements. 

The civic sector comprises “the people”: residents, 

customers, voters, and service users. It 

ranges from the unorganized public to neighborhood 

associations, from advocacy groups to 

the well-established National Civic League. 

Although the other sectors depend on it for 

their existence, the civic sector often is perceived 

as the weakest and most disenfranchised. 

Civic organizations are largely volunteer 

and informally structured, leading to the 

tendency to overlook or downplay their 

importance. Yet they are significant players in 

identifying community needs, pushing other 

sectors to act, and holding them accountable 

for results. This sector also serves as a conduit 

for information about community needs and a 

mechanism for establishing priorities. Citizens 

provide volunteer resources and expertise to 

public and nonprofit organizations. 

The business sector produces goods and services 

for consumer purchase. To survive, a business 

must convince consumers to pay a price 

sufficient to cover its costs. Efficiency, value, 

and market dynamics drive the business sector. 

Social responsibility and philanthropy also 

may influence business decisions, but they cannot 

outweigh the need to make a profit and 

maintain long-term financial viability. 

Business owners and corporate officers make 

decisions, with limited opportunity for community 

input. The profit orientation causes 

businesses to focus on satisfying customers 

and operating efficiently, attributes that the 

public and nonprofit sectors increasingly 

embrace. Businesses benefit from partnership 

participation in numerous ways, such as 

expanding their customer base; networking 

with others that provide value to their business; 

learning new approaches for their business 

model; having access to government decision 

makers; receiving community recognition; 

and cultivating teamwork. 

The public, nonprofit, business, and civic sectors 

have many differences concerning what 

drives them, where they get the money, to 

In Neighborhoods in Bloom, the 

neighborhood representatives are 

responsible for directing where the 

housing activity occurs and providing 

specific input on housing design. 

They help dispel the fear and mistrust 

that can frequently occur 

between low income and elderly 

homeowners and nonprofit and public 

agencies attempting to provide 

assistance. Civic leaders also serve 

as advocates with elected officials 

for continued funding. 

TK Somanath and David Sacks, 



TABLE 2-1 

SECTOR DIFFERENCES 

Public Nonprofit Business 

Prime Motivation Public good Mission Profit 

Prime Decision-Makers Elected Officials Board of Owners/CEO 

Directors/CEO 

Accountable to Public Donors Owners 

Funding source Taxpayers Donors/contractors Customers 

Degree of public influence Great Moderate Limited 

whom they are accountable, and who makes 

decisions. These distinctions are summarized 

in Table 2-1. 

The sectors offer different strengths to a partnership. 

Nonprofits contribute their mission orientation, 

expertise, and community trust. The 

business sector offers resources and entrepreneurial 

expertise. The public sector contributes 

significant resources, as well as its sense of the 

“community good.” Not every organization will 

exactly fit this stereotype, but these observations 

are generally consistent with sector leader 

polling across the country (Pew). 

Numerous forces cause the sectors’ traditional 

distinctions to blur. 1 Some nonprofits and 

businesses provide services once exclusively 

associated with the public sector, such as jails, 

public transportation, and welfare. The public 

and nonprofit sectors are becoming more businesslike 

in their focus on customer service, 

operation efficiency, and bottom line results. 

Highlighted below are some of the economic 

and social pressures that are encouraging sectors 

to perform better and work together. 

TRENDS SUPPORTING 

PERFORMANCE-BASED 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Numerous trends are forcing the public, business, 

and nonprofit sectors to continually 

assess how they do business. These trends 

include devolution, performance-based 

reform, collaboration, and customer expectations 

in the Internet age. 

DEVOLUTION: DOING 

MORE WITH LESS 2 

Devolution decentralizes historically federal 

responsibilities to lower levels of government. 

Funding may or may not accompany this shift. 

Begun primarily in the 1980s, devolution was 

premised on the belief that state and local governments 

can deliver social services more 

effectively if they were given the responsibility 

and flexibility to do so. 

In 1981, the federal government consolidated 

57 categorical grant programs into nine larger, 

more flexible block grants. Decreased federal 

spending accompanied the block grants so 

they arrived at the states with less money. 

Those most effected were Medicaid, food 

stamps, welfare, employment, and job training 

recipients, as were children in school lunch 

and disability programs. Devolution continued 

into the next decade as welfare reform legislation, 

specifically the Personal Responsibility 

and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, gave flexibility 

to states to design their own implementation 

plans. At the same time, the law set new 

limits on how long families could receive food 

stamps and welfare payments. In addition, the 

nation’s commitment to the arts was tied to 

devolution; Congress required that 40 percent 

of federal appropriations for the arts be directed 

to state arts agencies (Coble 1999). 

1. The Three Sector Initiative, sponsored by national public, private, and nonprofit sector organizations, has produced an especially insightful report 

that discusses these and other trends in greater detail (Fosler). 

2. Major portions of this section are reprinted from Public/Nonprofit Sector High-performance Partnerships: Resource Guide. National Academy of 

Public Administration, 2001. 



PARTNERSHIPS 

chapter two 

Welfare reform marked the cornerstone of the 

“new public management” movement. The 

legislation included state performance targets 

for reducing the number of families receiving 

welfare benefits, and it provided performancebased 

monetary incentives. Thus, devolution 

has placed greater authority and responsibility 

for high-performance services with state and 

local levels, but with fewer resources. 

The drive to reduce taxes is related to devolution. 

There is a widely held view that government is 

inefficient and that citizens can receive more and 

better services for less money. The public sector 

has grappled with the dual push to cut taxes yet 

expand services. In so doing, governments have 

reviewed their operations to become more results 

oriented and efficient. The nonprofit sector’s 

financial dependence on public grants and contracts 

also has required it to place greater emphasis 

on accountability for results. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED REFORM 3 

In their influential book, Reinventing 

Government (1992), Ted Gaebler and David 

Osborne crystallized an emerging trend among 

state and local governments to “reinvent” 

themselves in response to citizen demands for 

greater accountability and better performance. 

The authors distilled from local practices a set 

of 11 principles that became the basis for the 

Clinton Administration’s National 

Performance Review (later renamed the 

National Partnership for Reinventing 

Government), which was designed to reshape 

federal management and reduce the federal 

workforce. The principles, regarded more 

broadly as the foundation for performancebased 

management reforms, are: 

• building public/private partnerships 

• empowering citizens and clients 

• minimizing rules 

• being guided by missions 

• measuring outcomes 

• redefining clients as customers 

• anticipating problems 

• advancing entrepreneurial government 

• decentralizing authority 

• employing competition/market oriented 

government 

• catalyzing the public, private, and voluntary 

sectors 

Several government-oriented organizations 

have emphasized performance measurement 

over the past decade. The Governmental 

Accounting and Standards Board (1989), 

American Society for Public Administration 

(1992), and National Governors Association 

(1999) issued resolutions urging governments 

to institute new systems for goal setting and 

performance measurement. Also, Congress 

incorporated this concept into the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 (GPRA), designed to improve the effectiveness, 

efficiency, and accountability of 

national programs by having departments and 

agencies focus their management practices on 

program results. GPRA seeks to help managers 

improve program performance and make 

related information available for congressional 

policy-making, spending decisions, and program 

oversight. GPRA aims for a closer and 

clearer linkage between resources and results. 

Many regard it as the most recent event in a 

50-year cycle of government efforts to improve 

public sector performance and link financial 

allocations to performance expectations. 

This trend continued in 2001 when President 

Bush unveiled the President’s Management 

Agenda, his strategy for improving the federal 

government’s management and performance. 

The agenda contains five government-wide 

goals on which agencies are assessed: strategic 

management of human capital, competitive 

sourcing, improved financial performance, 

expanded electronic government, and budget 

and performance integration. The 

Administration uses a “traffic light” grading 

system—green for success, yellow for mixed 

results, and red for unsatisfactory—to review 

agency performance. 4 

Performance-based management reform is taking 

root at the state level, as well. Research 

conducted in 1998 by Julia Melhers and 

Katherine Willoughby found that 47 states 

have used legislative policy or administrative 

3. Major portions of this section are reprinted from the Public/Nonprofit Sector High-performance Partnerships: Resource Guide. National Academy 

of Public Administration, 2001. 

4. The President’s Management Agenda can be found at http://www.results.gov 


eform to establish some form of results-based 

budgeting and to require agencies to report 

associated performance outcomes. 

The American State Administrators Project 

surveyed 1,200 state administrators on their 

actions to implement proposals related to 

Gaebler and Osborne’s principles. Although 

the principles primarily concern management 

reforms, three specifically relate to performance-based 

partnerships between public agencies 

and nonprofit organizations: missiondriven 

strategic planning projects, privatization 

of major programs, and benchmarks for 

measuring program outcomes and results. 

Nearly 80 percent of the survey respondents 

indicated that they had fully or partially implemented 

mission-driven strategic planning 

projects, and a quarter said they had done so 

for major program privatization. Meanwhile, 

62 percent reported that they were at various 

stages in benchmarking for measuring outcomes 

(Brudney et al. 1999). These strategies 

can provide the force for outcome-focused 

cross-sector partnerships that increase the likelihood 

of achieving results. 

At the local level, management reform trends 

are similar, though not as widespread. 

Detailed survey data indicate that 38 percent of 

responding cities of more than 25,000 residents 

used performance measures. 5 This practice 

is more prevalent in larger cities; half of 

those cities with populations of 100,000 to 

249,999 reported using performance measures, 

as did three-quarters of cities of 250,000 or 

more. Further, the approach is used more frequently 

in cities with a council-manager form 

of government than those with a mayor-council 

system (Poister and Streib 1999). County 

level governments have embraced new public 

management reforms, as well. A 1998 survey 

of counties with populations of 50,000 or 

more indicated that approximately 34 percent 

used some type of performance measurement 

(Berman and Xiao-Hu Wang 2000). 

For the most part, public/nonprofit relationships 

have been based on grant agreements 

and vendor contracts. From child and foster 

care to health care and job training, providers 

were held accountable for units of service 

Historically, the City of Richmond underwrote 

the costs of community development corporations 

because they worked in distressed neighborhoods. 

In Neighborhoods in Bloom, the 

emphasis shifted to funding specific outcomes. 

Success is determined by the number of housing 

units produced and overall neighborhood 

improvement as measured by increased housing 

values and crime and blight reduction. 

TK Somanath and David Sacks, 


delivered, not for long-term outcomes or 

results in local neighborhoods and families. 

More recently, however, demands for accountability 

have increased. Agencies and organizations 

report outcome goals that focus on the 

qualitative impact of the service. Examples 

include: Did job placement trainees develop 

marketable skills as evidenced by sustained 

employment? Did rates of preventable diseases 

decrease among families that participated in 

health education programs? 

COLLABORATION: 

THE THING TO DO 

Emphasizing performance and maximizing 

limited resources have led the public and nonprofit 

sectors to explore new ways of working 

together. Legislation and public policies also 

have encouraged partnerships. In short, collaboration 

has become “the thing to do.” 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Continuum of Care program 

requires that homeless service providers plan 

and submit federal funding applications 

together. The urban and rural empowerment 

zone/enterprise projects are explicitly designed 

to leverage government funds and business 

sector investments for community economic 

5. The response rate to this survey was 57 percent, or 695 out of 1,218 senior officials. 



PARTNERSHIPS 

chapter two 

“Reducing duplication of effort 

allows partners with similar missions 

to direct their resources to 

their specific areas of expertise. 

For example, federal and state 

agencies provide information to 

beneficiaries and caregivers about 

long-term medical care. By coordinating 

development of products, 

agencies avoid duplication and 

devote more effort to those products 

that they can do best.” 

Robert Adams, Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services 

development. In the health care area, the federal 

Community Access program funds community-based 

partnerships, and such organizations 

as the W.K. Kellogg and Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundations support health care collaboration 

(Lasker). 

The welfare reform legislation discussed earlier 

is predicated on local nonprofit organizations 

and businesses accepting greater responsibility 

for providing jobs and social support. Other 

federal statutes provide for similar collaboration. 

The Access to Jobs program, contained in 

the Department of Transportation Equity Act 

of the 21st Century, requires collaborative 

transportation/human services planning. The 

School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 and 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 also call 

for collaborative approaches between local 

public and nonprofit service providers. 

CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS IN THE 

INTERNET AGE 

Technology’s extraordinary speed and capacity, 

coupled with an intensely competitive crosssector 

environment for market share, have significantly 

influenced citizen expectations. 

Citizens want seamless service delivery that 

responds to their needs quickly. Customers do 

not want to be burdened with knowing the 

intricate network of organizations that may be 

involved in delivering a service. Rather, they 

care about a single point of contact and 

accountability. Organizations must respond to 

this expectation as their sustainability depends 

on it. They are developing joint operating procedures, 

communications channels, and planning 

processes. Customer satisfaction encourages 

greater collaboration among organizations 

involved in delivering a given service. 

Demands to perform better with less have 

caused public and nonprofit organizations to 

rethink normal operating practices. They are 

seeking ways to maximize resources, leverage 

expertise, and produce greater outcomes for 

their constituencies. In doing so, they often 

embrace practices that the business sector once 

employed almost exclusively. These management 

reforms include building partnerships, 

empowering citizens, being guided by missions, 

and measuring outcomes—essential elements 

of a high-performance partnership. 

The Family Strengthening Coalition annually 

reaches families to get feedback/data on priorities, 

challenges, and obstacles. It uses electronic 

polling at annual family strengthening summits. In 

2001, 1,000 individuals (including parents and 

children) participated.This use of technology was 

great for families because it was easy to use, fun, 

and provided instant feedback to validate each 

person’s experience. It also inspired discussion 

among family members when responses differed. 

The data collected were critical in the planning 

and creation of community results, action steps, 

and outcome measures. 

Ellen Quigley, Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 



Business 





Civic 

Partnership 

Case Studies 

Chapter3 

What works in making a 

partnership high 

performance? Is it the 

service delivered? The 

scope? The location? No. 

The partnerships 

showcased in this chapter 

provide the answers.

PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDIES 

chapter three 

T 

his chapter profiles 10 partnerships that participated in the study’s design labs. They 

have achieved success in their mission, yet perhaps the most striking characteristic is 

their diversity in terms of scope, maturity, service, political relationships, and geographic 

location. The partnerships that form the basis for this report’s content are: 

Medical Care for Children Partnership 

(Fairfax County, Virginia) 

Healthy Families Partnership 

(Hampton, Virginia) 

Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) 

5 A Day for Better Health Program 


Neighborhoods in Bloom (Richmond, Virginia) 


(Indianapolis, Indiana) 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery 

(Des Moines, Iowa) 

Safe Passages (Oakland, California) 

Caregiver/Employer Project 

(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) 

The PODER Project (Denver, Colorado) 

The partnerships range from a single building 

(Lapham Park Venture) to the entire nation (5 

A Day and Caregiver/Employer Project). They 

deliver a wide variety of services, from juvenile 

delinquency prevention to housing construction 

to health care. They are located in communities 

throughout the country and engage 

partners of all types—city, county, school, and 

federal agencies, community-based and 

national nonprofits, foundations, businesses, 

and citizen groups. 

This diversity is intentional. It ensures that the 

report’s findings are vetted against an array of 

experiences. The purpose of this effort is not 

to describe how to build a successful partnership 

to deliver a specific service in a specific 

location. Instead, it is to provide a broad 

framework for creating innovative, collaborative 

approaches to addressing community 

issues, using a proven high-performance crosssector 

partnership model. 


FIGURE 3-1 

DESIGN LAB PARTNERSHIPS: SCOPE 

National: 

CMS 

NCI 

Communitywide: 

Oakland 

Fairfax 

Hampton 

Indianapolis 

National 

Community 

Neighborhood 

Neighborhood: 

Richmond 

Des Moines 

Denver 

Milwaukee 

FIGURE 3-2 

DESIGN LAB PARTNERSHIPS: LOCATION 

Oakland 

Des Moines 

Denver 

Milwaukee 

Indianapolis Fairfax 

Richmond 

Hampton 

National Partnerships 

Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services 

National Cancer Institute 



chapter three 

TABLE 3-1 

DESIGN LAB — PARTNERSHIP SITE INFORMATION 

Site 

Form Of 

Govt. 

2000 

Census 

CMS National 281.6 

million 

Partnership 

Name 

Caregiver/ 

Employer 

Project 

Denver Mayor 555,000 PODER 

Project 

Des Moines 

Fairfax 

Hampton 

City 

Manager 

County 

Manager 

City 

Manager 

199,000 Neighborhood 

Based 

Service 

Delivery 

968,000 Medical Care 

for Children 

146,000 Healthy 

Families 

Partnership 

Indianapolis Mayor 792,000 Family 

Strengthening 

Coalition 

Milwaukee Mayor 597,000 Lapham Park 

Venture 


Cancer 

Institute 

National 281.6 

million 

5 A Day for 

Better Health 

Region 


Mountain 

Midwest 

South 

South 

Midwest 

Midwest 

Midwest 

Predominant 

Service 

Eldercare- 

Medicare information 

Communitybased 

family 

services 

Neighborhood 

based service 

delivery 

Medical care 

for children 

Parent education 

and support 

services 

for families with 

young children 

Family 

strengthening 

Continuum of 

care for elderly 

adults 

Nutritional 

information 

Oakland Mayor 399,000 Safe Passages West Intervention 

and prevention 

services for 

juvenile 

offenders 

Richmond 

City 

Manager 

198,000 Neighborhoods 

in Bloom 

South 

Housing and 

neighborhood 

revitalization 

Year 

Started 

Scope 

1999 National 

1995 Neighborhood 


1986 Locality 

1992 Locality 

2001 Locality 

1996 Building 

1991 National 

1998 Regional 



TABLE 3-2 

DESIGN LAB — PARTNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS 

Partnership 

Site 

Civic 

Involvement 

Formal 

Partnership 

Structure 

Service 

Delivery 

Measurable 

Results 

Lead Sector 

CMS X X X Public 

Denver X X X Nonprofit 

Des Moines X X X Public 

Fairfax X X X X Public 

Hampton X X X X Public 

Indianapolis X X Nonprofit 

Milwaukee X X X X Nonprofit 

NCI X X X Public 

Oakland X X X X Public 

Richmond X X X X Public 

MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDREN PARTNERSHIP 

FAIRFAX,VIRGINIA 

Fairfax County, Virginia is a large, economically 

powerful suburb of Washington, DC. Its 

968,000 residents make up 14 percent of the 

state’s population and nearly one quarter of its 

economic activity. Its county manager form of 

government is one of the largest in the nation. 

Despite the county’s prosperity, research data 

revealed that Fairfax had approximately 19,000 

uninsured children in 1986. The Medical Care 

for Children Partnership (MCCP) was born 

out of this crisis. 

Partnership Characteristics 

Established in 1986, MCCP is a public/private/nonprofit 

partnership that finds a medical 

home for children of “working poor” families 

with incomes ranging from 133 to 250 percent 

of the federal poverty level. Children receive 

comprehensive medical and dental coverage at 

an average annual cost of $318.50 per child. 

Of more than 7,000 clients, Kaiser Foundation 

Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States (Kaiser 

Permanente) sees more than 1,000 of them 

annually. Fee-for-service pediatricians, subspecialists, 

and dentists care for the rest. 

Fairfax County, through its Office of 

Partnerships, covers all administrative expenses 

and underwrites 1,400 children. 

FAMIS, the Virginia health plan for lowincome 

families, does not cover families with 

incomes more than 200 percent above the federal 

poverty level. Also, it has a kick-out clause 

for children who have been covered by private 

insurance in the prior six months. MCCP’s 

typical families fall in the income range above 

200 percent or do not otherwise qualify for 

FAMIS. The high cost of living in Fairfax 

County causes the effective poverty level to be 



chapter three 

No. VA 

Family 

Services 

CBO 

FIGURE 3-3 

MCCP PARTNERSHIP 

No. VA 

Community 

Foundation 

Government 

Children 

Community & 

Business 

Over 350 

Health Care 

Providers 

much higher than the national benchmark. 

They generally are two-parent families with 

multiple low-paying jobs, but without access to 

affordable (or any) dependent coverage, are 

undocumented residents, or cannot meet today’s 

high premium costs. 

From its inception to today, MCCP has not 

exclusively focused on community deficits, but 

on marshaling Fairfax County’s economic and 

social bases on behalf of children. Thus, every 

element of the community is involved with 

MCCP. Partners include individuals, county 

government, the medical and business communities, 

and the nonprofit and civic sectors. They 

play distinct yet supportive roles, developing collegial 

relationships and participating in each 

other’s initiatives. 

Medical community partners, which include 

INOVA Hospital, Kaiser Permanente, more than 

500 private medical practitioners, pharmacies, 

and labs, provide in- and outpatient care, services 

at reduced rates, and medical evaluation data. 

INOVA Hospital provides hospitalization free of 

charge to MCCP patients to fulfill its obligation 

to the county government, which rents land to 

the hospital for $1 per year. 

As the convener, the county’s role is wide ranging. 

It funds MCCP’s administrative overhead, 

which includes case management, staffing, and 

program operations costing approximately 

$428,000. It also funds medical expenses for 

children at a cost of $456,000, provides data, 

evaluation, audit, legal, and contract services, 

and manages a $400,000 gift fund. Management 

of the partnership’s $2.7 million endowment 

and case management services for MCCP children 

are contracted out. The goal of the endowment, 

which is contracted to the Northern 

Virginia Community Foundation, is to raise 

enough funds to continually care for Fairfax’s 

needy children. Partnering with a community 

foundation has enabled MCCP to have multiple 

access points for charitable giving. 

County funding of MCCP’s infrastructure 

allows individual citizens, the business community, 

and nonprofit, civic, and faith-based 

organizations to focus their resources and talents 

solely on financing children’s health care. 

The organizations sponsor direct health care 

costs and provide referrals and volunteers. The 

business community finances MCCP with cash 

and in-kind services, builds program awareness, 

provides public policy advice, and recruits partners, 

medical providers, and volunteers. 

Partners are represented by an advisory council 

composed of more than 80 business, foundation, 

and medical leaders, client recipients, 

and citizens. The council advocates for 

expanded and effective access to child health 

care at the federal, state, and local levels, raises 

funds for program expenses, and counsels on 

program improvements. 

Results 

MCCP and Kaiser Permanente evaluate 

MCCP’s effectiveness through a medical care 

utilization study and user satisfaction analysis. 

Case managers conduct the utilization study by 

reviewing patient health care records. 

Satisfaction is determined through a comprehensive 

survey mailed to medical care 

providers and enrolled families. These surveys, 

available in multiple languages, evaluate case 

management effectiveness, medical care convenience, 

and general satisfaction with the 

service. Case managers also make evaluative 

home visits. 

In 1986, MCCP began to provide comprehensive 

health care to 35 medically uninsured children 

from Fairfax County’s working poor families. 

In 2002, its client base grew to 7,140 chil- 


dren. Nine MCCP case managers made 1,104 

home visits. Recipients range in age from infancy 

to 19 years, the majority being between ages 

six and 12. 

From its inception to 2002, MCCP has linked 

59,621 children to medical services. Their 

immunization rate has reached 97 percent, and 

the availability of quality health care has reduced 

emergency room use, school absenteeism, and 

lost work for parents. Satisfaction rates for 

MCCP reach 98 percent among parents. 

Cost savings to the public sector are a significant 

outcome, as well. In fiscal year 2002, the average 

annual medical cost to the partnership totaled 

$318.50 per child, compared with $1,800 in the 

private market. Fairfax County paid $456,236 

for MCCP medical and dental fees during that 

year and leveraged $12.8 million more in medical 

health care. For every county dollar spent to 

support the program, the community received 

an additional $28 in medical care value. 

MCCP has received eight major national awards, 

including the Award for Innovation, given by the 

Ford Foundation and Harvard University’s John F. 

Kennedy School of Government. MCCP-type 

programs have been initiated in numerous locations 

across the country. 

Challenges 

Despite linking nearly 60,000 children to medical 

homes during MCCP’s 16-year history, more 

than 21,000 Fairfax County children were uninsured 

in 2002. The county’s steady increases in 

population and working poor account for this 

number. MCCP must continue to find innovative 

ways to meet this growing need. 

MCCP’s asset-focused approach and entrepreneurial 

staffing represented a new way of doing 

business in the county government. The community 

embraced the program for its swift 

response, ingenuity, and relationships, but fear 

of the new and unknown initially led to turf 

battles within government. Institutional buyin 

across county agencies was difficult to 

achieve outside the County Executive. 

Ongoing efforts are being made to maintain 

this support. Additionally, revenue sharing 

and grant program qualification issues have 

arisen as new programs become funded at the 

federal and state level. 

This partnership, like most businesses, must 

continue to find new ways to leverage current 

assets and partners and discover new ones. As 

with most nonprofits, MCCP struggles to 

maintain and find funding streams. As a seasoned 

partnership of 16 years, it is further 

pressed to manage its growth and develop a 

strong succession plan. Visibility remains a 

FIGURE 3-4 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

700 1000 2500 

MCCP CHILDREN SERVED 

7140 

6800 

6480 

5105 6298 

4500 4700 

3252 4200 

2935 

Year 2002 

7,140 children 

served 

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 

2002 

Clients 

Program initiated in 1986 with 70 children served. 



chapter three 

gram’s replication in rural areas defies that 

perception, as do such unlikely partners as the 

Lewinsville Retirement Home, whose residents 

roll pennies to cover services; Steve and Jean 

Case, AOL-Time Warner’s founders; and the 

Heritage Fellowship United Christian Church. 

Every element or aspect of community life can 

find a place at MCCP’s table. 

challenge, as well. Strategic marketing plans 

and staff leadership have led to many public 

relations successes, and these must remain an 

area for constant minding. 

MCCP faces challenges that are not necessarily 

unique. Economic downturns affect all aspects 

of the program, as does the formidable task of 

effectively serving an increasingly multi-ethnic 

community. 

Keys for Success 

MCCP has found success in its model, which 

can be characterized as flexible and comprehensive. 

It attracted strong and committed 

partners in the medical community because it 

placed minimal administrative burdens on 

them. Further, MCCP is self-morphing—able 

and encouraged to change aspects as needed— 

and unconstrained by traditional structures. 

MCCP is neither a corporation nor government 

agency, but a nonprofit/civic organization. 

At the same time, it incorporates all of 

these entities. 

MCCP did not round up the “usual suspects” 

to create or maintain the model. Diverse partners 

were called upon to contribute their time, 

talent, and treasure. They remain committed 

to the cause. Similarly, MCCP’s success is not 

predicated on the economically powerful suburban 

county from which it hails. The pro- 

MCCP’s quasi-agency structure and placement 

within the Office of the County Executive 

allow its staff to act in entrepreneurial ways. 

Within the county structure, this can be an 

advantage and disadvantage. Outside the 

structure, entrepreneurship is one of the most 

attractive aspects to the business community, 

which leverages the county’s investment by a 

28-to-1 ratio. Area businesses and community 

leaders view this in much the same way they 

envision the backing of a large bank or wellknown 

venture capital firm. 

An active advisory council—whose business, 

civic, and faith-based members have access to 

corporations, policymakers, the local Board of 

Supervisors, and the County Executive—plays 

a powerful yet often subtle role. Members use 

their networks to overcome non-medical barriers, 

from meeting space and program needs, 

to extricating MCCP from unintended institutional 

obstacles. 

The extensive list of current and potential 

MCCP partners reflects the model’s reinforcing 

nature. From the start, MCCP communicated 

the community’s obligation to help 

uninsured children, then reinforced the opportunities 

that participation provides. 

Partners—whether a business leader, pediatrician, 

or penny roller—discover the special 

resources they can lend and remain committed 

because they are recognized. A partner’s participation 

is reinforced by the children, the 

community, its colleagues, and MCCP itself. 

MCCP asserts that winning numerous awards 

is another success factor. Awards for partnerships, 

creativity, and innovation have opened 

otherwise closed doors in corporations, homes, 

and legislative offices. MCCP has documented 

six stages that it feels constitute the elements of 

a high-performance partnership, which are 

presented in Figure 3-5. 


FIGURE 3-5 

MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDREN PARTNERSHIP 

ELEMENTS OF A HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP 

Stage 5 

Solidifying 

Partners 

Elements of a Partnership 

Stage 6 

Going to 

Scale 

Acknowledge/ 

Recognition 

Community/ 

Corp. Building 

•Celebrate 

Achievement 

•Deepen collaborative 

culture 

Stage 4 

Taking Action 

Reciprocity Not 

Generosity 

Sustainability 

•Build community constituency 

•Build governance structure 

•Develop collaborative leadership 

•Adapt and expand prototype 

•Recognize diversity 

•Implement outreach strategy 

•Formalize staffing strategy 

•Run through partnership elements 

Stage 2 

Building Trust 

Stage 3 

Developing a 

Strategic Plan 

Void of Negative 

Reinforcements 

Needs 

Identified 

•Formalize interagency/corporate 

relationships 

•Design partnership prototype 

•Define target outcomes 

•Focus on discrete need/ 

neighborhood 

•Design fiscal strategy 

Stage 1 

Getting Together/ 

Discovery 

Champion/ 

Cheerleader 

Opportunity 

Asset 

•Define shared vision/goals 

•Community assessment 

•Develop base of common knowledge 

•Commit & Collaborate 

•Involve the right people 

•Decide to Act 

Source: Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 



chapter three 

HEALTHY FAMILIES PARTNERSHIP 

HAMPTON,VIRGINIA 

Hampton, Virginia—population 147,000—is 

located in the Tidewater region of the state and 

heavily influenced by several large military 

installations. Like many older, built-out urban 

areas, it has limited financial resources and 

opportunities for significant economic development. 

However, it has a rich history of 

innovation and problem solving that helps to 

compensate for its financial challenges. 

In 1992, Hampton had a budget crisis. The 

lingering effects of an economic recession 

compounded high poverty levels and at-risk 

youth. City officials identified a “deep-end of 

the pool” syndrome in which children without 

a home or nurturing environment entered the 

“deep end” of human services systems, and 

required high-cost intensive treatment and 

educational programs. This syndrome is 

shown in Figure 3-6. 

The Hampton community recognized the 

importance of building strong families and 

nurturing early childhood development. It 

also understood the long-term link between 

healthy children and a quality workforce. But, 

financial constraints precluded Hampton from 

adding more resources to address the increased 

number and severity of at-risk youth. The 

Healthy Families Partnership (HFP) arose 

from this sense of crisis in 1993. 

“Every year that the Healthy Families Partnerships continues 

to reach out to families living throughout the 

community, the social fabric of Hampton grows 

stronger. This statement is not just an observation; it 

has been documented through ongoing studies.” 

Joseph Galano, PhD.,The College of William and Mary 

FIGURE 3-6 


Funding the Deep End 

Prevention 

Early 

Intervention 

Crisis Intervention 

& Treatment 

Caseloads 

Family Shelters 

Intensive Treatment for 

Several Disturbed 

Children 

Parenting Classes 

resource Centers 

Educational 

Materials 

Home Visiting 

Parenting Classes 

Support Groups 

Mental Health 

Social Services 

Court 

Schools 

Homeless 

Domestic 

Detention 

Residential Facility 

Specialized 

Foster Care 

$$ 

$$$$ 

Shallow End 

Deep End 


“The Healthy Families Partnership heralded a 

new way of doing business when it came to 

serving and supporting families. Public and private 

agencies pooled resources, redirected staff, 

and created a new organization to respond to 

the needs of young children and families. The 

partnership shifted from responding to problems 

to preventing problems through shifting 

investment from service delivered to outcomes 

achieved.” 

Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) 


HFP’s mission is to ensure that “every child is 

born healthy and enters school ready to learn.” 

The partnership’s goals are to reduce the need 

for intensive out-of-home treatment strategies 

and increase the effectiveness of prevention and 

early intervention. Through the latter, children 

can have better health and education outcomes. 

A formal partnership of public, private, and 

nonprofit agencies was created to achieve these 

goals. Its primary members include the city’s 

departments of social services, health, and 

libraries; the SENTARA health system and 

other community hospital and health organizations; 

and the nonprofit Center for Child 

and Family Services. Each partner has defined 

responsibilities. City agencies provide overall 

coordination, funding, and substantial direct 

service delivery. The hospital partners provide 

resource support and participant referrals. 

They also are instrumental in targeting clients 

and outreach to permit early intervention for 

newborns and their parents. The Center for 

Child and Family Services provides counseling 

opportunities for at-risk families and children. 

Nonprofit and private investors contribute funding 

and in-kind services and align their service 

delivery activities with the partnership’s mission. 

For example, hospitals integrate their Lamaze 

training classes with HFP curricula. The hospitals 

facilitate outreach to families and children 

and maximize available training resources. 

Hampton created this partnership using an 

“investor model” where key decision-makers 

serve on a steering committee. The model is 

sensitive to customer needs and input, but 

HFP is driven by the entities funding the services. 

This emphasizes stakeholder action—not 

necessarily consensus—making it imperative 

to have the decision-makers actively engaged 

in the partnership and its governance. 

HFP employs two basic service strategies with 

an array of individual programs. 

• Healthy Start: a voluntary home visitation 

program that offers family support services 

and health case management from prebirth 

to kindergarten 

• Healthy Community: a variety of parent 

education and support services offered to 

Hampton families, including child birth 

preparation, parental education classes, and 

workshops; playgroups for parents and 

young children; Young Family Centers in 

public libraries that offer resource information, 

reading opportunities, and pre-literacy 

activities; Welcome Baby that gives parenting 

and community information to new families; 

Healthy Stages child development newsletters 

that have age-specific information on child 

growth and development; and Child Fair, a 

community event focusing on health and 

wellness screenings and community 

resources for families and parental education. 

The Healthy Start initiative is targeted to atrisk 

families, while the Healthy Community 

programs are open to all. 

Results 

HFP has done an excellent job of increasing 

program participation and producing significant 

results for its clients and the community 

at large. This partnership was one of the factors 

cited when the National Civic League designated 

Hampton an “All American City” in 

2002. Further, HFP reached an extraordinary 

proportion of Hampton’s citizens during fiscal 

year 2002. 

• 30,000 out of 35,000 children under age 19 

received services. 

• 2,713 parents participated in parenting programs, 

a 300 percent increase from 1999. 



chapter three 

• Parents of 30,000 children received child 

development newsletters. 

• 49,330 books and materials were checked 

out of the Young Family Centers, a 90 percent 

increase from 1999. 

• 1,215 families received home visiting services, 

a 32 percent increase from 1999. 

• 5,000 participants attended Child Fair, a 

525 percent increase from 2001. 

Since its inception, HFP has made program 

evaluation a priority. College of William and 

Mary faculty independently analyze the partnership’s 

programs and outcomes. This evaluation 

is conducted using standard research 

methodology, including the random assignment 

of families to intervention and comparison 

groups. The evaluators also analyze 

Hampton’s performance relative to peer cities. 

Program and community results include: 

• A 26.8 percent reduction in the rate of 

child abuse and neglect between 1992 and 

2000. During this same period, the 

Hampton region experienced only a 3.4 

percent decline. 

• A decrease in infant mortality rate twice 

that for the region between 1992 and 2000. 

• 0 percent repeat teen births (defined as 

pregnancy within 12 months of the birth of 

the first child) among Healthy Start mothers 

in fiscal year 2002, compared with 30 

percent for Virginia as a whole. 

• A 96 percent immunization rate for twoyear-olds 

in the Healthy Start program, 

compared with 73 percent for the state. 

• 93 percent of respondents were satisfied 

with the parenting programs and resources, 

according to Hampton’s 2001 annual citizen 

satisfaction survey. 

Given its ultimate goal—to improve educational 

outcomes for at-risk children—the partnership 

plans to measure performance based 

on third grade reading proficiency. Children 

who first entered the program at birth became 

third graders in 2001-2002. Meanwhile, Table 

3-3 indicates increasingly positive outcomes 

for kindergarten-level children. Those in 

Healthy Start perform at almost the same rate 

as others. Without early intervention, they 

likely would be further behind those who do 

not deal with poverty, stressful family environments, 

and health issues. 

TABLE 3-3 


CHILD READINESS FOR KINDERGARTEN 

Skills 

Percentage Ready 

Healthy 

Start 

General 

Population 

Motor 83% 84% 

Self-Help 89% 89% 

Social 86% 86% 

Language 86% 88% 

Overall 84% 87% 


HFP is an excellent model of growing a partnership to scale.The major 

milestones in establishing and expanding it were: 

• September 1991: 

• September-November 1991: 

•November 1991: 

• December 1991: 

• August 1992: 

• December 1994: 

• March 1997: 

•July 1998: 

•July 1999: 

•July 2001: 

Decision to act 

Research best practices 

Partnership review of research 

Partnership selects approach 

First efforts launched 

All services available 

Decision to go to scale 

Title IV-E Funding awarded 

Full-scale funding achieved 

Service capacity reaches scale 

During its first year, Healthy Start enrolled 135 

clients, and Healthy Communities similarly 

reached only a fraction of the community. By 

2001, 30,000 of the city’s 35,000 children 

received one or more of these services. 

Challenges 

HFP’s road to success was not always smooth. 

Initial challenges included achieving widespread 

consensus on organizational structure. Hampton 

was concerned that quick, decisive action was 

needed to meet mission critical objectives. It felt 

only key investors could marshal the required 

resources. Therefore, the investor model was 

chosen as a more appropriate format than the 

stakeholder approach. 

Because the partnership was focused on longterm 

outcomes, readily available data were difficult 

to obtain. HFP was willing to measure its 

success on outcomes not completely within its 

own purview, such as educational outcomes for 

children. Meaningful outcomes are the soul of a 

high-performance partnership, and Hampton 

certainly has met that test. 

Keys to Success 

Partners identified several success factors. 

HFP’s action-oriented leadership focused on 

strategic goals and long-term outcomes, and the 

partners perceived their common mission as a 

“win-win.” Another factor was that Hampton 

faced a budget crisis with potentially serious 

consequences for service delivery, making creative 

solutions all the more critical. Meanwhile, 

Hampton’s environment was very conducive to 

partnering; participant trust was integrated into 

the city’s organizational culture. 

According to the partners, another key success 

factor has been the ability to redefine service 

delivery strategies and redirect resources. 

Solutions are not “business as usual” or 

focused on “throwing money at a problem.” 

Instead, the partnership has changed how the 

community serves at-risk children and families. 

Rather than react to health and educational 

problems once a child enters school, 

HFP seeks to prevent them from occurring in 

the first place. It has institutionalized a comprehensive 

approach to family intervention as 

early as the pre-natal stage. 



chapter three 

LAPHAM PARK VENTURE 

MILWAUKEE,WISCONSIN 

According to the 1990 Census, more than 

120,000 of Milwaukee’s 600,000 residents were 

age 65 and older, with 14 percent older than 

85. Mental health disorders and alcohol abuse 

are estimated to affect a significant portion of 

this population, perhaps as much as 35 percent. 

These elderly suffer serious health problems, 

including hypertension, arthritis, and 

coronary heart disease. They are candidates 

for nursing home care if they are unable to 

spend their years in an accommodating, 

service-oriented community. 

Responding to this challenge, gerontology, 

medical arts, housing, and social services 

experts joined to provide integrated interdisciplinary 

care for the residents of Lapham Park, 

a public housing facility for elderly adults. The 

result was the Lapham Park Venture, a public 

and nonprofit partnership whose mission is to 

create a supportive continuing care 

community for low-income older adults to 

comfortably age in place. 


The Lapham Park Venture was founded in 1996 

by four partners: the City of Milwaukee 

Housing Authority, the Milwaukee County 

Department on Aging, S.E.T. Ministry, and the 

Lapham Park Resident Council. Fully implemented 

in 1997, the initiative has added other 

key partners, including the Community Care 

Organization (CCO), Marquette University, St. 

Mary’s Family Practice Residency Program, the 

YWCA, Alzheimer’s Association, and Social 

Development Commission. A steering committee 

governs the partnership’s overall direction. 

The Lapham Park Venture provides a continuum 

of care for 200 elderly residents. Each 

partner has a specific role, such as case management 

and referral, social services, health 

care, and housing. S.E.T. Ministry, a Catholicbased 

organization, is the lead agency for onsite 

case management and coordination. The 

Housing Authority offers housing and related 

services to the residents and care providers. 

The Department on Aging gives support services 

to residents, including transportation, 

homemaker and personal care, and nutrition 

programs. It contracts with the Social 

Development Commission to provide meals. 

CCO provides acute, primary, specialty, and 

long-term care for residents enrolled in the 

capitated program. Offering extensive on-site 

physician care is key to fulfilling the partnership’s 

mission, and St. Mary’s Family Practice 

Clinic offers it to CCO enrollees and other residents 

covered by Medicare or Medicaid. 

Marquette University assigns graduate nurses 

to assist with health care, conducts program 

evaluation, and provides baseline data to analyze 

outcomes. The Lapham Park Resident 

Council is actively involved, as well. It meets 

regularly with providers to monitor implementation 

and is a valuable referral source for 

providers and residents alike. 

Shown in Table 3-4, the partnership’s total 

annual budget is approximately $951,000, 

funded through various partner agencies and 

federal programs. 

The Lapham Park Venture is a prime example of 

a partnership that began with an informal group 

of agencies sharing the common goal of serving 

residents. This arrangement evolved into a more 

formalized structure with memoranda of understanding, 

a strategic plan with goals and objectives, 

and governance committees. 

Results 

The Lapham Park Venture has done an excellent 

job in clearly defining its mission and 


identifying specific goals and outcomes. Its 

mission—“creating a supportive continuing 

care community where low-income older 

adults can comfortably age in place”—constantly 

guides its work. 

In its July 1999-June 2002 strategic plan, the 

partnership established four goals: 

1. to promote quality of life, health, and housing 

stability among Lapham Park residents 

in an aesthetically pleasing environment 

2. to nurture a sense of community, pride and 

ownership, empowerment, and self-advocacy 

3. to maintain a collaborative partnership to 

foster a sense of program unity and cohesiveness 

in the service team 

4. to create and replicate a model service program 

for the City of Milwaukee and other 

housing communities 

The venture has established objectives and a 

detailed work plan for accomplishing each 

goal. Assessing outcomes also is part of the 

strategic plan. An excerpt from the plan is 

provided in Appendix E. 

Documented outcomes are extraordinary to 

date. Ninety-six percent of the residents are 

able to age in place, 91 percent with lease violations 

have been able to preserve their tenancy, 

and 75 percent have their health and personal 

needs met. At the same time, the venture 

has produced more than $1 million annually 

in Medicaid nursing home cost savings. 

The venture’s strength is evident by the partners’ 

collaborative relationships. An on-site 

visit of Lapham Park provides ample evidence 

of the productive relationship between the 

service providers and residents. Also, the facility 

demonstrates a strong sense of community. 

The lower level of Lapham Park was renovated 

to provide a state-of-the-art medical clinic and 

community space. A dark, unusable basement 

was transformed into a well-lighted, invigorating 

replica of Walnut Street, a focal point of 

African-American community life during the 

1930s and 1940s. Residents can congregate for 

meals and entertainment, go to the barber or 

hair salon, play billiards, or visit the clinic. 

These services are provided in replicas of the 

TABLE 3-4 

LAPHAM PARK VENTURE BUDGET AND FUNDING 

Category Amount Sources 

Adult Day Care Health $ 44,000 Medicaid, Medicare, Managed Medicare 

and Medicaid 

In Home Services $ 61,000 Medicaid, Medicare, Managed Medicare 

and Medicaid, Older Americans Act 

Medical Services $ 354,000 Medicaid, Medicare, Managed Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Hospital $ 205,000 Medicaid, Medicare, Managed Medicare 

and Medicaid 

Dedicated Staff Costs $ 276,000 Medicaid, Medicare, Managed Medicare 

and Medicaid, HUD 

Building Maintenance $ 11,000 HUD Operating Subsidy 

TOTAL $ 951,000 



chapter three 

businesses and storefronts that existed on 

Walnut Street before urban blight took hold. 

Private, foundation, and public sources funded 

the $1.3 million renovation. 

Challenges 

Vertical and horizontal integration and trust, 

which characterize the Lapham Park Venture, 

are critical success factors. Yet achieving them 

has not been easy. Developing a common language 

to facilitate agency communication 

proved especially challenging, as did establishing 

trust with residents. 

The Lapham Park Venture also faced the turf 

battles that are common to such initiatives. 

Who is responsible for what? What is the 

appropriate level for decision-making? The 

partnership found the latter challenge to have 

two dimensions: First, should the entire partnership 

or an individual entity resolve a specific 

issue? Second, is a given issue a policy 

question that should be decided by the steering 

committee or an operational matter better 

left to staff? Basic operating procedures and 

defined responsibilities have been fundamental 

to addressing these questions. 

As the Lapham Park Venture has evolved into a 

performance-based partnership, it has grappled 

with collecting data and quantifying outcomes, 

beyond its considerable success in the number 

of residents who age in place and the amount of 

nursing care costs saved. The partnership is 

moving toward identifying additional health 

care and resident outcomes. At the same time, 

it will be challenging to obtain accurate data for 

these results without being too burdensome on 

providers or intrusive to clients. 


One key success factor has been a demonstrated 

commitment to provide quality care to Lapham 

Park residents. This endeavor is not viewed as a 

job, but as a passion. Meanwhile, the clearly 

documented mission, roles, and responsibilities 

have contributed to the venture’s sustainability 

and success. Partners also cite the ability to 

achieve an overall identity yet maintain distinct 

organizational responsibilities. Co-locating the 

partners at one site facilitates communication, 

problem solving, and resident involvement. 

The Lapham Park Venture started with a very 

limited formal structure, allowing for maximum 

flexibility. However, the partnership 

accurately assessed the point at which a formal 

structure and written documentation of goals 

and roles were needed. The partners stepped 

back and analyzed their activities with the help 

of outside facilitation. This allowed them to 

develop a strategic plan and decision-making 

structure in a deliberate, organized fashion. 

Throughout these steps, the partners emphasized 

the need to work collaboratively at policy 

and operational levels. True partnership cannot 

exist without vertical integration and a 

shared sense of ownership, resources, and decision-making 

responsibility. 


5 A DAY FOR BETTER HEALTH PROGRAM 

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 

Research shows that a diet rich in fruits and 

vegetables reduces the risk of cancer and other 

chronic diseases. The National Cancer 

Institute (NCI) and the Produce for Better 

Health Foundation (PBH) launched the 

national 5 A Day For Better Health Program in 

1991. NCI is a federal agency dedicated to the 

prevention and treatment of cancer and its 

causes. PBH is a nonprofit organization that 

encourages and coordinates the produce 

industry and other private sector activities to 

support the program. 

The partnership’s goal is to increase an individual’s 

consumption of vegetables and fruit to 

at least five servings daily in an effort to reduce 

cancer, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, 

and other diseases. The target audience 

includes all U.S. adults who eat 2-3 servings. 

The partnership’s immediate objectives are to 

increase public awareness of the importance of 

eating fruits and vegetables, and inform consumers 

on easy ways to incorporate the foods 

into their regular eating patterns. These objectives 

are accomplished through a communications 

campaign that includes public health and 

point-of-sale interventions in every state and 

most U.S. territories. The national program 

develops messages for the general adult population, 

while individual states target children, 

minorities, and low-income populations using 

various communication outlets. In an effort to 

reduce cancer disparities, NCI is launching a 

more targeted effort toward African-American 

men age 35 to 50. This population has the 

highest rate of several chronic diseases, has the 

lowest level of awareness about the importance 

of eating fruits and vegetables, and is among 

the least frequent consumers of them. 


The 5 A Day partnership exemplifies the complexities 

of working at the national level. Its 

mission is very focused, but its organization 

FIGURE 3-7 

PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE 

NCI 

Steering Committee 

CDC, ACS, USDA PBH 

IHS, DOD 

State Health 

Agencies 

Industry 

Coalitions 

Food Assistance 

Programs 

Schools 

Faith-Based 

Institutions 

Worksites 

Supermarkets 

Foodservice 

Target 



chapter three 

and implementation framework are broad. 

NCI, PBH, and other national partners work 

with more than 1,800 organizations and a vast 

network of industry members, including more 

than 35,000 supermarkets. 

National 5 A Day partners are the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, American Cancer 

Society, Association of State and Territorial 

Directors of Health, Promotion and Public 

Health Education, National Alliance for 

Nutrition and Activity, Produce Marketing 

Association, and United Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Association. This expansive network 

is coordinated through a national 5 A Day 

steering committee that includes 11 public and 

nonprofit organizations. 

NCI and PBH enter into license agreements and 

memoranda of understanding with state departments 

of health and industry groups. NCI 

granted a license to PBH so that industry participants 

can use the 5 A Day logo and program 

materials. In turn, the foundation licensed more 

than 1,200 industry participants, from growers 

and shippers to trade associations and retailers. 

Most of them renew their membership to continue 

conducting 5 A Day activities. 

NCI is the public sector’s licensing agent and 

has developed relationships with 55 state and 

territorial health agencies to carry out 5 A Day 

activities at the state level. The program works 

at the community level through statewide 

coalitions of industry and state licensees, 

including state agencies, county health agencies, 

businesses, hospitals, media, and state 

dietetic associations. NCI collaborates with 

the Armed Forces Health Promotions Program 

to deliver the 5 A Day message to military 

bases and commissaries worldwide. 

Partnership roles and responsibilities are clearly 

defined. NCI and PBH jointly created its 

strategic plan throughout 5 A Day’s first 

decade. A recent strategic planning effort was 

done through the National Partnership 

Steering Committee. NCI’s responsibilities are 

to serve as a central health authority, fund 

research and disseminate findings, implement 

national and targeted communications efforts, 

and conduct program evaluation. Meanwhile, 

PBH is responsible for public relations functions, 

including program awareness in communities, 

and for fundraising, in-kind support, 

and advocacy. It also licenses the logo to 

industry representatives. New partners play 

critical functions, including media relations, 

information dissemination through nutrition 

assistance programs, advocacy, and building 

local community support. 

NCI and PBH jointly fund the 5 A Day 

Program. From 1992 to 1999, actual costs to 

NCI totaled more than $40 million. PBH grew 

its annual spending on the program from 

$400,000 in 1991 to nearly $3 million in 1999. 

Results 

NCI has rigorous evaluation procedures for 

this partnership. Formative research was conducted 

to develop communications strategies 

and messages prior to the program’s launch. 

NCI also funded nine behavior-change 

research and evaluation studies with randomized 

designs to determine the effectiveness of 5 

A Day interventions. Projects were conducted 

in such community settings as schools, churches, 

and worksites. These accounted for $18 

million of the program’s expenditures. In 

1999, NCI established the 5 A Day Program 

Evaluation Group to review and evaluate the 

partnership’s outcomes. 

These evaluations detected significant progress 

in increasing public awareness. The percentage 

aware of the importance of eating five or more 


FIGURE 3-8 

PUBLIC AWARENESS 

Percent of those aware of the need to eat "5" or more servings 

of fruit and vegetables daily. 

Percent responding 5 or more 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1999 

1998 

1997 

1996 

1995 

1994 

1993 

1992 

1991 

Post-5 A Day week 

Omnibus Survey 

5 A Day 1991 and 

1997 survey 

daily servings of fruits and vegetables increased 

from 8 to 20 percent between 1991 and 1997. 

People eating five or more servings increased 

from 22 to 26 percent. There also were significant 

increases in consumption among Latinos 

and the general 18-34 age group. All nine 

NCI-funded behavior change studies found 

significant increases for the target audience, 

showing that dietary change is possible at the 

community level. In addition, the partnership 

has documented significant media impressions, 

including print, radio, and Internet 

placements. PBH estimates that for every $1 

million spent, it leveraged $40 million in additional 

private sector resources. 

Challenges 

During its initial stages, the partnership managed 

different federal and private sector cultures. 

The sheer number of partners added 

even more complexity. Meanwhile, funding 

and resources continue to be a challenge. 

Because NCI is a research institute, its 

resources are primarily directed toward 

research and evaluation, rather than public 

education and media. Direct funding is not 

provided to states for program implementation, 

limiting the program’s reach and impact. 

As demonstrated by the evaluation projects 

and their cost, performance reviews are 

extremely complex at a national level. Indeed, 

the rigor of NCI’s analysis may exceed many 

local partnerships’ resources and capabilities. 


5 A Day partners credit several factors with 

successfully meeting the challenges of this large 

endeavor. The partnership enjoys strong 

national leadership, as well as committed state 

and private industry involvement. The program’s 

organizational structure leverages 

resources from varied organizations and mobilizes 

professionals already in place at the 

national, state, and local levels. Further, it 

allows for local operations in addition to its 

strong national mandate. The service-marked 

logo and corresponding program guidelines 

and criteria are instrumental in establishing a 

common framework. The program also generates 

visible successes that help to sustain a 

long-term effort. 



chapter three 

NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM 

RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 

In 1999, the Richmond, Virginia City Council 

dramatically altered its approach to neighborhood 

revitalization. Ending its historic pattern 

of dispersing revitalization funds to more than 

20 neighborhoods, it chose to target resources to 

six concentrated areas, a program entitled 

Neighborhoods in Bloom (NIB). Every previously 

served neighborhood had significant 

needs, but the council realized that a “shot-gun” 

approach to revitalization was ineffective. 

Individual houses were restored but the neighborhoods 

near them continued to decline. 

Given Richmond’s population of 200,000, focusing 

on six neighborhoods was difficult. The 

council made the decision following a rigorous 

evaluation process involving objective data, qualitative 

analysis, and community input. 


A public, nonprofit, and civic partnership with 

more than 20 entities implements NIB. The 

public sector is the primary funding source 

using governmental powers to achieve what 

the nonprofit and civic sectors cannot. The 

two primary public sector players are the City 

of Richmond and the Richmond 

Redevelopment and Housing Authority. In 

addition to funding the initiative and providing 

overall coordination, the city operates a 

proactive code enforcement program to supplement 

housing construction efforts. It also 

aligned its public safety and social services 

functions to support the partnership. The 

Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which 

performs housing rehabilitation and repair, 

uses its power of eminent domain to acquire 

property in the six neighborhoods. 

The nonprofit sector plays a major role. Nine 

community development corporations build 

and rehabilitate housing and provide related 

services to residents. Housing Opportunities 

Made Equal, Inc. educates homebuyers and 

assists with down payments. Additionally, the 

Local Initiative Support Corporation offers 

funding and technical assistance to the community 

development corporations. 

Neighborhood associations play a tremendous 

role, as well. Neighborhood leaders are instrumental 

in deciding which housing activities to 

undertake and where, and allocate funds accordingly. 

Civic associations provide support activities, 

such as neighborhood clean ups, neighborhood 

watches, and outreach to publicize NIB 

programs and encourage their use. 

NIB governance is accomplished through partnership 

boards at the neighborhood level. 

These boards, composed of community leaders, 

housing providers, and city staff, are 

Focused 


Investment/ 

Services 

Neighborhood 

Empowerment 

FIGURE 3-9 

NIB STRATEGIES 

Partnership 

Development 

Aggressive Code 

Enforcement 

Leverage 

Private 

Investment 


esponsible for developing specific neighborhood 

strategies, overseeing their implementation, 

and ensuring participant coordination. 

Results 

NIB has two clear goals: to restore the physical 

livability of neighborhoods and to improve 

their stability. These are ambitious goals for 

the six neighborhoods. Of the approximately 

1,000 properties in the targeted blocks, only 26 

percent were owner occupied, 21 percent were 

vacant, 25 percent were vacant lots where 

housing was demolished, and more than 70 

percent had code violations. 

NIB employs numerous strategies to address 

the improving physical livability goal. During 

its first three years, the partnership constructed 

or rehabilitated more than 160 houses and 

provided repair assistance to 210 owner-occupied 

homes. Further, the city finished approximately 

$1.5 million in such infrastructure 

TABLE 3-5 

NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM RESULTS 

JULY 1999 - DECEMBER 2001 

Measure 

Houses Completed 

Houses under Construction 

Houses Repaired 

Uninhabitable Structures 

Eliminated 

Output 

163 

27 

210 

90 

improvements as streetscape, sidewalk, and 

street lighting projects. Proactive code compliance 

efforts have provided the regulatory means 

to encourage owners to improve their properties’ 

physical appearance. More than 500 code 

violations have been abated, while the city has 

encouraged private sector investment with real 

estate tax incentives. State and federal historic 

tax credits have boosted private investment. 

The second goal—to improve neighborhood 

stability—is designed to ensure NIB’s longterm 

viability and success. The partnership 

recognizes that physical improvements alone 

are window dressing without stable and capable 

resident leadership. Neighborhood stability 

requires increased homeownership rates, 

community leadership, and improving public 

safety. NIB has worked with Virginia 

Commonwealth University to establish a leadership 

academy that has provided training to 

66 residents on leadership, property development, 

and other important topics. 

The partnership measures its short-term and 

long-term successes. Output indicators 

include number of rehabilitated properties, 

newly constructed homes, and housing repairs. 

Results for NIB’s first three years are summarized 

in Table 3-5. 

Outcome measures include changes in neighborhood 

property values and reductions in 

crime rates. From 1998 to 2002, aggregate real 

estate values increased 24 percent in NIB areas, 

compared to 13 percent during the prior fouryear 

period. Three of the six neighborhoods 

actually reversed a trend of declining values. 



chapter three 


In Richmond, like many cities, there is a statistical 

correlation between vacant or abandoned 

housing and crime rates. Thus, reducing crime 

was part of the goal for stabilizing the neighborhoods. 

From 2000 to 2002, crime fell by 15 

percent in the six NIB areas, compared to 5 

percent for the rest of the city. 

Unfortunately, neighborhood revitalization is 

not achieved quickly. Decades of decline cannot 

be reversed in a few short years. NIB’s 

long-term success will be judged by a steady 

increase in home ownership rates, housing values, 

and resident satisfaction. Based on current 

data and anecdotal evidence, the partnership 

is on track to achieve its goal. 

Challenges 

Given its relative youth, NIB has not reached 

full maturity as a high-performance partnership. 

Long-term stability is not yet assured. 

The trust level among partners has increased 

dramatically, but still is tenuous. Effective and 

timely communication has proved challenging. 

The sheer number of partners contributes to 

the difficulty of keeping everyone informed 

and obtaining timely input. 

NIB works in extremely distressed conditions. 

Some of these neighborhoods have had little or 

no private investment for many years. NIB has 

harvested “low hanging fruit” and must ratchet 

up its performance to continue revitalizing 

neighborhoods. Some partners have not been 

able to meet this demanding standard and program 

adjustments are underway. However, the 

community strongly supports NIB and has 

fought hard to preserve the partnership. 

Although only three years old, NIB has 

achieved significant successes. The timing and 

environment were ripe for a radical change in 

how Richmond and the nonprofit community 

did business. All sectors—public, nonprofit, 

and civic—were committed to substantially 

altering the city’s strategy to neighborhood 

revitalization because the traditional approach 

had not produced lasting results. Competition 

among nonprofits for limited resources had 

been the norm. The Local Initiative Support 

Corporation spearheaded significant change in 

how the community development corporations 

interacted. It led the effort to forge close 

working relationships in the nonprofit community. 

The public and civic sectors also 

enjoyed strong leadership that propelled the 

partnership’s movement in its early stages. 

Elected officials made very difficult choices 

when redirecting resources to targeted neighborhoods. 

Doing so was made easier because 

the partnership is inclusive and data driven. 

Keys to long-term success will be using those 

same data sources to track neighborhood 

progress over time and sustaining the leadership 

so critical to NIB’s initial outcomes. 


FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION 

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Indianapolis, Indiana, population 800,000, is 

well known for its managed competition and 

contracting out public service delivery functions. 

The city has a strong tradition of partnering 

with public, private, nonprofit, and 

civic sectors. This is due in part to the presence 

of the Lilly Endowment and local United 

Way. A succession of mayors has used crosssector 

partnering to provide community services 

at competitive costs. 

The Family Strengthening Coalition (FSC), a relatively 

new initiative, builds upon Mayor Bart 

Peterson’s Family Strengthening Focus, the 

United Way’s Family Strengthening Impact 

Council, and the Casey Foundation’s Making 

Connections initiative. Unlike most other partnerships 

profiled here, FSC does not have a long 

track record to assess its efficacy as a high-performance 

model. However, Indianapolis’ rich 

history of strong cross-sector partnering, coupled 

with the methodology used to establish 

FSC, can provide valuable insight. 

FSC differs from the other partnerships by 

virtue of its mission. Its purpose is to foster a 

community movement to ensure that “all 

Indianapolis families will possess the ingredients 

they need to be strong, capable, and connected.” 

FSC does not intend to deliver services but to 

create an environment in which the necessary 

support and services are provided effectively. 


FSC grew out of the Coalition for Human 

Services Planning (CHSP), which began in 

1978. CHSP, chaired by the mayor or designee, 

includes such funders as the Lilly Endowment, 

Indianapolis Foundation, and United Way. 

These entities are key to the success of 

Indianapolis’ human services coordination and 

“The culture of collaboration and expectations 

about how partnerships work are key to the success 

of human services coordination and partnering 

in Indianapolis.” 

Tony Macklin, Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 

cross-sector partnerships. CHSP is neither a 

funding nor formal planning body, but a vehicle 

for funders to cause planning, improvement, 

coordination, and service delivery. It 

has been the force for other community-based 

service partnerships, including the Coalition 

for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention 

and Domestic Violence Network of Greater 

Indianapolis. 

As a part of its community movement, FSC promotes 

community-based planning, family circles, 

“Families Count” awards, and family summits. 

The United Way staffs FSC and provides 



chapter three 

research, evaluation methodologies, and funds 

for services associated with both coalitions. The 

Lilly Endowment and Indianapolis Foundation 

are key participants, as well. Another FSC partner 

is the Indianapolis Neighborhood Resource 

Center, a nonprofit neighborhood-based organization 

that delivers family-strengthening services. 

Grassroots civic involvement has been key to 

the coalition becoming “the community champion” 

for family strengthening. The City of 

Indianapolis plays a major coordinating and 

support role, too. One of its primary responsibilities 

is to provide community and political 

legitimacy to family strengthening and human 

services issues. Although the city is not a direct 

funder, it provides in-kind resources for these 

programs. 

Results 

FSC is in its infancy, but it has worked diligently 

to define its desired outcomes. During the past 

several years, it has sought community input 

using summits, Family Circles, community partners, 

and other events. Through this process, 

the Coalition identified five priority community 

results for strong families. They are: 

• Families are healthy and safe. 

• Families are financially secure. 

• Families are engaged in each other’s lives. 

• Families are engaged in the community. 

• Families instill and support family, 

heritage, faith, and cultural traditions. 

In 2002, five Community Result Groups identified 

indicators for achieving the priority 

results. The groups and their indicators are: 

Healthy and Safe 

• smoking rate 

• violent crime rate 

• substantiated incidents of child abuse 

and neglect 

Financially Secure 

• number of Earned Income 

Tax Credit claims 

• number of Child Care Tax Credit claims 

• interest income as reported to the IRS 

• number of people who own their own 

homes 

• number of people who have post-secondary 

educations 

Engaged in the Community 

• number of registered voters who vote 

• number of families who belong to resident 

associations, tenants unions, and neighborhood 

cultural, civic, sports, interestbased, 

and social organizations 

• the sense of place and neighborhood 

identity 

Engaged in Each Other’s Lives 

• how much time families spend with 

each other 

• what families do in the time they spend 

together 

Families Instill and Support 

• number of families affiliated with and 

attending faith-based and cultural organizations 

and activities 

• number of organizations, associations, 

and cultural and recreational activities in 

which families can get involved 

FSC has developed action plans to attain 

results in these areas. The plans confirm its 

primary role as convener/coordinator of community 

assets, events, and services, as opposed 

to direct service provider. Thus, FSC’s activities 

focus on research, advocacy, public information, 

and services through collaboration. 


Challenges 

Despite its solid track record, Indianapolis 

continues to encounter challenges to longterm,effective 

high-performance partnerships. 

Merely “speaking the language” of partnerships 

does not lead to success. Organizations can 

retreat to their own ways of doing business 

when they encounter unfamiliar dynamics. It 

also has been difficult to gain true participation 

from everyone, especially community 

members who are conditioned to respond to 

proposals, not create them. Another challenge 

has been achieving a balance between adequate 

planning and action. Establishing partnership 

structures has not easily translated into performance-based 

efforts. Defining quantifiable goals 

and outcomes has been difficult to achieve. 

Although Indianapolis has wonderful assets in 

its nonprofit foundations, the heavy concentration 

of funding in a small number of organizations 

presents its own set of challenges. 

With such dominant players, uniform quality 

and input from participants can be difficult to 

achieve. Diversifying funding sources and 

accountability for results over a prolonged 

period of time is another issue. 


Partners cite several reasons for Indianapolis’ 

success with human services coalitions. Its 

long history of collaborative relationships provides 

the basic foundation of trust. It has done 

considerable work on community building and 

developing a set of values that supports partnerships. 

Partners also identify a high degree 

of community and church involvement, a 

noteworthy attribute in the Midwest culture. 

Thus, the city and region have an environment 

that fosters collaboration and participation 

across sectors. 

Public and nonprofit sector leadership is 

another key success factor. Mayors from both 

political parties have supported neighborhood-based 

partnerships and the United Way 

has bridged diverse community perspectives. 

It offers important staff support to ensure that 

the necessary legwork is accomplished. 

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Human Services 

Planning provides a vehicle for communications 

and decisions among key stakeholders 

and funders. Additional collaborative efforts 

can be developed through this ongoing partnership 

structure. 



chapter three 

NEIGHBORHOOD BASED SERVICE DELIVERY 

DES MOINES, IOWA 

With a population of nearly 200,000, Des 

Moines, Iowa has a council-manager form of 

government. In 1999, City Manager Eric 

Anderson identified the need to bring City 

Hall closer to the citizens, understanding that 

not all neighborhoods have the same service 

priorities. Distressed or transitional neighborhoods 

need especially close resident-city interaction 

to break the cycle of deterioration. As a 

result, public safety and code enforcement are 

high priorities in these areas. Public works, 

utilities, and recreational park services also are 

important, but the precise mix of services 

should be tailored to each neighborhood. 

Drawing on its strong history of neighborhood 

planning and grassroots advocacy, Des Moines 

established the Neighborhood Based Service 

Delivery initiative (NBSD) to revitalize its distressed 

and transitional neighborhoods. A 

partnership between residents and the city, 

NBSD addresses the most critical service needs 

within individual areas. Five neighborhoods 

were initially designated as NBSD locations. 

The program has grown to 16 neighborhoods 

in eight NBSD service areas. Designation is 

based on whether neighborhoods have a 

neighborhood plan, are classified as distressed 

or negatively transitional, and have demonstrated 

leadership. 


NBSD’s purposes are to enhance the working 

relationship between residents and city government 

and to resolve key issues that contribute 

to neighborhood distress. NBSD teams— 

which include residents, nonprofit and business 

representatives, and city staff—identify 

issues, establish priorities, and implement 

solutions collaboratively. They meet monthly. 

NBSD partners have distinct yet overlapping 

roles. The neighborhood association and city 

jointly identify service needs and implement 

solutions. The association’s primary responsibility 

is to establish service priorities and provide 

resident and business outreach. The city’s 

main role is to staff the initiative. Police and 

code enforcement departments provide fulltime 

staff, and other city agencies give 

resources as needed. The city has the legal 

framework within which many solutions 

occur, including criminal prosecutions and 

code violations. 

Des Moines implemented NBSD by redirecting 

existing city personnel and resources. The only 

major new expense was for special vehicles to 

provide visibility in each neighborhood. 

Results 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery is founded 

on the principle that the City of Des Moines and 

residents partner to solve neighborhood issues. 

Problem solving must be a joint effort. 

NBSD has a very clear mission: to revitalize distressed 

and transitional neighborhoods by creating 

a citizen-city partnership to identify and 

resolve issues at the neighborhood le. The initiative 

did not establish specific objectives or 

quantifiable performance targets, but positive 

citizen response is a testament to its success. 

Neighborhood associations periodically evaluate 

the initiative through informal assessments. 

One concrete measure of NBSD’s success is that 

other neighborhoods expressly ask to join it. 


Challenges 

NBSD encountered some barriers at the outset. 

Citizens initially were skeptical of the partnership, 

viewing it as just another short-term program. 

NBSD also had some difficulty creating 

equality among the partners so that public and 

civic sectors could share responsibility and 

accountability for results. The capacity and 

continuity of neighborhood leadership proved 

challenging, as well. 

Over time, NBSD has addressed many of these 

issues. Developing trust among the partners 

has been key. The city has convinced neighborhoods 

that its commitment is genuine and 

long term. NBSD is not really a program but a 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery has resulted in 

the growth of neighborhood associations throughout 

Des Moines. Originally, only distressed neighborhoods 

with strong leaders were identified for the partnership. 

Within a year or two, dozens of associations wanted to 

be included. Now, they have been formed in wealthier, 

more stable parts of town. The general citizenry understands 

that partnerships work, and the city benefits 

from having citizens engaged in problem solving in their 

own neighborhoods. 

Connie Cook, Neighborhood Based Service Delivery (Des Moines) 

way of doing business, and Des Moines has 

made a concerted effort to institutionalize this 

problem-solving approach. Committed citizen 

leadership was influential in engaging residents 

who do not normally participate. 


Civic and public leaders cite several factors as 

contributing to NBSD’s success. Strong city 

and neighborhood leadership has been critical. 

Also, powerful symbols illustrate the initiative’s 

impact. Neighborhoods are physically improving 

through better property maintenance and 

decreased criminal activity. The partnership’s 

loose organizational structure is considered a 

strength as it allows flexibility. A strong dedication 

to the mission keeps partners in sync. 

NBSD is focused on problem solving and 

results, not meetings and committees. 

Also key is an understanding that the public 

and civic sectors are held jointly accountable 

for results. This notion has helped to frame 

expectations for the partners involved. Citizens 

know their role is to help solve problems, not 

just identify them. Conversely, the city understands 

that it must respond to the citizens’ priorities 

and treat each neighborhood uniquely. 

As NBSD matures, it grapples with how to 

define and quantify outcomes. A more formalized 

evaluation process is being developed. The 

continuity of neighborhood leadership also 

remains an ongoing issue. Reviewing their 

progress to date, partners offer several key lessons: 

establish leadership training early; delegate 

decision-making to the lowest possible 

level; be willing and able to adapt; establish clear 

expectations in the beginning; and start small, 

achieve some successes, then grow to scale. 



chapter three 

SAFE PASSAGES 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 

Youth violence is a major health and safety 

concern for Oakland, California and surrounding 

Alameda County. The total number of 

juvenile arrests declined during the 1990s, but 

the percentage of violent felony arrests 

increased significantly. In 1996, Alameda 

County ranked fifth among California’s 58 

counties in this category. Oakland, population 

400,000, accounted for the greatest portion of 

this violence. A 1999 survey found that 35 

percent of its youth did not feel safe the day 

before the survey was taken, and half felt 

unsafe at school. 

The Safe Passages partnership was created in 

1998 to reduce youth violence. It works to 

achieve this mission through intensive intervention 

programs for repeat juvenile offenders, 

early intervention programs for middle school 

students, and crisis support and prevention 

activities for at-risk families. 


Safe Passages is an intergovernmental initiative 

led by the East Bay Community Foundation, 

Alameda County, the City of Oakland, and the 

Oakland Unified School District. Participating 

nonprofit and private entities include the 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Urban 

Health Initiative, Children’s Hospital Oakland, 

and more than 30 nonprofit organizations. 

Safe Passages has a two-tiered governance system. 

A board of directors, composed of public, 

business, nonprofit, and civic representatives, 

provides overall direction. Its responsibilities 

include goal setting, strategy and work 

plan development, and staff supervision. 

Policy committees, composed of key public 

agency representatives and community part- 

ners, drive work plan implementation and 

coordinate and integrate services provided by 

the individual agencies. 

Safe Passages’ individual partners have very 

distinct roles. The partnership develops the 

overall goals, designs and coordinates the program, 

seeks implementation funding, and ultimately 

evaluates the level of success achieved. 

The public partners are responsible for aligning 

their service delivery operations with the 

goals. They also have redirected funding and 

staff to support the program. 

In addition, nonprofit and business partners 

provide services through vendor contracts 

with Safe Passages or a public partner. They 

also offer funding and technical assistance. 

The civic sector is involved with Safe Passages 

as well, but more meaningful involvement is 

an ongoing challenge. 

Public sector sources fund Safe Passages’ services. 

These include a law enforcement block 

grant from the City of Oakland, funding from 

the city’s Oakland Fund for Children and 

Youth, a contribution from the Alameda 

County Healthcare Services Agency, tobacco 

settlement funds from Alameda County, and a 

contribution from the Oakland Unified School 

District. State and federal grants fund the bulk 

of the programmatic costs—$16 million over 

four years. Additionally, the public sector partners 

provide administrative support. 

Results 

Safe Passages has identified three strategies to 

reach the goal of reducing youth violence in 

Oakland: a repeat offender strategy for intensive 

intervention; a middle school strategy for 


early intervention; and an early childhood 

strategy for prevention. It has established specific, 

quantifiable outcomes to produce positive 

results for each: 

• Repeat Offender Strategy: Reduce youth 

arrests for violent offenses by 35 percent by 

2005. To achieve this goal, Safe Passages is 

ramping up its service delivery capabilities 

to provide graduated support to youth 

repeat offenders whose pattern of frequent 

arrests (often five or more) is shown to 

have a direct link to violence. In 2001, the 

partnership served 87 youths who produced 

a 15 percent recidivism rate, far 

below the county average of 72 percent. 

This service is projected to expand to 350 

youths in 2003 and 600 youths in 2004 and 

beyond. Currently, six community-based 

organizations throughout Oakland serve 

youth who have been released to their 

supervision. 

• Middle School Strategy: Reduce suspensions 

for violence by 30 percent at 10 middle 

schools by 2005. Five hundred Oakland 

youths age 12-14 are arrested annually. The 

average age of a juvenile in the probation 

system is 14.5 years. Critical to this strategy 

is surrounding middle school youth with 

support services that mitigate risk factors to 

criminal behavior and encourage positive 

alternatives (See Figure 3-10). Safe 

Passages plans to provide these services in 

10 middle schools serving more than 7,600 

students. This strategy will grow to scale by 

serving four schools in 2000-2001, expanding 

to seven in 2001-2002, and the full ten 

in 2003-2004. 

• Prevention Strategy: Reduce the exposure 

of children age 0-5 to the risk factors that 

contribute to violence. Safe Passages’ early 

childhood strategy involves identifying children 

exposed to violence and delivering 

services to them and their families. 

Components include the Oakland Police 

Department’s Family Violence Intervention 

Unit, implementing a violence prevention 

curriculum at child care sites, and increased 

mental health services, which include 

assessment, mental health consultations, 

and infant/child-parent psychotherapy. 

To ensure appropriate program evaluation, the 

Safe Passages board has sought data-driven 

strategies to measure results. The partnership 

has worked with a consultant to develop a formal 

evaluation system. Also, the Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation has contracted for a 

FIGURE 3-10 

SAFE PASSAGES MIDDLE SCHOOL STRATEGY 

VIOLENCE 

PREVENTION 

CURRICULUM 

ALTERNATIVES 

TO SUSPENSION 

CASE MANAGEMENT 

MENTAL HEALTH 

SERVICES 

PARENT ENGAGEMENT/ 

FAMILY SUPPORT 

AFTER-SCHOOL 

ACTIVITIES 



chapter three 

national level evaluation of five sites, including 

Oakland, as part of its Urban Health Initiative. 

Challenges 

Safe Passages’ major challenge is one that its 

individual partners face: the difficult fiscal 

climate resulting from state and federal budget 

cuts. Despite these cuts, the city, county 

and school district have maintained and even 

expanded their commitment to Safe Passages 

and its strategies, but expansion may not be 

as rapid as hoped. 

Other challenges include institutionalizing the 

partnership’s strategies within each entity, so 

that a few key champions are replaced by a 

broad group of staff—teachers, police officers, 

after school providers, mental health providers, 

and child care staff—that understand, embrace, 

and effectively implement the strategies. Safe 

Passages also continues to struggle, as many 

communities do, with how to engage stakeholders 

beyond the public sector. 


Safe Passages has been successful because it 

has convened elected and appointed leadership 

from the city, county and school district. 

Such a forum had never existed in Oakland. 

Safe Passages provides a place for discussion 

to occur, decisions to be made, and problems 

resolved. The leadership has remained 

engaged because it feels confident that the 

joint work is based on good data and best 

practices, and yields positive outcomes for 

young people. Each partner feels that its 

needs are met in some way by participating, 

even if it does not always get everything it 

needs all the time. 

Having a neutral forum, staffed by East Bay 

Community Foundation employees, also has 

been helpful in a city with diverse political 

agendas. To a large degree, Safe Passages partners 

have successfully left these other agendas 

at the door when they come to the table. 

They have not allowed broader forces to 

derail the agreed upon work. 

The final key to success goes beyond best 

practices and higher standards for service 

delivery and outcomes. It is the support for 

the public and nonprofit partners to acquire 

the training, knowledge, and skills to implement 

best practices effectively. Safe Passages 

acknowledges that it cannot simply raise the 

bar without helping people reach it. 


CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROJECT 

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND 

MEDICAID SERVICES 

Rosalyn Carter once said there are four types 

of people: those who have been caregivers, 

those who currently are caregivers, those who 

will be caregivers, and those who will need 

caregivers. 

Research shows that one in four U.S. households—about 

24 million people—care for elderly 

family members or friends. Medical 

progress, coupled with the aging of the 

Boomer generation, will increase these numbers 

significantly during the next few years. 

The number of caregivers is expected to total 

39 million by 2007. Family caregiving now 

costs the equivalent of $200 billion annually. 

Sixty-four percent, or close to 15 million, caregivers 

work. Fifty-five percent report that 

caregiving impacts their work. They leave 

work early, arrive late, and miss days. On average, 

caregivers can lose more than $650,000 in 

wages, social security benefits, and pensions. 

Forty-five percent of employed caregivers 

spend one to five hours a week providing that 

care. Twenty percent spend 11 or more hours 

per week. Caregiving costs employers from 

$11 to 29 billion dollars per year. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) administers the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs. CMS communicates 

Medicare program information to 40 million 

aged and disabled beneficiaries. This challenge 

is complicated by population demographics. 

Medicare information must be understandable 

to older, sick, and disabled people with various 

levels of education, incomes, ethnic backgrounds, 

and languages. Although CMS pays 

for medical services, insurance is hard to 

understand. The dilemma is that people wait 

to get information until there is a problem. 

CMS has targeted caregivers as a key audience 

to educate so they can help people to learn 

about the Medicare program. Caregivers do 

not identify themselves as such. They perceive 

themselves as doing what is appropriate. 

Identifying and reaching caregivers is a challenge, 

but doing so through their worksite is 

an effective approach. 

In 1999, CMS established a Caregiver 

Workgroup composed of caregiver and related 

organizations, beneficiary advocacy groups, 

disease-specific organizations, government 

agencies, employers, employer intermediaries, 

and others. This workgroup’s goal was to 

develop effective methods of communicating 

Medicare information to beneficiaries. The 

primary recommendation was to develop 

Medicare information for employed caregivers. 

CMS partnered with these organizations and 

their affiliates to develop and test Medicare informational 

materials targeted to 15 million 

employed caregivers and employers. The partnership’s 

immediate objectives were to educate 

employed caregivers about the program and help 

them assist the people they care for in making 

informed decisions. Caregiver and employer 

partners develop and test the materials. 

Employer intermediaries distribute the materials. 


The Caregiver/Employer Project illustrates the 

difficulties of operating in a national context. 

The partnership’s goal is very specific, but its 

structure and administrative and implementation 

approach are diffuse. CMS, Caregiver 

Workgroup members, and other national partners 

operate in tandem with local affiliates, 

employers, and employer groups. 



chapter three 

The partnership asked workplace intermediary 

organizations to distribute caregiver materials 

or post the materials on their respective websites. 

These organizations have huge memberships, 

which extend the partnership’s reach. 

They included the National Federation of 

Independent Businesses with 607,000 members, 

Small Business Administration with access to 

one million businesses, Society for Human 

Resources Management with 165,000 members, 

and Washington Business Group on Health representing 

174 of the nation’s largest employers. 

CMS developed relationships with the public, 

voluntary, and private sectors to seek partners. 

Employers and workplace intermediaries were 

motivated to partner with CMS because they 

saw the advantage of educating employed caregivers. 

Doing so would reduce the time that the 

employed caregiver would be preoccupied, leading 

to an increase in productivity. Caregiver 

organizations were motivated to help by virtue 

of their mission, while beneficiary advocacy 

organizations were energized by their goal of 

helping the target audience of beneficiaries 

through caregivers. CMS has large, mid-size, 

and small employer involvement. The motivations 

were diverse but the goal was universal. 

There were no formal agreements, exchange of 

funds, or solicitations. The major resources 

were professional caregiver expertise, access to 

worksites, and access to workplace intermediaries 

and employed caregivers. The caregiver 

organizations provided expertise, credibility 

for promoting partnership products, and 

tremendous reach and penetration in other 

related organizations and audiences. The partnership 

had a “swap of assets.” The strategic 

plan was the work of the CMS Caregiver 

Workgroup. Once developed, the partners 

identified other organizations that might partner 

for various reasons. One example was the 

Work Family Network of Maryland, a group of 

15 employers in the DC-Baltimore area concerned 

with their employees’ work and family 

issues. It helped with developing materials 

and providing employed caregivers for focus 

group testing. 

The partners defined their roles and responsibilities 

along three categories: develop the 

materials, test them, and distribute them. 

The partners came to the table to perform a 

specific function—help develop and distribute 

materials, post them on websites, provide 

caregivers for focus groups, make employer 

clients available for pilot tests, comment on 

materials, provide organizational logos as 

endorsement and legitimacy, and suggest 

ways to increase distribution. As the 


Medicare insurer, CMS was the ultimate 

authority on the text of the materials. 

This effort can be categorized as a performance-based 

partnership that arose from an 

unmet community need. There was no 

Medicare information targeted to caregivers 

prior to this effort. Partnership leadership was 

shared between CMS and the National Alliance 

for Caregiving. 

Results 

The partnership has produced high quality 

Medicare and eldercare information materials 

for employed caregivers. Interest from the 

employer community, workplace intermediaries, 

and caregiver community has been 

extensive. This partnership has accomplished 

meaningful results for customers and the community 

at large. 

The employer’s toolkit workbook for managers 

describes no cost/low cost eldercare programs. 

It provides a context for myriad caregiver services 

and support programs made available to 

employed caregivers through mid-size and 

small employers. CMS has received many testaments 

to the need for these materials during 

the focus group and pilot-testing phases. 

Employers and workplace intermediaries perceive 

the materials as credible, informative, and 

very useful. The potential audience numbers 

in the millions. If CMS can distribute the 

materials to a fraction of the proposed audience, 

many beneficiaries will better use Medicare services. 

In addition, their caregivers will become 

more educated about Medicare and may be able 

to be devote more time to their employment. 

Employers will increase their productivity and 

have more productive staff. 

Secondarily, CMS has discovered a new universe 

of partners with access to CMS’ target audience. 

Challenges 

CMS had no background in the caregiver 

arena and stepped outside its traditional box. 

It partnered with a host of organizations it had 

never communicated with before. The mission 

presented a rare win-win situation as there was 

a clear and unmet need for these products. 

The partners came to the table willingly since 

they perceived an unusual opportunity to work 

with CMS. The partnership successfully 

bridged the public, private, and voluntary sectors 

and their diverse value systems to develop 

excellent products. The products have 

achieved unique popularity and demand even 

though they are still being tested. The major 

challenges, oddly enough, will be in the public 

sector, such as bureaucratic clearance for printing 

and allocating funds. 


The opportunity to partner with a government 

agency—a regulatory one which very rarely 

sought external input—was a key turning 

point for the success of this project. CMS 

received a large and positive response from 

potential partners. The partnership’s structure 

leveraged the resources of diverse national 

organizations with state and local affiliates, 

allowing the products to be developed, tested, 

and potentially distributed to millions of 

employed caregivers. This approach generates 

local distribution from a national partnership. 

Also, CMS engaged stakeholders with experts 

that became invested in the partnership effort 

and played a major role in product promotion. 

Partners were impressed with the CMS staff’s 

flexibility and dedication. CMS and the government 

gained credibility and legitimacy 

through its partners. This led to leveraging 

more resources, maximizing existing assets, 

and building better relationships. 

Most employers do not currently include 

Medicare-related information in their programs. 

By institutionalizing it, CMS could reach caregivers 

on a continuing basis at low cost. 



chapter three 

THE PODER PROJECT 

DENVER, COLORADO 

With a population of 555,000 people, Denver 

is a rapidly growing metropolitan area, both in 

size and ethnic diversity. Its population rose 

nearly 19 percent during the 1990s, with 

Hispanics comprising nearly one-third of the 

increase. Denver is steeped in history, cultural 

diversity, and economic activity. Yet its residents 

have not prospered equally from its 

physical and economic development. Civic 

empowerment, job training, and neighborhood 

revitalization remain ongoing challenges 

for segments of the community. 

Denver is featured here due largely to the success 

of the NEWSED Community 

Development Corporation. Incorporated in 

1973 as a nonprofit, community-driven economic 

development organization, NEWSED 

seeks solutions to longstanding problems in 

disadvantaged Latino communities. In 1995, it 

joined with the City of Denver and other entities 

to establish the PODER Project in the La 

Alma/Lincoln Park community. The project 

was designed as a comprehensive model for 

addressing the economic, human services, and 

housing needs of these neighborhoods and 

their residents. 

La Alma/Lincoln Park has approximately 6,700 

people. However, the PODER Project includes 

residents in surrounding neighborhoods, 

bringing the total service area to 9,500 people. 

Nearly 70 percent of the targeted population is 

Latino, and another 15 percent is African 

American and Native American. Most residents 

are low-income, with a majority falling 

below the poverty line. Education levels are 

low, as well. The area has a 39.5 percent school 

dropout rate for those age 16-19, and 45.5 percent 

of those 25 and older lack a high school 

diploma. The crime rate for La Alma/Lincoln 

Park ranks seventh out of Denver’s 72 neighborhoods. 

Unemployment is four times the 

city average. 


Poder, a Spanish word meaning “power,” was 

chosen to describe this community development 

effort, signifying the purpose of empowering La 

Alma/Lincoln Park residents to positively change 

their community using a holistic and integrated 

approach. In its early stages, the PODER Project 

focused on developing a community skills and 

assets inventory and compiling a community 

resource directory. In 1999, it expanded in 

scope. A 31-member advisory council was 

established, composed of community residents 

and service agency, business, and state and local 

government representatives. 

The PODER Project has five priority initiatives: 

economic development/employment and 

training; arts and culture; housing; seniors; 

and PATCH, a mechanism for establishing a 

collaborative community-based service delivery 

process. PATCH provides intake and referral, 

interagency case management, and a centralized 

client-tracking system, regardless of 

the specific community agency delivering a 

service. This process is the “engine of change” 

for achieving the project’s overall goals. 


A 1996 survey of La Alma/Lincoln Park identified 

the Latino/Hispanic community’s gaps 

and services needs. It illustrated the need for 

mental health and domestic violence services. 

This is PATCH’s initial focus, but the holistic 

approach to community healing also includes a 

resident/youth leadership program, low-income 

health insurance, mentorship, bilingual education, 

Head Start, employment training, food 

bank, homeownership, and art and culture. 

Results 

In 2001, the PODER Project completed its 

three-year demonstration phase, during which 

it identified five goals to address its priority 

initiatives. The goals are: 

1. Maximize the capacity and impact of 

neighborhood resources (community 

empowerment). 

2. Develop an effective neighborhood-based 

human services delivery system (the 

PATCH process). 

3. Reform existing investment streams. 

4. Improve housing, physical, and social infrastructure. 

5. Strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of 

neighborhood governance collaboration. 

These goals emphasize outcomes that would 

directly benefit La Alma/Lincoln Park residents. 

They are designed to improve relationships 

between the residents and service delivery 

organizations, thereby increasing the 

capacity to accomplish more. 

Different methods are used to measure 

progress toward achieving these goals. 

Improved community empowerment and governance 

capacity are measured by the number 

of completed activities, while human services 

delivery and infrastructure improvement are 

assessed using more quantifiable outputs. The 

PODER Project has established specific targets, 

such as the number of first time home purchases, 

individuals receiving home ownership 

counseling, new businesses and jobs, and family 

case management services. In addition, 

investment streams are measured by dollars 

provided for project services and capital 

investments. 

Services delivered through the PATCH case 

management process in 2001 include: 

• 259 participants enrolled 

• Services provided 

• Domestic Violence – 53 recipients 

• Mental Health – 27 recipients 

• Substance Abuse – 76 recipients 

• 259 referrals from various sources, including 

PATCH Collaborative Probation, the 

Denver Health Department, Denver 

Department of Human Services, friends 

and relatives, and self-referral 

Challenges 

The PODER Project has encountered three 

main challenges. These are identifying and 

attracting partners capable of providing needed 

services, turf politics, and “agency centered”— 

rather than “client centered”—service delivery. 

To provide families with comprehensive services, 

the PODER/PATCH initiative continually 

searches for new programs to match the 

growth in community needs. The goal is to 

attract new partners to cover this spectrum 

while not duplicating other members’ efforts 

or programs. 

The partnership is intended to empower its 

members and the community. Yet the cultural 

dynamics of partner agencies also have presented 

a challenge. Some partners have felt 

threatened by interagency sharing. Also, a history 

of community politics has inhibited 

building a high level of trust among those 

involved. Gaps in computer technology and 

territorial issues exacerbate this situation. 



chapter three 

PODER/PATCH is overcoming an agency-centered 

approach to delivering services rather 

than focusing on client needs. The lack of sufficient 

funding has caused some competition. 

At times, agencies have viewed the collaborative 

approach as encroachment and a zero-sum 

game in which sharing service responsibilities 

would result in lost revenue and market share. 


The NEWSED organization is communitygrounded 

and involves residents in its activities. 

Its experience and array of services provide 

a foundation for building a successful 

cross-sector partnership. The PODER/PATCH 

effort has undertaken a significant planning 

effort to identify constituency needs. It also 

has surveyed community assets and opportunities 

for addressing needs. 

A strong community orientation has contributed 

to a broad-based, stakeholder 

approach to this partnership. Numerous 

organizations and people from the public, 

nonprofit, business, and civic sectors are active. 



Business 





Civic 

Results 

Chapter4 

Partnerships are judged on two 

dimensions. The first is the 

effectiveness of the partnering process 

as an organizational model. The second 

is the partnership’s actual performance 

in producing significant, quantifiable 

improvements in community or client 

conditions. This report defines results 

in terms of the second dimension as 

that distinguishes a high-performance 

partnership from other forms of 

collaboration.

RESULTS 

chapter four 

T 

he ability to produce significant positive results for the community or client makes a 

partnership high performance. Real and meaningful outcomes that are measurable, 

time specific, and important to the community or customer—this is what high performance 

is all about. 

RESULTS: 

Mothers in Hampton’s Healthy 

Start program had no repeat teen 

births (defined as pregnancy within 

12 months of the first child’s birth) 

in fiscal year 2002, compared to 30 

percent for the state of Virginia. 

98 percent of the children in 

Fairfax’s Medical Care for Children 

Partnership receive immunizations 

and health assessments, compared 

to only 78 percent of children not 

in the program. 

By partnering with the California 

Public Employee Retirement System, 

the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services has been able to 

more effectively communicate 

Medicare information to approximately 

1.2 million people. 

But, make no mistake. Meaningful outcomes are 

very difficult to achieve, especially when they 

involve multiple stakeholders and complex community 

issues. Simple partnerships are hard. 

High-performance partnerships can be extraordinarily 

so, but they are worth it. 

A partnership that has not yet achieved “highperformance 

status” can produce significant 

tangible value. And, many do. The partnering 

process alone can improve interagency relationships, 

communications, service coordination, 

and customer outreach and orientation. 

It also can help solidify a foundation of trust 

among the partners and community, leading to 

a common mission and willingness to share 

decision-making responsibility and accountability. 

Sometimes, these accomplishments may 

be the only things that one can realistically 

expect from a partnership in its early stages. 

Without an effective structure, exceptional performance 

is unlikely to occur. 

HOW TO MEET CHALLENGES 

TO RESULTS 

Since results define success, how can a partnership 

position itself to maximize its performance? 

What elements must be in place for it to become 

high performance? 

Performance measurement has been the subject 

of many publications and training sessions. 

Several national organizations, including the 

International City/County Management 

Association, Government Financial Officers 

Association, and National Association of 

Counties, assist partnerships in understanding 


and establishing performance management systems. 

This report does not repeat the information 

available from these resources. Instead, the 

design labs focused on identifying major challenges 

that a partnership can face and strategies 

to address them. 

Table 4-1 gives some tips for measuring performance, 

as well as traps to avoid. Academy Fellows 

Gail Christopher and Camille Cates Barnett 

developed the list. 

DEFINING SUCCESS 

The Challenges 

Success is in the eye of the beholder. Partners 

and stakeholders may have very different 

notions of how to measure success on any 

given issue. For example, communities that 

struggle to provide affordable housing can 

measure success using a range of statistics, 

such as a reduction in homelessness, fewer 

people living in substandard housing, decrease 

in the percentage of income required to obtain 

housing, and increased home ownership for 

low and moderate-income families. All of 

these measures are valid, yet achieving them 

requires different strategies. 

Defining high performance is difficult, yet central 

to significant, long-term community improvement. 

Oakland’s Safe Passages provides one example of 

defining very specific high performance results: 

• Reduce youth arrests for violent offenses by 35 

percent by 2005. 

• Reduce suspensions for violence by 30 percent 

at 10 middle schools by 2005. 

Once a partnership determines performance 

indicators, it must decide the targets of success. 

Using the previous example, does a 5 percent 

increase in low and moderate-income home 

ownership equal high performance? Or, does 

it take a 10 percent increase? How can a public/nonprofit 

partnership set goals that achieve 

extraordinary results, yet not be so ambitious 

as to doom the effort? Even broad-based partnerships 

cannot exclusively solve significant 

community issues. As a result, some organizations 

may be reluctant to be held accountable 

for outcomes beyond their direct control. If 

the partnership is not willing to be accountable 

for the bottom line result, however, who is? 

TABLE 4-1 

TIPS AND TRAPS FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE 

TIPS 

Focus on results that matter. 

Keep it simple. 

Focus on the critical few. 

Link performance measurement 

to decisions. 

Success is not instant. 

Ask customers what they want. 

Report results widely. 

Data are a necessary expense. 

Don’t give up. 

TRAPS 

Measure what is available. 

Dazzle them with statistics. 

Try to measure everything. 

View performance measurement as an end, 

not a means. 

Change course at will. 

This is a job for professionals. 

Use performance measures to blame people. 

Expect measures to report on themselves. 

Inaction: It is easy to avoid the hard work of 

focusing on results. 


RESULTS 

chapter four 

The Strategies 

1. Agree on definitions of success at the outset. 

Defining success is the first step in getting 

started. This step may sound simple, but partnerships 

often fail to complete it in their rush 

to begin. Partners, funders, and stakeholders 

must share in identifying the partnership’s 

desired outcomes and performance measures. 

The greater the specificity and precision, the 

greater the likelihood that the partnership will 

achieve meaningful results and minimize internal 

conflict. The partnership may employ different 

strategies for achieving its goal, but the 

goal should be constant and the methods for 

evaluating success stable. 

2. Consider the mission, and then define the 

results that achieve it. 

Linking outcomes to the partnership’s purpose 

is critical. A clear mission should be the starting 

point for defining and measuring performance 

goals. If the goal is to reduce violent 

crime in a community, defining success based 

on the murder rate is too limited. The partnership 

should change its mission to reduce 

the number of murders in the community, or 

broaden its performance measure to include all 

violent crimes. 

3. Identify a “family” of performance measures. 

Partnerships, especially young ones, should 

focus on a limited number of important outcomes. 

The “critical few” concept recognizes 

that a single collaboration—even a high-performance 

one—cannot be all things to all 

stakeholders. The partnership must balance its 

focus with the need to measure success from 

various perspectives: short-term vs. long-term, 

qualitative vs. quantitative, and perception vs. 

reality. Funders may desire one set of outcomes, 

the community a different set, and 

individual partners still another. It is very 

challenging to select a family of measurable 

outcomes that satisfies everybody but does not 

spread the partnership’s attention and 

resources too thin. 

Outcome targets should balance stretch goals 

measuring truly extraordinary performance 

with realistic goals enabling the partnership to 

celebrate incremental successes. A goal that is 

too easy to achieve may render collaboration 

irrelevant to addressing the core issues facing a 

community. Conversely, a goal that is too 

aggressive may cause the partnership to fall 

short and appear ineffective. 

Baseline data must be captured to evaluate the 

partnership’s success in achieving results. Over 

time, performance should be measured against 

baseline conditions, the partnership’s mission 

and goals, and similar community or peer 

group activities. 

The mission of Milwaukee’s 

Lapham Park Venture is to 

create a “supportive continuing 

care community where 

low-income older adults can 

comfortably age in place.” 

The Venture’s measure of 

success is that 96 percent of 

its residents do just that. 


PROGRAM 

AREA 

TABLE 4-2 

SAMPLE PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

OBJECTIVE INPUT OUTPUT EFFICIENCY SERVICE 

QUALITY 

OUTCOME 

Housing 

To increase the 

amount of 

owner-occupied 

housing in 

designated 

neighborhoods 

from 45% to 60% 

by 2010. 

Dollars spent 

to construct 

and 

rehabilitate 

housing units. 

Number of new 

and rehabilitated 

housing 

units produced 

within the designated 

neighborhoods. 

Cost per 

housing unit. 

Percentage 

of buyers 

who felt the 

quality and 

value of the 

housing unit 

were 

excellent or 

good. 

Percentage 

of owneroccupied 

dwelling 

units in the 

designated 

neighborhoods. 

Child 

Health Care 

To reduce number 

of low birthweight 

babies as 

a percentage of 

live births by 

10% in 1999 and 

15% in 2000. 

Expenditures 

(by program 

or activity). 

Number of 

pregnant 

women receiving 

care in first 

trimester. 

Cost per 

woman 

receiving 

care in the 

first 

trimester. 

Percentage 

of women 

who felt they 

received 

good or 

excellent 

prenatal 

care. 

Number of 

low birthweight 

babies as a 

percentage 

of live births 

born in 1999 

and 2000. 

Source: National Association of Counties with additions by Connie Bawcum 

The various types of performance measures can 

be confusing. A “Family of Measures” is provided 

in Table 4-2. For high-performance partnerships, 

the most important type is outcomes. Not 

that other measures are unimportant, but they 

are less indicative of real improvements that are 

critical to people and communities. 

The design lab partnerships provide excellent 

examples of output and outcome measures, as 

shown in Table 4-3. Both are important in 

determining success, but the primary focus 

should be outcomes. 

TABLE 4-3 

EXAMPLES OF OUTPUT VS. OUTCOME MEASURES 

PARTNERSHIP OUTPUT OUTCOMES 

Healthy Families 

Partnership (Hampton) 

30,000 children reached in 

2002. 

2,713 adults participated in 

parenting classes in 2002. 

Reduced rate of child abuse 

and neglect by 26.8 % from 

1992-2000. 

Reduced infant mortality rate 

from 13.0 per 1000 live 

births in 1992 to 8.4 in 2000. 

Medical Care for Children 

Partnership (Fairfax) 

7,140 children served in 

2002. 

97% of children immunized 

compared with 73% 

statewide. 

Neighborhoods in Bloom 

(Richmond) 

90 vacant, abandoned houses 

eliminated. 

Reduced crime in NIB areas 

by 15% from 2000 to 2002, 

compared with 5% in the 

rest of the city. 


RESULTS 

chapter four 

4. Define results that are important to the 

partners, community, and funders. 

Most public/nonprofit partnerships are not 

blessed with self-sustaining funding sources. It 

is imperative that they achieve results important 

to funders and the community at large. 

Key stakeholders must conclude that their 

return on investment warrants the time and 

resources devoted to the collaborative effort. 

5. Low risk means low success. 

The public sector generally is risk adverse, and 

for good reason. Government must be a steward 

of the public’s interests and tax dollars. 

However, partnerships that avoid all risk will 

not realize their full potential. They must be 

willing to take reasonable, informed risks that 

are designed to achieve significant results. 

Otherwise, their success can only be so great. 

If the initiative does not work, partnerships 

should be prepared to evaluate what happened, 

retool, and try again. 

6. Use research on best practices. 

Partnerships benefit enormously by studying 

the successes and failures of other communities 

that deal with similar concerns. Public 

organizations at every level—federal, regional, 

state, and local—provide excellent research on 

a wide range of public policy issues. Each sector 

has organizations that can provide best 

practices data for defining appropriate objectives 

and outcomes and assisting implementation 

strategies. The partnership may use neutral 

parties to facilitate the selection of measures 

and evaluation processes. 

In the City of Des Moines, debate continues over how 

data should be interpreted. If there is an increase in 

police calls from a neighborhood, does this mean there is 

more crime or greater awareness and reporting due to 

an officer being assigned there? If calls decrease, does 

this mean the neighborhood is safer or that calls are 

being directed to the NBSD officer? The likelihood is 

that data must be tracked for several years before they 

can be meaningfully interpreted. 

Neighborhood Based Service Delivery (Des Moines) 

AVAILABILITY OF ACCURATE,TIMELY 

DATA TO MEASURE RESULTS 


Once a partnership identifies its results, it 

must adequately measure performance. Yet 

securing accurate and timely data can be problematic. 

One challenge is the lack of sufficient 

baseline information to evaluate current conditions. 

This frequently causes communities 

and organizations to embrace a policy or program 

based on anecdotal information. One 

example is a partnership that uses juvenile 

arrest statistics to measure the reducing juvenile 

crime goal. This measure may capture the 

police department’s effectiveness in apprehending 

criminals, not the true number of 

juvenile crimes. Raw data can be difficult to 

interpret without considering the context, so a 

partnership must avoid the temptation to 

define its objectives based primarily on those 

data alone. 

Important community outcomes often are difficult 

to quantify, at least on a timely basis. 

High data gathering costs may cause a partnership 

to rely on information collected for general 

community purposes, such as the Census. 

Unfortunately, definitive results every decade 

are not sufficient to evaluate partnership performance 

and make midcourse corrections. 

For example, Neighborhoods in Bloom identified 

increased home ownership as a critical success 

measure. Other than decennial census 

information, however, homeownership data 

were not available on a reliable basis. As a result, 

the city’s ability to accurately measure its impact 

on ownership rates proved challenging. 

Even with quantifiable information, reporting 

timelines and formats may be different. The 

partnership must be aware of the general availability 

of data, and the partners’ willingness 

and ability to record them in a consistent and 

timely manner. Complexity further increases 

when the data come from different organizational 

systems, raising the “my computer doesn’t 

talk to your computer” syndrome. When a 

partnership’s purpose is human services-related, 

confidentiality of information can be an 

obstacle, as well. 


The Lapham Park Venture originally identified reducing the 

number of emergency room visits as a partnership outcome. 

However, the partners soon realized that obtaining 

emergency room statistics was difficult. Additionally, given 

that the goal is to keep seniors living in their homes 

longer, frail individuals living at Lapham Park could potentially 

lead to more rescue squad calls, not fewer. The partnership 

decided to focus on other measurable outcomes 

more closely linked to the overall goal, such as the number 

of residents who normally would have been placed in nursing 

homes without the services of the Venture and those 

who avoided danger of eviction. 

Ken Barbeau, Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee) 


A successful partnership employs substantial 

means to overcome the “data obstacle.” It is 

critical to identify gaps and assess specific 

strategies for filling them. Some strategies 

include: 

1. Define evaluation strategies and data 

needs at the outset. 

It is possible to measure performance using 

various evaluation methodologies. The specific 

approach should be tailored to the desired 

outcome and decided when the mission and 

goals are defined. Assessment tools include 

statistically valid samples and surveys, pre- and 

post-tests on target populations, control groups, 

random samples, customer feedback instruments, 

focus groups, case studies, and general 

community statistics. For many services, outcomes 

are measured by “counting” the occurrences 

of a specific event or condition sustained 

over time. An independent auditor or program 

expert may validate the results. 

The evaluation methodology drives the types of 

data needed. Output data are needed for all of a 

partnership’s services and activities. Participants 

should be held accountable for collecting and 

reporting this information in a consistent format. 

National, state, or local data can measure 

changes in community dynamics that are outcomes, 

such as crime, economic activity, and 

The Family Strengthening Coalition identified “good 

data” as those that can be easily collected and for 

which baseline information exists. “Bad” data are the 

opposite— not currently collected, difficult to do so, 

and without a baseline. Proxy statistics are the best 

available measures of some outcomes. As an example, 

to measure whether “families are healthy and safe,” the 

indicator is a decrease in child abuse and neglect, and 

the data source is substantiated cases. 


physical conditions. The partnership should 

inventory these data to determine whether additional 

statistics are needed. If so, it may need to 

commission community surveys. 

2. Use available data, including surrogate 

measures. 

A partnership should not base its desired 

results solely on the availability of data. At the 

same time, it should not determine goals without 

considering its overall ability to measure 

them. A surrogate measure can be used until a 

more reliable measure can be developed. 

3. Involve an evaluation expert up front. 

A partnership cannot assume that its “good 

work”will generate immediate recognition and 

praise. It must routinely and continually prove 


RESULTS 

chapter four 

Healthy Families has involved the College of William and 

Mary to evaluate the program from its initial planning 

phase. We knew that every dollar allocated to evaluation 

would be one less dollar spent on services to families. 

We also knew that the organization’s future 

depended on our ability to secure ongoing funding that 

would only be available if we had documented results. 

During the first four years, Healthy Families spent 

approximately $100,000 on evaluation. It was well 

worth the investment. Today, the partnership receives 

more than $2.7 million in city funding, $1 million a year 

in donations and in-kind and redirected resources from 

community partners, and approximately $850,000 in federal 

reimbursements. We believe that all of these 

resources are a direct result of the investment made in 

conducting a strong evaluation and our ongoing commitment 

to collect qualitative and quantitative information. 

Debbie Russell, Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) 

its successes. Investing in an evaluation expert 

is money well spent, and there are several 

options to do this. A central entity that routinely 

collects community information may be 

willing to provide data analysis. Examples 

include a university, district planning commission, 

foundation, or national organization 

adept at research and evaluation. Another 

option is to build evaluation costs into a partnership’s 

initial budget. 

4. Reward stakeholders for providing accurate 

and timely data. 

Data come at a cost. A partnership must not 

be afraid to incentivize positive behavior that 

contributes to its overall effectiveness. This 

includes accurate and timely data collection 

and reporting. 

THE COST OF MEASURING RESULTS 

Data collection can be very expensive, and 

many initiatives do not have vast resources. 

Yet the effectiveness of the entire effort may be 

questioned without adequate evaluation. The 

partnership faces a dilemma: deliver more 

units of service or reduce the number to evaluate 

the effectiveness of those that are. 


First and foremost, the design lab participants 

recommend that other partnerships “just do 

it.” Continuing to support an unproductive 

program is unwise. Neither the public nor 

nonprofit sector has such an abundance of 

resources to permit prolonged inefficiency. 

Accountability to taxpayers, donors, and other 

funders requires an effective evaluation 

process. Given limited resources, how can a 

cross-sector partnership evaluate program 

effectiveness and communicate the results? 

1. Get a partner with evaluation capability. 

Partnerships generally include service delivery 

agencies. These are essential, but so is program 

evaluation. Partnerships can recruit a 

member with this evaluative capability, such as 

a university, foundation, or research organization. 

This is similar to a strategy offered for 

the prior challenge. 

2. Develop the capacity for self-evaluation. 

An internal audit may not be as universally 

accepted as an independent evaluation, but it 

provides the opportunity to make midcourse 

adjustments. It is not critical for the partnership 

to have an optimal evaluation methodology,but 

it is essential that an evaluative component 

exists from the outset. 

3. Just do it. 

Resources may generally be limited but, again, 

a partnership should fund program evaluation 

in its initial budget. Showing early results 

could help to secure second phase funding or 

constituent support, making this line item a 

worthwhile expenditure. Further, midcourse 

corrections without supporting data would be 

hazardous at best. 


THE DATA TRAP 

No partnership can claim to be high performance 

without documenting significant outcomes. 

That said, a successful partnership 

should not completely ignore the human element—the 

stories of how the partnership 

improved real people’s lives. These examples 

personalize the results in a way that statistics 

cannot. They communicate a more complete 

picture of the partnership’s impact on the 

community. 

The National Cancer Institute has 

rigorous evaluation procedures for 

5 A Day for Better Health. 

Formative research was 

conducted to develop 

communications strategies and 

messages prior to the program’s 

launch. NCI funded nine behaviorchange 

research and evaluation 

studies using randomized designs 

to determine the effectiveness of 

5 A Day interventions. Projects 

were conducted in community 

settings, such as schools, churches, 

and worksites. These accounted 

for $18 million in program’s 

expenditures. 

Results should be reported in statistical terms 

and specific examples that can influence stakeholders’ 

impressions. Perceptions are reality 

and often influenced as much by individual 

examples as numbers. For instance, the perception 

of neighborhood safety can be more 

meaningful than statistics. A Richmond resident 

in Neighborhoods in Bloom related that 

she felt her neighborhood was safer because 

trick or treaters came to her home on 

Halloween, the first time in many years. 

IT’S JUST NOT WORKING 

The Challenge 

Regardless of good intentions and hard work, 

collaborations are not always successful. In 

fact, most partnerships fail within their first 

few years because they have not resolved their 

challenges. There can be numerous reasons for 

a partnership to fail or fall short of expectations. 

How does the partnership cut its losses 

when things are not working as planned or 

Success measures for Neighborhood Based Service 

Delivery are largely anecdotal. One problem landlord 

grew tired of pressure from city staff and neighborhood 

residents to “clean up” his act and moved 

out. He moved to another NBSD area, confronted 

the same response, and moved to yet another one. 

Realizing that the city and the neighborhoods would 

not tolerate his behavior, the landlord moved out of 

the city entirely. 


RESULTS 

chapter four 

when results are not sufficient to continue? 

The decision to “pull the plug” may come from 

partners or funders when they feel that their 

investment is not cost effective. Customers or 

constituents could choose another alternative 

if they feel that the results do not warrant their 

continued patronage. 

The Strategy 

The partnership and community should anticipate 

the possibility that an effort is not sustainable. 

The best approach is to develop an 

exit strategy up front. The partnership should 

identify the legal and service activities that still 

must be accomplished should the organization 

cease to exist. It has an obligation to ensure 

that whatever its mission, the service rendered 

does not abruptly end, leaving the customers 

and community without recourse. 

Going “out of business” is not the only available 

exit strategy. In many cases, the partnership 

can morph into a different structure or 

adjust its mission to increase cost effectiveness. 

Analyzing the initiative’s parts and correcting 

deficiencies are critical. 

Whatever the exit strategy, the partners and 

community should learn from the experience. 

The community need that first produced the 

partnership still would exist. Although a specific 

attempt may have proved ineffective, it 

could provide excellent lessons on how to 

structure future partnerships. 



Business 





Civic 

Leadership 

Chapter5 

Except for results, leadership is 

the most important contributor 

to a high-performance 

partnership. Leaders are the 

individuals or organizations 

that convene and mobilize the 

partners and broader 

stakeholders. They champion 

the mission internally and 

externally, harnessing the 

necessary resources and 

ensuring the partnership’s 

performance.

LEADERSHIP 

chapter five 

D espite the desire to use a methodical process to create them, cross-sector partnerships sometimes 

just happen. Other times, they do not despite seemingly favorable conditions. Success 

or failure is often due to the presence or absence of adequate leadership. When communities 

face crises, dynamic and visionary individuals can emerge to assemble parties that can make a difference. 

These champions—or leader/guiders—provide the vision, motivation, and incentives to 

create partnerships (National League of Cities, 2000). 

Beyond their role as champion, leaders organize 

the partnership and make it work. In this role as 

leader/facilitator, they provide overall direction 

and ensure that a sustainable management 

structure is in place. It is important to note that 

stable, effective partnerships share ownership of 

the mission and outcomes, and diffuse leadership 

roles throughout the organization. No one 

individual is likely to exhibit every leadership 

characteristic needed to create and sustain a 

high-performance partnership. As a partnership 

evolves, the type of leadership also will evolve. 

The design lab participants identified five key 

components—the five “Cs”—of leadership: 

credibility, commitment, change agent, communications, 

and capability. The early credibility 

of the partnership is inextricably linked to the 

credibility of its leadership. Until the partnership 

can establish its own track record and sense 

of identity, the image of those associated with it 

is influential. Funders, other partners, and the 

broader community must believe that the 

endeavor is worth their investment and support. 

This perception hinges on the leadership’s 

reputation until the partnership can prove its 

competency. 

Commitment to the partnership’s vision and 

mission also is key. A motivational leader inculcates 

a partnership’s vision and values throughout 

the members, thus increasing the likelihood 

of success. It is absolutely critical that the partnership’s 

leaders “keep an eye on the prize.” All 

organizations, but especially high-performance 

ones, must affirm and reaffirm their mission, 

vision, and goals. 

Leaders must be able to get things done, especially 

in the early stages of collaboration. As such, they 

are agents of change. If the status quo worked 

well, there would be no need to create a new partnership. 

They must be able to identify changes 

and implement them quickly and effectively. 

A change agent’s effectiveness is dependent upon 

the ability to motivate stakeholders to share the 

partnership’s vision and understand the need for 

change. Thus, communications skills are a vital 

element. Clearly communicating the partnership’s 

purpose to internal and external audiences 

is essential to developing support for activities. 

The leader also must be able to deliver difficult 

messages, such as defending the need for further 

change or explaining results that fall below 

expectations. Delivering messages in an instructive 

manner is a clear sign of a capable leader. 

Talented leaders surround themselves with 

resourceful individuals and organizations. In 

addition, they must exhibit such resourcefulness 

and capability themselves. The ability to focus 

on outcomes and marshal support for them is 

especially important in the early stages. 


FIGURE 5-1 

THE 5 C’S OF EFFECTIVE 

LEADERSHIP 

Capability 

Communications 

Change Agent 

Commitment 

Credability 

Source: Spencer Schron, Centers for Medicare and 


THE LEADERSHIP 

CONTINUUM 

As a partnership develops, leadership needs 

evolve. The skills and strategies appropriate for 

a mature partnership are different from those 

required for getting one started. Although the 

components of effective leadership are important 

throughout a partnership’s life cycle, they 

are particularly critical during the formative 

stage. The leadership must be strong and visible 

in its approach to get the partnership organized 

and focused on a mission and vision. 

Strategic planning and monitoring implementation 

are crucial in the first few years of development, 

as well. Unless the partnership is blessed 

with abundant resources, the leader’s role is to 

champion the mission and desired outcomes 

and inspire active support among the political, 

cultural, and social spheres within which it operates. 

A new partnership has few institutions and 

systems of its own, yet has the very difficult task 

of merging and supplementing functions using 

diverse partners. An entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, 

and perseverance are required. 

After the “crunch” of its initial startup, a partnership 

generally spends time institutionalizing 

the systems and foundations for its future. 

Cheerleading becomes a more important attribute 

for the leadership cadre as it seeks to re-energize 

activities and people. Also, the partnership 

must critique its early results and make midcourse 

adjustments to grow its operations. The 

leaders who convened the partnership often pass 

the torch to skilled managers who can institutionalize 

structure and systems. A high-performance 

partnership needs good leaders and 

good managers. These qualities rarely are found 

in the same individuals. 

As a partnership matures, the leadership shifts its 

focus toward continually improving the operation. 

Celebrating success and re-energizing the effort 

are especially important given that the partnership 

may broaden its service area, activities, or even 

mission. Thus, the leadership’s iterative role 

comes full circle. The entrepreneurial approach 

that created the partnership in the first place 

becomes relevant again as the partnership branches 

into new areas. But make no mistake: Without 

effective leadership from one or more individuals, 

extraordinary results are unlikely to occur and the 

partnership may exist in name only. 

Re-energizing 

Succession Planning 

Reinvention 

Cheerleader 

Celebrate Success 

Strategic 

FIGURE 5-2 

LEADERSHIP CONTINUUM 

Mature 

Strong 

Visible 

Champion 

Entrepreneurial 

Inspires Participation 

Start Up 

Leadership 

Skills 

Developing 

Facilitator 

Management Skills 

Empowerment 

Joint Ownership 

Source: Al Burris, Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 


LEADERSHIP 

chapter five 


TO LEADERSHIP 

Every high-performance partnership must be 

vigilant in addressing the challenges to establishing 

and maintaining effective leadership. The 

challenges deal with relationships and a partnership’s 

intangible features, not the actual bricks, 

mortar, or dollars. These aspects are difficult to 

quantify and resolve. Yet the lack of dynamic, 

strong leaders can doom a partnership faster 

than any other factor. 

STRONG LEADER VS. SHARED 

OWNERSHIP 


One or several key decision-makers “convene” 

the parties during a partnership’s formative 

stage. Leadership often is centralized around a 

dynamic, inspirational individual or organization 

that can focus attention on the issues and 

create a collaborative environment. Centralized 

leadership may facilitate a cross-sector partnership, 

but a single leader cannot dominate collaborative 

endeavors indefinitely. A shared leadership 

structure is crucial for long-term viability. 

“A leader’s strength is defined by one’s ability to 

influence. Strong leaders must be able to balance 

their decisiveness with their ability to engage multiple 

partners.” 

Design Lab Participant 

The Medical Care for Children Partnership has 

existed for 15 years. Leadership is provided by an 

executive committee composed of representatives 

from every sector of the partnership. To address 

the leadership continuum, the executive committee 

has a co-chair, treasurer, and positions-elect, so that 

individuals have a learning experience before they 

actually begin their term. Officers who have 

completed their term remain in an ex-officio 

capacity. Over time, several individuals have recycled 

into the same position or assumed other leadership 

roles. Thus, all the partners share in the leadership 

and qualified others wait in the wings. 

The complexity and diversity among stakeholders 

and partners increase the imperative for a 

more decentralized leadership structure. An 

institution built around a single party is unlikely 

to weather transition well. 

Authority sharing is essential to a sustainable, 

effective partnership. Participants must feel a 

sense of shared ownership and be willing to 

accept joint accountability for results. Also, individual 

partners must reduce their parochial interests 

for the greater good. Yet attaining a collaborative 

decision-making approach can be difficult, 

especially with dynamic and directive leaders. As 

leadership functions are diffused throughout the 

partnership, sustaining broad commitment to the 

same vision and goals is challenging; partner 

organizations may have different cultures and 

approaches to problem solving. 


1. Map assets to identify other leaders. 

During its initial start up, the partnership should 

map its assets and identify those that exhibit 

some or all of the Five Cs of Effective 

Leadership. It is important to nurture and train 

them and provide opportunities to develop their 

leadership skills. Mentoring opportunities, continuing 

education, and sometimes “trial by fire” 

are useful techniques. 

2. Invest in team building. 

Cross-sector partnerships often involve organizations 

that are unfamiliar to each other. Trust 

and real understanding may not exist at the outset. 

Investing in team building is investing in 

leadership development. This strategy assists 

participants in learning and understanding other 

philosophies and values, diffusing internal competition, 

and facilitating the power sharing needed 

for productive collaboration. A stronger 

team is more willing to share decision-making 

and accept accountability for results. 

3. Recruit from other successful initiatives. 

Qualities proven effective in other partnerships 

may be well suited for another endeavor. It is 

worthwhile to recruit parties with solid track 

records, convince them of a partnership’s value, 

and urge their participation as steering committee 

members, staff, or volunteers. 


SURVIVING TRANSITIONS 

IN LEADERSHIP 


Working in the public, nonprofit, and civic sectors 

presents significant demands. Politics, promotions, 

transfers, and burn-out can cause individuals 

to leave their leadership positions. 

Departures can be swift. It is not uncommon 

for a partnership’s leadership team to turn over 

in the first few years. Sustaining leadership over 

time is a formidable challenge. 

A successful partnership creates a sense of joint 

ownership that lessens the adverse ramifications 

of leadership transitions. When an initial champion 

moves on, others emerge because the partnership 

has taken proactive steps to decentralize 

authority and responsibility. As the partnership 

becomes more mature, it can recruit others from 

the community. Of course, early successes also 

help to sustain a leader’s participation, as well as 

the partnership’s energy and attractiveness. 

Leadership changes can be a double-edged 

sword for cross-sector partnerships. An inspirational, 

directive leadership style is effective in 

creating a partnership because it helps get critical 

steps organized and under way. However, as 

the partnership becomes “institutionalized,” it 

should become less dependent upon personality-driven 

leadership. It must assess the leadership 

skills needed at a given point in time and 

not be reluctant to make adjustments. 

FIGURE 5-3 

AVOIDING BURNOUT 

Leadership change should be considered in its most 

comprehensive context. Succession planning should 

occur at every level and for every partner. For 

example, when MCCP’s key HMO contact retired, 

he identified, mentored, and prepared his successor. 

He made sure that the successor shared the partnership’s 

philosophy and had the ability and authority 

to carry the message inside and outside the HMO 

(and get results!). 


Leadership change is not necessarily bad. 

Stability and change are needed over time. 

Stability, which enhances continuity and institutional 

knowledge, can be provided by sharing 

power and training the next generation of leaders. 

Change, which infuses new people and 

ideas, can re-energize the partnership and keep it 

innovative and fresh. 

1. Do formal succession planning. 


Transitions inevitably occur, so it is important to 

develop a formal succession plan and share it 

with the entire partnership and community. 

Governing boards often rotate leadership positions; 

this method may work well for a 

public/nonprofit partnership. 

It is important to designate a career ladder, or 

sometimes an heir apparent, for key positions. 

Major corporations have used this approach by 

naming successors before a leader departs. This 

type of planning affords the opportunity to maintain 

continuity and stability, and educate future 

leaders so they are prepared to assume the helm. 

However, formal succession planning should not 

exclude those outside the leadership hierarchy. 

As discussed earlier, broadly shared power and 

leadership responsibilities are vital to a high-performance 

partnership. It is important to groom 

future leaders through training, shadow or 

deputy positions, and mentor/protégé relationships. 

This should be done widely throughout 

the organization. 

Source: Ed Leedon, Neighborhood Based Service Delivery (Des Moines) 


LEADERSHIP 

chapter five 

2. Use incentives and recognize 

achievements. 

Incentives can be a powerful motivator to reinforce 

positive behavior and sustain leaders. 

Extensive research describes the incentives that 

are most effective, such as increased decisionmaking 

authority, monetary rewards, and recognition 

for a job well done. Communicating 

partnership results to the community fosters 

broad-based support for other activities. A wellregarded 

partnership has a greater likelihood of 

retaining its current workforce and recruiting 

future leaders than a poorly performing one. 

3. Establish mentor/protégé relationships. 

A partnership’s leaders are the best source of 

inspiration for the next generation of leaders. 

By creating an extensive mentor/protégé initiative, 

a high-performance partnership achieves 

mutual benefits. Leaders help prevent their own 

burnout by developing a talented cadre to help 

shoulder the load. The protégé benefits by 

becoming prepared for a leadership position. 

This is one of the best ways to transmit values 

and vision throughout the partnership. 

FIGURE 5-4 

LEADERSHIP COLLAGE 

Leadership 

• Focus on what you 

have in common, not 

on your difference. 

• Build on commonalities. 

• "let's make a difference 

in the world." 

Extend 

the Reach 

Asset Mapping 

Mobilize 

Partners 

Manage 

change 

There's a need for both change 

and stability in partnerships. 

Look for the "up" and "down" 

side in both. 

• Infancy (birth to 3 years) 

-Serve as Entrepreneur 

• Mid-Life (3—10 years) 

-Serves as Mentor 

• Mature (10 years) 

-Serves as Storyteller 

Develop 

Others 

Leaders 

Make it 

Happen 

Point 

the way 

• Cheerleaders make noise. 

Champions make it happen. 

• Corporate storytelling 

is important. This is 

how values are shared. 

...so to 

avoid burnout. 

Ensure 


• Deliver the 

goods (and services) 

• Maximize ROI 

Grow 

in the 

Office 

Work in larger 

complex areas 

where others they 

do not see daily 

must be trusted. 

Harness 

Resources 

Leverage other's efforts. 

...as they serve as 

stewards of stakeholder 

$$$ and the public's trust. 



Business 





Civic 

Mission and 

Planning 

Chapter6 

The design lab participants identified 

a shared, compelling mission—coupled 

with a strategic plan to accomplish 

it—as the third most important 

characteristic of a high-performance 

partnership. A clear mission defines 

the partnership’s soul and reason for 

being. Without it, a collaborative 

effort cannot achieve significant 

results. It is the glue that holds the 

partnership together.

MISSION AND PLANNING 

chapter six 

he public, nonprofit, and civic sectors frequently want to work together, and they 

T 

broadly embrace collaboration. In practice, however, the mechanics for doing so can be 

elusive. There must be a compelling reason for organizations—especially those from different 

sectors—to sacrifice their autonomy and share responsibility, resources, and accountability. The 

process begins with agreeing on the problem and ways to address it. Organizations will meaningfully 

participate in a partnership if the purpose is convincing. An organization is more likely to join 

if the partnership’s mission aligns or overlaps with its own. This can be a win-win situation for the 

entire partnership and its individual members. 

Once a mission is established, the next step is 

to identify key goals. The goals should specify 

what the partnership plans to accomplish, and 

when. They should be measurable and directly 

tied to the collaboration’s purpose. Only then 

is the partnership fully prepared to develop its 

strategic plan which “operationalizes” the mission 

and goals. The plan should identify the 

specific actions, roles, responsibilities, timeframe, 

and resources. 

“We have a mission that all the partners can easily 

relate to and feel passionate about.Whenever 

we run into trouble, turf conflict, or disagreement, 

our focus on the goal—all children born 

healthy and entering school healthy and ready to 

learn—enables us to come back together and 

proceed with our work toward that goal.” 

Debbie Russell, Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) 

FIGURE 6-1 

MISSION,VISION,AND PLANNING COLLAGE 

Mission, Vision, Planning 

• Specific 

• Measurable 

• Action-Oriented 

• Realistic 

• Timely 

WORK 

SMART 

DO IT 

UP FRONT 

GET 

AGREEMENT 

• Round up the usual 

suspects then add 

non-traditional members 

• Identify partners with 

clout via asset mapping 

• Document MVP in writing 

• Private sector and 

money partners want 

to see a ROI 

• Customers demand 

short-term results 

• Volunteers are 

motivated by 

intangibles 

• Thank everyone 

But know that it’s 

impossible to 

please everyone 

THE KISS 

PRINCIPLE 

MVP IS 

POLITICALLY 

ESSENTIAL 

Know your 

audience & tailor 

reports to what’s 

important to 

each partner. 

THE 

GLUE THAT 

UNIFIES THE 

PARTNERSHIP 

KEEP 

PLANS UP 

TO DATE 

ARTICULATE 

THE 

VISION 

• It’s an iterative 

process 

• Evolves with 

changing needs 

COMPELLING 

MVP & 

VALUES 

• Why we do what we do 

• Where we want to go 

• How we’ll get there 

• How we act along 

the way 

• In oral histories 

• In marketing literature 

• In writing 

But don’t get bogged 

down with trying to 

make it perfect. 


Without a well-documented mission statement, 

measurable goals, and detailed plan, the 

partnership cannot effectively harness and 

channel its members’ actions and resources. In 

short, it cannot achieve high performance. 

Figure 6-2 outlines the framework for creating 

a high-performance partnership. 

FIGURE 6-2 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP 

FRAMEWORK 

Mission 


TO MISSION AND PLANNING 

LACK OF A CLEAR, COMPELLING 

MISSION AND STRATEGIC PLAN 

The Challenge 

Mission statements provide clarity of purpose 

as they describe the partnership’s ultimate destination. 

They are especially important when 

multiple and diverse organizations are 

involved. Yet in the rush to act, an otherwise 

well-structured partnership may fail to emphasize 

this critical element. 

Defining the partnership’s purpose to encourage 

support and buy-in is another difficulty. 

The greater the number and diversity of entities 

involved, the more difficult it may be to 

achieve consensus on purpose and required 

activities. With scarce resources, many partners 

may compete for support and funding, 

inhibiting consensus on the partnership’s mission 

and action plan. Obtaining agreement is 

more problematic when a mission does not 

align with potential partners’ missions. 

Even with a clear and agreed upon mission, 

communicating it is a third hurdle. 

Stakeholders must be familiar with a performance-oriented 

mission and how they can contribute 

to fulfilling the partnership’s goals. 


1. Develop a clear, compelling mission. 

Partnerships often fail to undertake the most 

obvious strategy for developing a clear, compelling 

mission. Developing a written statement 

of the partnership’s mission and goals should be 

the first order of business. The statement 

should address why the partnership was formed 

and what it intends to achieve. Even the most 

obvious elements should be documented. Every 

stakeholder should formally endorse the partnership’s 

mission and key goals. 


Measures 

Results 

Strategic Plan 

COMPELLING MISSION STATEMENTS 

Goals 

“Creating a supportive continuing care 

community where low-income older adults can 

comfortably age in place.” 

Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee) 

“A community champion for family strengthening, 

supporting our community in a broad range of 

strategies to help you keep your family strong, 

capable, and connected.” 


“It took the Coalition eight months and two 

facilitators to create its mission, vision, and goals. 

It took another facilitator and 4-6 more months 

to create action steps, timeframes, and resource 

allocations. The process was painful. We lost 

some people who were more action oriented. 

By the end, however, we had more people than 

we began with. The enthusiasm was high and the 

content was good. There was recognition that 

what we were doing—creating a community 

movement through partnership, not unilateral 

action—was new and difficult. Comfort levels, 

enthusiasm, and participation rose once we had a 

good clear mission.” 

Jane Henegar, Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 

83 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships 

83


chapter six 

2. Link the partnership and partners’ 

missions. 

It is important to explicitly link the partnership’s 

mission with its members. A “mission 

map,” illustrating the interrelationships 

between the partnership and its component 

parts, can be very helpful in identifying how 

and why the pieces fit together. A generic 

model is illustrated in Figure 6-3. 

The most effective partnerships have mission 

overlap. When you have mission congruence, 

it’s easier to resolve problems like resources. 

Lacking sufficient alignment, a partnership 

should identify reciprocal benefits that encourage 

participation. For example, a bank 

involved with neighborhood revitalization may 

fund higher-risk home mortgages and achieve 

greater market share in an underserved neighborhood. 

Here, the partnership would receive 

greater access to mortgage financing while the 

bank would receive community goodwill and 

access to a broader market. The Medical Care 

for Children Partnership refers to this linkage 

as “reciprocity, not generosity.” In its case, neither 

the county nor any private medical partner 

treats uninsured children as its primary 

mission. However, the partners rally around 

this initiative due to reciprocal benefits. 

CMS’ Caregiver/Employer Program and 

Hampton’s Healthy Families Partnership provide 

excellent examples of how their and their 

members’ missions intersect. 

FIGURE 6-3 

MISSION MAP 

Business 

Partner 

Mission 


Partner 

Mission 

HPP 

MISSION 

Civic Partner 

Mission 


Partner 

Mission 

Source: Jane Heneger and Ellen Quigley, 


Kaiser Permanente, a nonprofit health 

maintenance organization, partnered with 

Fairfax County to provide health care to 

the children of the working poor. 

Services are provided at a reduced cost. 

Kaiser Permanente replicated this partnership 

in five other counties in the Mid 

Atlantic Region to provide health care for 

2,250 children annually. 

Heidi Veltman and Mindy Rubin, Medical Care for 

Children Partnership (Fairfax) 


FIGURE 6-4 

CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROGRAM MISSION OVERLAP 

Common Mission 

Educate people about caregiver issues 

Medicare 

Advocacy Groups 

Educate 

caregivers 

who can 

educate medicare 

beneficiaries. 

Clinics for 

MCR & MCD 

Educate 

caregivers 

who can 

educate medicare 

beneficiaries. 

National Alliance 

for Caregiving 

Educate 

employees 

about 

caregiver 

issues. 

Washington 

Business Group 

on Health 

Educate 

employees 

about 

caregiver issues 

so employee 

productivity 

isn't effected. 

Source: Robert Adams and Spencer Schron, CMS, Elizabeth Handley, NCI 

FIGURE 6-5 

HEALTHY FAMILIES PARTNERSHIP MISSION OVERLAP 

Mission 

Overlap 

Social Services 

Protect children 

Health 

Department 

Prenatal Care 

Child Health 

Immunizations 

Partnership 

All children born 

healthy and enter school 

healthy and ready to learn 

Hospitals 

Child-maternal 

health Well baby 

and Well child 

Schools 

Children succeed 

in school 

Business 

Work force 

development 

(which begins 

at birth) 

Source: Debbie Russell, Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) 



chapter six 

3. Use data and outside facilitation. 

A partnership should use data and outside 

facilitation to craft its mission and goals. Data 

are a strong motivator for developing specific 

outcomes that resonate with potential partners, 

funders, and stakeholders. An independent 

facilitator can help to develop a mission 

statement and outcomes that address salient 

issues and highlight individual linkages. 

Safe Passages undertook an extensive “denominator 

exercise” to determine its goals and the implementation 

strategies acceptable to its partners. This exercise was 

data driven and participatory. The results form the basis 

for the partnership’s activities. 

Safe Passages Oakland Annual Progress Report, 2000 

4. Develop a strategic plan that outlines 

action items, timeframes, and resource 

allocation. 

The partnership should develop a detailed 

strategic plan that outlines each partner’s 

action items, timeframes, and resource allocation. 

The partners should jointly prepare the 

plan, update it routinely, and understand their 

roles, responsibilities, and accountability. It is 

preferable to document the partnership’s purpose 

and goals at the outset, but it is never too 

late. If the partnership already exists, clarifying 

its purpose—even midstream—can 

enhance performance. 

5. Widely publicize the mission statement 

and strategic plan. 

A partnership should widely publicize its mission 

statement and strategic plan. Public discussion 

can provide the opportunity to vet 

outstanding confusion. Through this process, 

the partnership can build understanding, and 

hopefully consensus, among stakeholders. 

The mission statement and plan also should be 

widely communicated within the partnership 

itself. The participants, employees, and volunteers 

should be conversant in the partnership’s 

purpose and how they directly relate to achieving 

it. Further, the desired outcomes should be 

directly tied to staff work plans and performance 

objectives. 

BALANCING PLANNING 

AND ACTION 

The Challenge 

Strategic planning is critical to a high-performance 

partnership. Without a clear 

roadmap that delineates responsibilities and 

interaction, performance will only be coincidental. 

This process is best accomplished 

through an iterative process: plan, act, revise, 

and act some more. At the same time, the 

effectiveness of strategic planning cannot truly 

be assessed until implementation is underway. 

Likewise, a partnership must act decisively to 

gain community, stakeholder, and funder commitment. 

Action also helps solidify the operational 

environment and the members’ roles 

and responsibilities. It demonstrates the part- 

After the Lapham Park Venture functioned for a few months, the partners raised serious 

questions about how well the mission and outcomes had been thought through. The 

Venture wanted to implement a true philosophy of creating an environment of empowerment. 

The partnership decided to enter a formal strategic planning process involving all 

partners, including the residents. The partners pooled resources to engage a facilitator and 

had two days of group planning to develop three-year goals.As part of the process, the 

Venture refined its mission statement, designed four major goals with objectives and outcomes, 

and established four workgroups to guide progress toward the goals. 



FIGURE 6-6 

STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE: 

FOR THE BUREAUCRAT AND THE AMATEUR 

Stakeholders 

Vision 

Goals 

Revisit & 

Reconfirm 

Vision 

Where we 

want to be. 

Specific things 

we want to 

accomplish. 

Alternate 

Solutions 

Is what we wanted 

when we started 

what we got and 

what we still want? 

What are the 

different ways of 

getting this done. 

Evaluate 

Is it working? 

(If necessary fix problems) 

Implementation 

Get to work. 

Select 

Appropriate 

Strategy 

Pick the best 

way to do it. 

Source: Barbara Abernathy, T.K. Somanath, and David Sacks, Neighborhoods in Bloom (Richmond) 

nership’s capabilities, which in turn can generate 

greater commitment and support. 

Achieving positive results without action and 

planning is impossible. However, action 

without proper planning can be random, 

chaotic, and non-productive. So, balancing 

planning and action is imperative. 

The Strategy 

The planning/action continuum has five components: 

1. Create a detailed strategic plan. 

2. Achieve stakeholder consensus that the 

plan is complete and accurate. 

3. Begin plan implementation. 

4. Evaluate the plan in light of the implementation 

steps. 

5. Revise the plan accordingly. 

Strategic planning is not linear. The partnership 

and its stakeholders should be prepared 

for a less defined and more iterative process 

than the ideal model depicts. However, every 

step is integral to achieving a high-performance 

organization. 

First, a written strategic plan should describe 

the partnership’s mission, goals, and strategies. 

It should be made available to all stakeholders 

at all times and be amended as the effort proceeds. 

The plan also should contain specific 

deliverables, timeframes, and performance 

measures. No matter how mature or institutionalized 

the partnership may become, it is 

important to review the mission and strategic 

plan annually. This process will help partners 

determine how planning directly leads to action 

and successful outcomes. The timeline is especially 

important not only for internal operations, 

but for communicating expectations to 

stakeholders. 



chapter six 

Second, the partnership must be accountable. 

Its progress and results should be assessed as 

often as data are available. Performance indicators, 

such as costs, number of clients/customers, 

and service outputs, should be reported 

monthly or quarterly. Less frequently available 

data should be reported as often as feasible. 

Third, the strategic plan should be tested. The 

partnership should identify specific short–term 

actions to test the plan. When timeliness is 

essential, “plan a little, act, plan a little more, 

act” is a common strategy, similar to the construction 

industry’s design-build approach. A 

partnership can become stuck in a planning or 

implementation mode, failing to take stock of 

where it is and make adjustments as needed. 

An outside monitor can provide a reality check 

and assist the partnership in being held 

accountable for implementation activities and 

actual results. 

It is unrealistic to expect that the strategic planning 

model automatically will produce results. 

High performance seldom comes at the starting 

gate. A partnership sometimes must take its best 

shot and rigorously evaluate results to determine 

the most effective approach to solving complex 

problems. Although it can present short-term 

difficulties, trial by error can be an effective way 

to achieve results. 

Even if a high-performance partnership strikes 

a good balance between being mission driven 

yet flexible, it still will encounter risks. It is 

vital to be clear, even public, about them. 

Organizations must understand, publicize, and 

plan for variables that may work against reaching 

their goals. In so doing, they can be better 

prepared to respond positively when adversity 

occurs. Regardless of any setback, it is important 

to celebrate and reward successes that 

occur. Recognizing good performance yields 

further good performance. It is a tremendous 

morale-booster for partners and staff and 

encourages the community and funders to 

continue their support. 

The Family Strengthening 

Coalition experienced significant 

challenges at the outset in sustaining 

interest among action-oriented 

members. Creating the 

“movement” required the community 

to think differently about 

how to build and sustain it. Much 

time was spent defining and 

understanding the coalition’s mission 

and vision. This required a 

certain amount of endurance and 

resulted in the withdrawal of participants 

who were anxious to 

“do something.” For those dedicated 

to action, work groups 

were created to focus on particular 

community results. At the 

conclusion of this work, many 

were more engaged and felt they 

owned the action steps. A communications 

team was assembled 

to provide different methods of 

communicating to partners and 

the community. 

Ellen Quigley, Family Strengthening 

Coalition (Indianapolis) 


BALANCING FOCUS AND FLEXIBILITY 

The Challenge 

A successful organization must be able to 

refine its course of action to respond to changing 

conditions. Many community problems 

cannot be solved overnight. Providing adequate 

community health care, ensuring that all 

children receive a quality education, and revitalizing 

deteriorated neighborhoods are multifaceted 

issues. 

If a partnership is too wedded to its original 

plan, it may miss targets of opportunity or 

grow out of sync with community needs. 

Given dynamic economic, technology, and 

service environments, an overly bureaucratic 

approach is not well suited for today’s reality. A 

high-performance partnership must be flexible 

and adaptable to such change. However, it 

cannot be so fluid that it is loses focus or effectiveness. 

Excessive, undirected change creates 

confusion and reduces a partnership’s ability to 

harness and guide its efforts in a coordinated, 

efficient manner. 


1. Establish a comprehensive, consistent mission, 

but adjust specific goals and work 

plans as conditions demand. 

A high-performance partnership must keep its 

“eye on the prize”: the purpose for which it was 

created. It should not change its fundamental 

reason for being unless it has solved the need. 

Changing the mission prior to reaching the goal 

could hurt a partnership’s credibility and potentially 

endanger funding and community support. 

Although its mission should remain constant, a 

high-performance partnership should routinely 

rework its strategic plan. The very premise of 

continuous improvement is the ability to continually 

adapt to changing needs and conditions. 

Such change always should be consistent with 

achieving the partnership’s ultimate purpose. 

TABLE 6-1 

BUREAUCRACY VS. HIGH PERFORMANCE 

Bureaucracy Model 


Partnership Model 

Process driven 

Hierarchical 

Stable 

Linear work process 

Organization focused 

Mission driven 

Rapid change 

Rapid change 

Networks 

Customer focused 

Source: Adapted from Public Strategies Group materials 



chapter six 

Neighborhoods in Bloom redirected funding from 22 neighborhoods to six. Within 

those six, resources were targeted to specific blocks. Although the goal of having 

the greatest impact in a targeted area was good, it became impractical and frustrating 

when control of housing sites could not be obtained in a timely manner. The 

plan of action had to be adjusted. Also, the partnerships wanted to assist every 

property within a targeted area, including existing home owners who needed 

repairs. Resources were made available with providers ready for implementation, 

but we discovered that there were few existing home owners in some of the targeted 

blocks who wanted the services. Partnership flexibility was required to expand 

the program’s geographical boundaries and use of allocated resources. 


2. Use an incremental or evolutionary 

approach to establishing objectives. 

The partnership should start with something 

manageable, yet important to the community 

upon which it can build. This strategy allows the 

partnership to assess what is and what is not 

working before significant midcourse adjustment 

is required. In addition to helping navigate the 

treacherous shoals of focus vs. flexibility, this 

approach helps address balancing planning and 

action. As a design participant said, “The highperformance 

partnership may not be able to 

solve world hunger but, in Smalltown, USA, it 

may be able to feed everyone.” 



Business 





Civic 

Resources 

Chapter7 

Resources are essential. The most obvious 

resources are funding, people, and physical 

assets, such as property and equipment. But 

given a dynamic economic and social 

environment, they increasingly are 

intangible—time, intellectual property, 

information, access, relationships, and 

community support. A high-performance 

partnership must obtain adequate resources to 

achieve its mission. Generally, the broader the 

resource base, the more stable the partnership. 

Conversely, partnerships dependent on a 

single funding source are vulnerable to that 

funder’s stability and influence.

RESOURCES 

chapter seven 

I n addition to garnering external support, a successful partnership should marshal 

resources from its members. If members have a stake in the endeavor, they are more 

likely to perform. Does real collaboration even exist if partners are unwilling to redirect 

their resources to meet the mission? 

Beyond acquiring sufficient resources, a successful 

partnership must manage them effectively. 

Performance is assessed by results and 

the efficiency with which they are achieved. 


TO RESOURCES 

OBTAINING ADEQUATE RESOURCES 

The Challenge 

It is rare that money is no object. 

Communities often must scrape and prioritize 

to accumulate enough money to tackle the 

tough problems. Venture capital for a startup 

operation is even harder to acquire. 

Although some federal programs have recognized 

the value of cross-sector partnerships, 

silo-based funding remains the norm in the 

public sector. Many funders do not truly 

understand the concept of partnerships and 

their inherent benefits and challenges. As a 

result, funding can be difficult. 

The special skills sets required to work in a 

high-performance partnership are scarce, as 

well. Staff must be equipped to manage teams 

in a cross-cultural environment, yet the relative 

newness of this approach has limited the number 

of professionals with such experience. 

Recruiting and retaining them remain a significant 

challenge. 

Time is the most intensive yet most underestimated 

resource required for collaboration. 

Assembling the partners, building relationships 

among them, meshing their agendas, and 

launching the operation require enormous 

time and energy. Short cuts on the front-end 

can produce instability and inefficiency later, 

so successful long-term partnerships invest the 

time to do it right. 


1. Prepare a business plan at the partnership’s 

inception. 

A partnership should develop a strategic plan 

that incorporates business principles and the 

resources needed to accomplish each task in a 

specified timeframe. The plan should not 

only outline cash resources, but other tangibles 

and intangibles. It is common for a partnership 

to initiate activities without having 

sufficient resources. To overcome this, the 

plan should outline what can be accomplished 

with the resources available, and how to fill 

the gaps. The partnership should start with a 

manageable work program and grow to scale 

as funding permits. 

Healthy Families developed an extensive business 

plan to raise funding and other resources 

to support its activities. The plan outlined a 

sponsorship program containing five levels of 

contribution. For each sponsorship level, the 

plan detailed: 

• the amount required 

• a list of qualifying sponsorship opportunities 

and in-kind services and products 

• what the donor would receive in publicity 

and recognition 

• targeted businesses for each category of 

sponsorship 

• how the businesses would be approached 

Healthy Families Partnership (Hampton) Business Plan, 1999 


Asset mapping is key to determining what the 

community, individual partners, and other 

sources can provide. This element can help to 

avoid duplication and to identify gaps. A partnership 

may employ numerous strategies to 

attain an adequate resource base. The appropriate 

mix depends partially on the characteristics 

of the partnership and the environment 

in which it operates. 

2. Link resources to results that are significant 

to potential funders. 

The best way to secure resources is to make the 

partnership’s results relevant to potential 

providers, whether they are public, business, or 

nonprofit. The business community in Fairfax, 

Virginia has been very supportive of the Medical 

Care for Children Partnership, not only because 

it is a good philanthropic activity but because 

working parents miss less work. Healthy children 

are more likely to succeed at school and 

“MCCP engaged in asset mapping to 

identify resources in the community. It 

broadened the base of support by 

adopting the perspective that if you 

lived, worked, or invested in Fairfax 

County, you had an obligation and a 

great opportunity to meet the health 

care needs of the community’s children.” 


FIGURE 7-1 

ASSET MAPPING 

Resources 

Needs 

• Partner A 

• Community 

• Partner B 

• Partner C 

• Friend of 

Partner C 

etc. 

• Space 

• Money 

• Time 

• Management Skills 

• Office Equipment 

etc. 

Partnership 

Results 

Source: Barbara Moore, Lapham Park Venue (Milwaukee) 


RESOURCES 

chapter seven 

4. Use nonprofit and business partners. 

Asset swapping can dramatically 

streamline the bureaucratic obstacles 

that public and non-profit partnerships 

encounter. We found that 

exchanging “on-the-shelf” research 

on partners’ constituents resulted 

in significant cost and time savings 

for all organizations involved. 

Offering our social marketing 

research to partners increased the 

return on investment of the original 

expenditure and provided tools to 

effectively market their services to 

common audiences. 

Lindsey Cometa, Centers for Medicare and 


future employment, as well. This partnership 

has emphasized these results and their applicability 

to current and potential funders. 

3. Produce quantifiable outcomes. 

The partnership must deliver significant quantifiable 

results. Resources are far more likely to 

flow to successful organizations than inadequate 

performers. 

Reporting documented qualitative 

and quantitative outcomes to 

investors, community partners, 

stakeholders, and politicians has 

enabled us to grow our program 

from a couple hundred families a 

year in 1993 to well over 10,000 

families in 2002. 

The nonprofit sector can be key to a cross-sector 

partnership by soliciting tax-exempt donations. 

An endowment can provide a long-term 

funding source for important community 

activities. Likewise, a business partner can be 

an instrumental supporter by adopting good 

business principles and contributing money 

and expertise. 

5. Create a dedicated funding stream, such 

as ballot measures, city charter amendments, 

dedicated tax sources, and 

bond issues. 

Legal options for securing a dedicated revenue 

stream vary by community. However, a crosssector 

partnership, especially one with a strong 

civic component, should explore this option. 

For example, many Western states use voter 

initiatives to fund housing, youth programs, 

and recreation partnerships. 

6. Charge a service fee. 

Several design lab participants generated an 

income stream for their partnerships. For 

example, the 5 A Day for Better Health 

Program charges a franchise fee for using its 

logo and other materials. The fee applies to 

private and public organizations that want to 

participate in the program. For Neighborhoods 

in Bloom, nonprofit community development 

corporations build a housing developer’s fee into 

the price of a house to recover their costs, where 

feasible. Similar fees are applied to other community 

initiatives and services, as well. 

A high-performance partnership may “sell” its 

expertise to other communities and individuals 

through consultation contracts and training 

programs. 

7. Access local, state, and federal tax credits 

for various housing, economic development, 

and neighborhood revitalization activities. 

Credit and eligibility criteria depend on the 

community. Nevertheless, tax credits offer a significant 

funding opportunity for several initiatives, 

such as renovating historic structures, lowincome 

housing, and business investments. 

Debbie Russell, Healthy Families 



8. Use third-party payment opportunities. 

Insurance companies may pay for some partnership 

services, especially health care. For 

example, the Community Care Organization 

receives a capitated Medicaid and Medicare 

payment for each Lapham Park resident who 

enrolls in the Venture’s medical care component. 

This payment covers all primary care, 

specialists, medication, inpatient and outpatient 

care, medical equipment and supplies, 

and other medical-related costs. 

9. Use cause-related marketing and other 

fundraising strategies. 

Partnerships may convince a funder or business 

to contribute some of its sales revenues from a 

particular product or service. It also may be 

possible to issue credit cards, state license plates, 

or other products and receive a portion of the 

proceeds. Other fundraising possibilities 

include golf tournaments, celebrity auctions, 

concession stands, and logo products. 

11. Recruit partners to fill resource gaps. 

A partnership should court organizations that 

can address funding, knowledge, access, or 

other resource needs. Having the right partners 

at the table is discussed later in this 

report. However, it is extremely important to 

consider the mix. 

MCCP covered dental services 

for emergency care. However, 

there was a lack of participating 

dentists who donated preventive 

dental services.We approached 

one of our partners, a very 

established dentist in Fairfax, who 

not only agreed to provide preventive 

dental care but also 

recruited many colleagues.We 

also contacted a major toothpaste 

distributor which donated battery 

operated toothbrushes to a 

dental education initiative. 

Healthy Families operate concession stands 

that raise $15,000 to 20,000 annually. 

Heidi Veltman and Mindy Rubin, Medical 

Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 


10. Aim resource-generating strategies at 

institutional giving patterns. 

Governments and foundations typically have 

specific interest areas, funding timeframes, and 

eligibility criteria. It is important to analyze 

institutional funding systems to determine 

how they mesh with a partnership’s mission 

and resource needs. However, this does not 

mean that the partnership should abandon its 

principles or mission simply to qualify for 

available resources. 


RESOURCES 

chapter seven 

Drastic funding shortfalls forced CMS to rethink the assets it had to offer. 

Former partners withdrew when funding disappeared, challenging CMS to 

seek new partners. Using this new perspective, CMS realized that it had 

highly desired assets to offer potential partners, including social marketing 

research, data, and other sources of expertise. This revelation created 

opportunities to broker asset exchanges with key partners. Eliminating funding 

from the relationship actually created a more successful end product. 

Lindsey Cometa, Centers for Medicare 


12. Educate funders on the value of partnering. 

Informed funders are more likely to understand 

the value of a partnership and contribute 

to it. The partnership should clearly outline 

the advantage to individual funders through 

targeted marketing materials. 

13. Seek recognition as a high-performance 

partnership. 

A partnership should solicit exposure through 

publications and conferences and submit its 

activities for national awards. A stamp of 

approval from national and regional organizations 

or an independent third party can facilitate 

the marketing effort. 

The Medical Care for Children 

Partnership received the “Innovations 

in American Government” Award from 

the Ford Foundation and the John F. 

Kennedy School of Government at 

Harvard University. This is one of the 

nation’s premier awards for public sector 

excellence and innovation. MCCP 

received $100,000, and the publicity 

that went with the award. This recognition 

generated significant interest in 

MCCP’s work. 

14. Use volunteers, students, and donated 

services to limit out-of-pocket costs. 

Most communities have considerable resources 

available at no or low cost. Civic associations 

can provide talent by tapping their membership. 

Universities and other educational institutions 

have tremendous expertise available in 

their faculty and students. As noted earlier, 

partners can be recruited based upon their 

own ability to provide resources, including inkind 

contributions. 

REDIRECTING PARTNER RESOURCES 

The Challenge 

New partnerships seldom have the luxury of 

obtaining sufficient new resources to fulfill 

their mission. Instead, they often must redirect 

existing public and nonprofit resources to 

support collaborative efforts. Redirecting 

resources means changing the use of existing 

funding and other assets to align with the partnership’s 

purpose. Organizations may be 

reluctant to join a partnership if their funding 

is at risk. Loss of control and prior commitments 

are two causes for partner reticence. 

Nevertheless, a primary reason for a partnership 

is the ability to leverage and coordinate 

resources to address a need. 

A partnership does not exist if its members 

retain independent control over all the 

resources at their disposal. Indeed, the degree 

to which resource redirection occurs is an 

important distinction between collaboration 

and a high-performance partnership. Even if 


partners agree that redirection is best, they 

may be unable to undertake it quickly. Public 

and nonprofit funds and staff generally are 

committed to existing programs; freeing assets 

may take time. 

The Strategy 

A comprehensive asset map identifies all partner 

and community assets that may help solve 

the issue at hand. The degree to which these 

assets are redirected should be delineated in 

detail in a business plan. Each member should 

For HFP, as much as 15 percent of the funding is 

redirected partner resources. This equaled nearly 

$700,000 in fiscal year 2000. 


understand what it is expected to contribute 

and what it will receive in return. The business 

plan should document each partner’s 

responsibilities and resource commitment. 

Negotiation and compromise may be required. 

The partnership should understand the member’s 

interests when soliciting resources. How 

can redirected resources contribute directly to 

the stated mission? Participating organizations 

often receive benefits beyond the partnership’s 

explicit scope. Articulating additional benefits 

is important. For example, Kaiser Permanente 

developed health care strategies for the 

Medical Care for Children Partnership and 

replicated them for other client groups and 

geographic areas. Reciprocity is a tremendous 

tool for obtaining external resources and redirecting 

partner resources. 

COORDINATING AND MAXIMIZING 

RESOURCES 

The Challenge 

Resources are generally limited, so maximizing 

them is critically important. Efficient resource 

utilization and accountability for results are 

imperative to retain funder and stakeholder 

Prior to the Venture, the Milwaukee County 

Department on Aging provided case management 

to older residents at Lapham Park 

through traditional means. More than 22 case 

managers visited various residents at Lapham 

Park. By redirecting case management through 

an on-site partner—SET Ministry—the number 

dropped from twenty-two to two. Plus, 

on-site case managers were there eight hours 

a day, not just for a half hour at a time. They 

got to understand their clients’ needs and the 

overall Lapham community much better, and 

often assisted as needed. Services were delivered 

much more efficiently and effectively. 

Chriss Hess and Barbara Moore, 



RESOURCES 

chapter seven 

support. The partnership structure should be 

well suited to maximize available resources and 

deliver greater value per dollar expended. 

A partnership also must provide reports to 

funders and the community on its operational 

and financial results. Information is not 

always easy to obtain, but the partnership’s 

fiduciary responsibilities require accurate and 

timely record keeping and reporting. 


1. Collectively decide on criteria and mechanisms 

for allocating resources effectively. 

The distribution equation inevitably returns to a 

partnership’s business plan. Resources should be 

allocated based upon performance. The process 

should never be viewed as a zero-sum game 

where the strongest competitor wins. 

2. Establish performance measures to 

assess resource utilization. 

A partnership can benchmark its efficiency 

against similar operations. If measures do not 

exist, it can benchmark performance against 

prior baseline data and its own operational 

track record. Performance should be measured 

by the level of the output and the cost of 

achieving it. That is, a high-performance 

partnership will look at effectiveness and efficiency 

outcomes. If outcomes are not sufficient, 

or efficiency is below expectations, the 

partnership must be prepared to take corrective 

action. 

3. Understand the regulatory and 

reporting requirements of each funder 

and meet them. 

With performance and fiduciary accountability 

standards, a partnership should be well positioned 

to report results. However, it should not 

create these mechanisms in a vacuum. Various 

regulations may come into play depending on 

the funding source. The partnership must be 

aware of them from day one and establish 

appropriate accountability standards. 

Unfortunately, the partnership may have 

requirements from competing resource streams. 

“Through interacting with partners, CMS realized that many organizations 

interact with Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This revelation challenged 

us to rethink our practice of producing myriad publications and to pursue 

incorporating our information in other organizations’ publications and programs. 

By doing so, we were able to more effectively provide information to 

our target audience at the “teachable moment.” Besides optimizing timing, 

this approach dramatically decreased production and distribution costs to 

the government.” 




Individual governmental units, foundations, and 

private funders can have separate funding cycles, 

reporting requirements, and program regulations. 

Not only must the partnership juggle 

these, but some actually may be in conflict. It is 

imperative to understand the dynamics. 

The partnership should develop a standard 

report that addresses as many of these reporting 

requirements as possible, no matter how 

diverse. It should explain the competing 

reporting issues and request some flexibility. 

The partnership also may be able to creatively 

package its costs. One funder might support 

basic administrative costs but not marketing, 

while another may provide resources for communications. 

A partnership could design its 

budget accordingly and assign costs based upon 

eligibility criteria. 

Although it may be tempting, the partnership 

should refuse money that is not in line with its 

goals. Doing otherwise simply diffuses the 

mission and makes achieving the goal more 

difficult. At the same time, the partnership 

must demonstrate some flexibility in how it 

does business to meet funder demands. 

4. Employ an external auditor on an 

annual basis. 

Many funders require financial audits of their 

grantees. Public sector entities and most nonprofits 

have audits as a means of assuring taxpayers 

and donors that financial operations are 

sound. A partnership should consider engaging 

an external financial evaluation if it does not 

conduct an audit. By soliciting such review and 

feedback, the partnership can enhance its performance 

and reassure its investors. 

5. Other Strategies 

Other strategies that can assist a partnership in 

coordinating and maximizing its assets 

include: 

• Be smart about staging growth in the partnership’s 

service level and geographic 

responsibilities. 

• Scale down the partnership’s mission and 

goals to fit the resources available. However, 

have a specific plan for growing the partnership 

to scale with identified resource needs. 

• Prioritize the partnership’s activities so that 

the most critical elements receive the bulk of 

the resources. 

• Re-examine the partnership’s membership. 

Recruit additional partners or change the 

mix to supplement the resources available. 




Business 





Civic 


Chapter8 

A high–performance 

partnership must effectively 

communicate both internally 

and externally. The 

communication must be 

clear, open, well used, and 

trusted. Most important, it 

must be two-way.

COMMUNICATIONS 

chapter eight 

A high-performance partnership does not operate in a vacuum. It must establish 

two-way communications channels with constituencies to provide information and 

receive input. In addition to feedback loops, the partnership must have effective mechanisms 

for disseminating results information to all stakeholders, including the media and 

community at large. It is only through a comprehensive, capable communications network 

that a partnership can extol its accomplishments and build broad support for its work. 

Internal communications strategies are needed 

to ensure that member organizations thoroughly 

understand how a partnership’s activities 

individually relate to them.No single medium 

is sufficient, and the message cannot be 

delivered only once. 


TO COMMUNICATIONS 

ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE 

INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS 

STRATEGY 

The Challenge 

Information must flow through every level of the 

partnership so each participant can be on the 

same page and strive for a common objective. 

Sporadic or ineffective communications can lead 

to waning enthusiasm and participation. 

Building relationships across sectors and diverse 

organizational cultures poses even greater challenges. 

Public, nonprofit, and civic sector languages 

are different. Finding a common message 

that appeals to all three is a monumental 

task. In fact, no single medium can achieve 

effective internal communications. Individual 

partners may use different media with different 

levels of technological sophistication. For example, 

the Internet may be a good technique for 

communicating information, but only if the participants 

can access and use it. 

Most cross-sector partnership issues are complex, 

even to the partners themselves. An 

effective internal communications strategy 

must overcome the challenges of finding the 

appropriate media and refining and simplifying 

the message. 


1. Invest the time to develop a formal communications 

plan to reach all internal 

audiences. 

Communications strategies should be comprehensive 

and well documented. An established 

planning process will cause the partnership to 

think through issues and generate a more 

comprehensive approach to internal communications. 

It also will help the partnership 

develop a simple, focused message tailored to 

each of the partners. A formal communications 

plan will help the partnership identify 

both the message and the media. 

2. Take the time and spend the money to 

communicate well. 

Beyond strategies and tactics, a successful partnership 

must focus on logistics and communications. 

Even the best strategy will fail if it is 

not effectively explained to those who must 

undertake it. Internal and external communications 

must be a primary component of any 

strategic plan, and a partnership should spend 

the money and resources to implement it. 

Professional assistance—such as facilitators, 

writers, and communications staff—can be as 

important as service delivery expenditures. 

The partnership may be able to minimize these 

costs by using loaned professionals, students, 

or volunteers. Such avenues should be 

explored as these individuals often come from 

the community being served. Lacking free or 

low-cost alternatives, the partnership should 


dedicate resources to effective ongoing internal 

communications media. 

This investment may include getting assistance 

in understanding each partner’s needs and interests 

to address items that the individual partners 

feel are important. The messages should be relevant 

and understandable to the partners. 

3. Use multiple media to reach internal 

audiences. 

Various media are needed to reach a partnership’s 

key internal audiences. Web sites, e-mail, 

and other devices can be very important tools in 

disseminating a large amount of information 

quickly. However, these tools are not universally 

used. Employee newsletters, posters, and oneon-one 

conversations cannot be supplanted, nor 

can they alone suffice. Some media work well 

for short, quick messages that have a short shelf 

life. Others do not. Communications media 

also must have immediate and longer-term 

components. Table 8-1 provides a summary of 

the typical communications channels for each 

internal audience. 

CREATING A FULL-CIRCLE EXTERNAL 

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM 

The Challenge 

Effective two-way external communications 

are critical, as well. The partnership must provide 

information to all of its stakeholders, 

including customers, funders, and the community 

at large. Each requires different media and 

messages because everyone is not interested in 

the same information. Also, some stakeholders 

and potential clients may be difficult to reach 

through normal channels. This is particularly 

true if the target audience is disenfranchised by 

economic status, language, or other barriers. 

The feedback loop is the second element of the 

full-circle communications challenge. Every 

high-performance partnership strives to incorporate 

customer input. Without it, the partnership 

may deliver an irrelevant service. It is 

essential to design effective mechanisms for 

attaining objective feedback and working it 

into service delivery strategies. 

TABLE 8-1 

INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TOOLS 

INTERNAL AUDIENCES 

Governing Board 

TOOLS 

•Board Meetings 

•Briefing Papers 

•Performance Reports 

Partnership Members 

Staff 


•Partnership Meetings 

•E-mail 

•Web Site 

•Staff Meetings 

•Employee Newsletters 

•Intranet 

•E-mail 



chapter eight 

TABLE 8-2 

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TOOLS 

EXTERNAL AUDIENCES 

Funders 

TOOLS 


•In-person Briefings 

•E-mail 

•Web Site 

Customers 

•Brochures 

•Informational Packets 

•Letters 

•E-mail 

•Web Site 

•Personal Contacts 

•Feedback Surveys 

•Comment Cards 

•Media 

Community 

Media 

•Media 

•Web Site 

•Community Meetings 

•Community Organizations 

•Speeches and Presentations 

•Press Releases 

•Media Briefings 


Many tools for creating effective external communications 

are similar to those used for the 

internal environment. The strategies involve 

numerous media, so the partnership should 

develop a formal communications plan that 

identifies each target audience, the relevant 

message, and the appropriate media. 

Implementing the communications plan 

should be specifically assigned in the strategic 

plan with timelines and lead partners. 

The Healthy Families Partnership and the 

Medical Care for Children Partnership have 

developed an extensive array of publications and 

information on their work. Brochures, fact 

sheets, reports, newspaper articles, and other 

materials are available on every aspect of their 

operations. The communications are comprehensive, 

stylish, informative, and very effective. 

Strategists should pay close attention to target 

audiences that are difficult to reach due to language 

and other barriers. Culturally competent 

consultants or bilingual employees may be needed 

for key advocacy and communications positions. 

The partnership also would be well served 

to include in its governing structure entities that 

represent and relate to the target audience, such 

as a particular ethnic or racial group. 

There are several strategies that a high-performance 

partnership can use to guarantee an appropriate 

feedback system for external audiences. 


The business community does not 

immediately see its role in strengthening 

families. The coalition’s 

challenge is to craft a message that 

catches their attention and demands 

their involvement. We use facts and 

statistics relating to business 

outcomes. Businesses may not be 

motivated by a statistic on 

immunization rates or the number of 

school days missed by children who 

have not received immunizations. 

Instead, give data on the number of 

workdays missed by employees 

whose children have not received 

immunizations, or productivity lost by 

workers who are preoccupied 

because their children are not in 

after-school programs. 

Jane Henegar, Family Strengthening 

Coalition (Indianapolis) 

1. Truly welcome the feedback. 

No feedback mechanism can be effective if the 

partnership does not welcome input, take 

actions based on it, and report back. Such input 

can be obtained through various methods. For 

one, customers can be a formal part of the governing 

structure. The partnership also can use 

focus groups, surveys, and advisory committees. 

These mechanisms help ensure that the partnership 

has considered a wide range of perspectives 

when designing its services and activities. 

A high-performance partnership will supplement 

client input with good outcome evaluation 

to see that it is responsive and productive. It is 

important to collect baseline data and conduct 

written client satisfaction surveys. Take, for 

example, a partnership whose mission is to 

improve the quality of life through decreased 

crime. It should know whether residents actually 

feel safer in their community when crime 

rates decline. If they do not, the partnership 

only will have been partially successful. 

2. Be prepared to deal with success. 

It can be difficult to prepare partners and the 

community for the positive and negative consequences 

of success. For example, revitalizing 

a blighted and deteriorated neighborhood can 

lead to higher property values and real estate 

taxes. The external communications strategy 

must alert and prepare these audiences for 

such potential outcomes. 



chapter eight 

BROADENING THE PARTNERSHIP’S 

SUPPORT BASE THROUGH 

ADVOCACY 

The Challenge 

A well-informed community is not necessarily 

a supportive one. Building and sustaining 

public interest and funder support for a mission 

are critical to a partnership’s long-term 

viability. Implementing the external communications 

plan described above is important. 

Producing outstanding results also is key. 

However, an effective advocacy initiative goes 

beyond these two features. 

The advocacy function is especially critical when 

the partnership operates in a multi-level or governmental 

environment, or when funding sources 

are varied or tentative. Advocacy involves building 

vocal support—policy, financial, and 

resource—for the partnership and its mission. 

The Strategy 

Aside from disseminating information, a communications 

strategy must include a marketing 

campaign to develop a corps of advocates. 

People must understand the issues and be 

compelled to do something about them. If the 

partnership seeks grassroots advocacy, it must 

undertake a public relations campaign and 

“brand identity” to which the community can 

relate. A name, logo, or phrase can capture the 

partnership’s essence and make it easier for 

supporters to champion a cause. 

The partnership also must be savvy about the 

key pressure points for obtaining legal, policy, 

or resource decisions. Once these are identified, 

it can determine the best approach for 

making its case. This is where access can be 

especially helpful. The partnership could use a 

member’s political standing to get an audience 

with key policy-makers. 

Success is a primary way for a partnership to 

gain morale and financial support for its mission 

and activities. Through performance criteria 

and an annual scorecard, the partnership 

can engender additional support. The partnership 

and stakeholders should recognize 

achievements, both small and large. 

Celebrations not only draw attention to the 

achievements, but provide an intangible 

reward for those who have supported the 

partnership along the way. 

The purpose of Indianapolis’s Family 

Strengthening Coalition is to foster a community 

movement to support a broad range of 

strategies to help families become strong, capable, 

and connected. The coalition’s goal is to 

touch thousands of Indianapolis families with 

its message. It is an excellent example of 

comprehensive communications and advocacy. 


TABLE 8-3 

FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES 

Events • Family Strengthening Summits (2001, 

2002, and 2002) 

• Canal Family Fest 

• Family Heritage Month (March 2003) 

Awards 

Initiatives 

Grants 

Action Planning 

Community Volunteer Opportunities 

Relationship Building and Linkages 

• Families Count Awards 

• Salute to Families (Family Service) 

• Mayor’s Community Service Awards 

• Earned Income Tax Credit/Family 

Economic Success 

• Family Circles 

• UWCI Mini-grants 

• GIPC Neighborhood Action Grants 

• Family Circle Mini-grants 

• Keep Indiana Beautiful, other neighborhood 

beautification resources 

•Five Community Results Groups are completing 

planning. 

• Family Strengthening Summit 

• Earned Income Tax Credit 

• United Way Day of Caring 

• WFYI Partnerships 

• Local Learning Partnership 

• Making Connections Partnership 

• Family Heritage Month/Bridges to the 

World/Share a Legacy 

• Recruitment for Action Planning and 

Implementation 

Coordinated Public Relations 

Enlisting Communications 

Professionals 

• Coordination on budgets, FSC events, and 

activities such as the Families Count 

Awards, Family Summit, Salute to Families 

2003, etc. The Communications Advisory 

Group, launched February 25, 2002, continues 

through specific event planning groups. 

•Ongoing, cross marketing of upcoming FSC 

events 

• Held a special training for personal 

contacts. 

• Created and disseminated a 

communications kit. 



chapter eight 

TABLE 8-3 

FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES—cont. 

PSAs and Other Television 

Newsletters and Direct Mail 

• WFYI is producing a Public Service 

Announcement that is in final edits. 

• Families Count has produced a Public 

Service Announcement. 

• Families Count Awards Program ran on 

August 28. 

• Fast Fax goes out every two weeks. 

• Coalition database newsletter/update 

goes out at least twice annually. 

Web Pages 

Promotional Events 

• Phase 1 – Placeholder site with link to 

Families Count Awards is posted. 

• Phase 2 – Static site through end of 

2002 site and content are developed. 

• Phase 3 – Large interactive site for 

launch in 2003 for which planning and 

market study are in progress. 

• IPD Community Day, Share a Legacy 

Family History Day, Family 

Strengthening Summit, Families Count 

Awards, Mayor’s Cup Soap Box Derby, 

Canal Family Fest, Neighborfest, PBS 

Kids Lets Meet, Black Expo Summer 

Celebration, AECF Trustees, Covering 

Kids Coalition, Back to School Night 

Promotional 

Materials 

• FSC outdoor banner 

• FSC table top hanging banner 

• 18 "Connecting with Family" freestanding 

signs available for events 

• "Connecting with Family" posters 

• "Connecting with Family" memo 

boards 

• Family Strengthening Coalition 

• FSC Fliers, Connecting With Family 

Ideas lists, and Family Strengthening 

Summit Save the Date Cards 

• Family Strengthening Summit Items (Tshirts, 

lanyards, backpacks, kiddie 

packs, family calendars, family photos) 

• Cross promotion–WFYI Family 

Calendar 

• Cross promotion–Caring for Kids books 

from Riley Hospital 



Business 





Civic 

Organizational 

Infrastructure 

Chapter9 

Although a structural 

foundation itself cannot 

guarantee successful 

performance, it is essential to 

any cooperative venture. For a 

high-performance partnership, 

this means having the right 

partners participate—members 

who are strong individually and 

have the clout, charisma, and 

capability collectively to achieve 

outcomes beyond what they 

could achieve alone.

ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

chapter nine 

G 

ood intentions and a supportive environment cannot overcome a faulty internal foundation. 

With a supportive environment, right partners at the table, and the capacity to 

deliver, a partnership must then have a clearly defined governance structure, support 

systems and qualified staff to operate effectively. 

A team approach to problem solving is incompatible 

with a control mentality. A partnership is 

unfeasible if partners are unwilling to sacrifice 

some control to share decision-making, 

resources, and accountability for results. 

Similarly, some organizations are not prepared 

for a high-performance environment. Outcome 

measurement and accountability are relatively 

new to the public and nonprofit sectors. Some 

monitor their service outputs, but do not report 

meaningful outcomes—that is, fundamentally 

improved community conditions or client 

behavior. Often, a public or nonprofit agency 

measures its performance by the volume of work, 

not the results. 

Participating in a high-performance partnership 

means agreeing to be held accountable for complex 

community outcomes. For example, a partnership 

has not reached the high-performance 

plateau if it is willing to count the number of 

expectant mothers served, but unwilling to establish 

goals for increasing the percentage of healthy 

babies born to them. 

Second, the partnership’s environment must be 

conducive to cross-sector collaboration. In some 

cases, neither the community nor potential partners 

have developed significant trust that would 

permit an effective relationship. Such dynamics 

can significantly hinder collaboration. Other limitations 

include an overly controlling public sector, 

a civic sector distrustful of government, and a 

nonprofit sector with limited capacity. Unless 

perceived limitations can be overcome, a supportive 

stakeholder environment and performancebased 

partnership are unlikely to occur. 

To evaluate its partnership projects, CMS’ Partnership 

Development Group has developed a pre-assessment 

form to determine the likelihood of success when partnering 

with an organization and a post self-assessment 

form to evaluate a completed partnership or outreach 

activity. This formal assessment can be very useful in 

building a collaborative effort with all the necessary 

ingredients. 


TO ORGANIZATIONAL 


ACHIEVING THE RIGHT MIX OF 

CAPABLE PARTNERS 

The Challenge 

Outreach Self-Assessment Forms, 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

A long-term performance-based partnership 

depends on the right complement of members. 

Sometimes, a community will seek a partnership 

of available and willing participants. This 

may produce immediate buy-in, but fail to 

attract critical expertise and resources. 

Partnerships also must identify entities that 

should not be included. The assumption may 

be “the more the merrier,” but this is not 

always the best approach. Participants that do 

not contribute effectively only hurt the partnership’s 

performance and sustainability. 

There must be balance between broad-based 

buy-in and inclusion for inclusion’s sake. 


Organizations may feel that a partnership is 

unnecessary. Still others may be risk-averse or 

concerned about losing control. However, the 

partnership must work to bring key members 

to the table and build trusting relationships. 

These “right partners” may include some 

unlikely candidates. A cross-sector partnership 

should be creative and open to different strategies. 

Diversity can be key to success when it 

contributes to a comprehensive perspective for 

solving problems. It also is important for 

reaching target audiences. Communities seldom 

are homogeneous. 


1. Evaluate the landscape within which the 

partnership must perform. 

It is important to match partnership needs with 

organizations that can fulfill them. This is similar 

to identifying all the pieces of a puzzle and 

then assembling them to form the whole picture. 

Once essential players are defined, leaders 

should recruit organizations or individuals to 

join. It is imperative that the partnership not 

rely on “usual suspects.” Potential members 

may not have been previously involved with 

community service or collaborations. Yet they 

can offer valuable expertise. 

2. Make engagement rewarding for members 

and the partnership as a whole. 

The reward can be multi faceted, such as a 

return on investment, contribution to a community 

good, or access to new markets or 

opportunities. Whatever the reward, the partnership 

should support its members’ needs 

and motivations. 

3. Require every partner to bring something 

of value to the table. 

Contributions are broadly defined, but every 

partner should contribute something, whether 

expertise, resources, or access to segments of the 

community. It should be technically competent 

and successful in its own right. In the final 

analysis, the partnership must be prepared to 

terminate a participant if it does not add value 

to the endeavor. Few cross-sector partnerships 

have the resources and sustainability to overcome 

a weak or dysfunctional member. 

Healthy Families has not lost 

a single partner in 10 years, 

nor a single dollar of funding. 

This is not only because partners 

believe they are doing 

the right thing, but because 

each individual organization 

receives something of value. 

Debbie Russell, Healthy Families 


Des Moines wanted to 

expand NBSD into additional 

communities. The team 

worked diligently to engage 

the leadership in a particular 

neighborhood to partner with 

the city on its priorities. 

After six months, the level of 

participation was minimal and 

it was determined that the 

city would give this neighborhood 

six more months to 

make the partnership work; 

otherwise, the city would shift 

its resources. No neighborhood 

leadership took the 

helm and the city reallocated 

its resources to another 

neighborhood that would 

partner. 

Kandi Reindl, Neighborhood Based 

Service Delivery (Des Moines) 



chapter nine 

MCCP celebrates each year with a gala. At that event, a partner from 

each sector is honored for its contributions. In addition to being a celebration, 

the gala is a major fund raising event, attended by the partners, 

key community and political leaders, client representatives, and supporting 

members of the community. 


DEVELOPING A SUPPORTIVE 

ENVIRONMENT 

The Challenge 

An effective partnership must have a conducive 

internal and external environment. Member 

trust is paramount. Partners must be willing to 

collaborate, subjugate some of their decisionmaking 

authority, and be a part of a team. Turf 

wars are very detrimental to performance outcomes 

and sustained collaborative efforts. 

Developing a trusting environment cannot be 

rushed, as it occurs only after partners work 

together and enjoy some level of success. 

Cultures, even terminology, vary from organization-to-organization 

and sector-to-sector. 

Building bridges is essential to the process. 

The external environment also must embrace a 

partnership structure and performance orientation. 

Stakeholder support is critical. Yet for 

some of the same reasons cited above, support 

may be absent. Political endorsement could be 

tentative for fear of voter backlash if planned 

results do not materialize. Funders may have 

resource requirements that work against collaboration. 

Diverse community opinion may 

work as a barrier to reaching consensus on 

mission and goals. 


1. Keep an eye on the prize. 

The partnership must constantly keep the mission 

in front of external and internal stakeholders. 

As part of updating the annual strategic 

plan, every partner and key stakeholder 

should recommit to the partnership’s purpose. 

2. Create partnership norms that guide 

activities and build trust. 

A common set of values is the cornerstone of a 

partnership’s organizational foundation, especially 

when encountering adversity. In addition 

to operative norms, the partnership 

should develop a common language and glossary 

of terms. Misunderstandings based on 

semantics can lead to irreparable internal rifts. 

This can be mitigated if there is clear language 

that defines what is to be accomplished, by 

whom, and when. Another operative norm 

should be to listen when partners and other 

stakeholders have concerns. 

A trusting, collegial environment supports 

winning results for the community, partnership, 

and individual partners. Indeed, the 

reciprocal benefits may be improved community 

outcomes, visibility, credit, access, and 

return on investment. To avoid excessive competition 

and distrust, credit for successes 

should be equally shared among the partners. 

3. Invest in team building. 

Partnerships require a great deal of member 

trust. Trust can only be built with positive interactions 

over time. At the same time, investing in 

team building can facilitate and speed the 

process. This takes time and money, but the 

investment will pay substantial dividends by 

enabling the partnership to produce more, and 

faster. The “cost of mistrust” is considerable. 


The PODER Project was a six-year 

initiative.The first three years 

focused on capacity building and the 

last three on implementation. The 

biggest challenge was to create a resident-driven 

advisory council that 

included all stakeholders. Initially, 

there was a great deal of conflict 

concerning which resident would 

control the council. This prolonged 

the time frame and created difficulties 

with existing and potential funders. 

During this period, the real 

leadership emerged to develop the 

capacity of the council. 

PODER/PATCH Project (Denver) 

4. Demonstrate that high-performance partnerships 

produce. 

Nothing generates support like success. 

Partners, stakeholders, and the community at 

large are more likely to back a winner than a 

partnership that has yet to produce. Widely 

communicating the partnership’s results is one 

way to encourage future support. 

STRUCTURING A PARTNERSHIP TO 

ACHIEVE RESULTS 

The Challenge 

An effective governance structure is critical for 

a high-performance partnership. There must 

be a mechanism to make decisions, allocate 

resources, and resolve conflicts. Yet it is difficult 

to implement one that accommodates 

both collective and individual needs. It is possible 

for a detached party to participate in the 

governance structure, but it generally has 

“stakeholders.” Stakeholders have an interest 

in the partnership’s enterprise and usually are 

an investor or beneficiary. 

Investors are individuals or organizations that 

contribute resources. Investors ultimately have 

the power to make decisions because they control 

the resources to act. They can make things 

happen or even veto the use of their resources 

if the partnership moves in a contrary direction. 

Investors are not necessarily involved in 

the partnership’s day-to-day activities, but provide 

the wherewithal for the activities to occur. 

Smart investors listen to and value the client’s 

input, but not necessarily include it in the 

decision-making structure. This does not 

mean that an investor-controlled partnership 

is ineffective in meeting customer expectations 

or service needs. At the same time, the 

approach runs the risk of appearing exclusionary 

or insensitive to some stakeholder interests. 

Beneficiaries are the subset of stakeholders that 

the partnership’s results affect. They can be 

direct customers or indirect beneficiaries, such 

as the community at large. They can influence 

the partnership’s decisions, but not independently 

control them. Certainly, a high-performance 

partnership must be customer-focused 

and routinely seek input and feedback. 

However, a customer service orientation is not 

synonymous with partnership governance. 

A partnership’s decision-making structure can 

be composed solely of investors or a combination 

of investors and other stakeholders. The 

former can facilitate action and results because 

key decision-makers and resource providers 

are in charge. But, an investor-only model 

must guard against disenfranchisement and 

lost support from other stakeholders. 

The federally-mandated Advisory Panel on 

Medicare Education is a governance structure that 

relies primarily on the stakeholder model. While 

CMS is the investor, the stakeholders make decisions 

and recommendations to guide the agency. 

The panel’s chair is from the stakeholder body. 

CMS is represented at the table but the panel 

works independently as a group, offering critical 

guidance to the agency. 

Lovell Brigham, Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services 



chapter nine 

FIGURE 9-1 

GOVERNANCE APPROACHES 

Investors vs. Stakeholder Model 

Decision-Makers 

Structure 

Operating Style 

Bias 

Works Best 

Investor 

Limited to those 

who contribute 

"Board of Directors" 

Plan & implement 

simultaneously 

Action 

When quick decisive 

action is required 

All Stakeholders 

Open to all who are 

interested 

Coalition 

Plan until all interests 

are addressed 

Consensus building 

When seeking to develop 

a broad-base of support to 

establish a need to act 

A broad governance structure that engages 

customers and community representatives may 

improve buy-in at the expense of operations 

efficiency. This approach generally is more 

time-consuming, but advantageous in dynamic 

situations and environments where consensus is 

required for success. The downside is that decision-making 

can be cumbersome and slow. Key 

partners, especially those used to the bottom 

line, can become frustrated with the process and 

decline to participate. Partnership governance 

also may be co-opted by parochial agendas. 

The Strategy 

The goal of a high-performance partnership 

should be to convert stakeholders into investors. 

This way, all parties contribute something to the 

partnership’s success. No stakeholder is merely a 

beneficiary. Rather, it has contributed something 

of value. When stakeholders are investors, 

the governance structure may be simplified 

because parties have a more comprehensive 

understanding of the components and 

resources. A single decision-making group or 

steering committee may be sufficient to address 

a partnership’s inherent interests. 

A differential governance structure probably 

will be more effective for a partnership that 

has some stakeholders that are not yet 

investors. The structure could follow several 

models. First, non-investor stakeholders could 

be assigned different powers. Or, they could be 

allocated fewer members or votes. 

A second approach involves a two-tiered governance 

structure. Tier one is composed of an 

array of stakeholders, including investors, customers, 

and community representatives. This 

group provides general guidance and feedback 

on the partnership’s goals and activities. It also 

can serve as a conduit for important stakeholder-partnership 

communications. Tier two 

has a smaller group of decision-makers: key 

investors. This body governs the partnership, 

allocates resources, and is accountable for performance. 

The larger stakeholder group must 

trust the smaller decision-making body for the 

tier two structure to be effective. 

No one approach is perfect for every situation. 

Each governance model has attributes that are 

conducive to different circumstances. The 

governance roles for the investors and beneficiaries 

may depend on the maturity of the part- 


Neighborhoods in Bloom operates 

in six areas. A partnership board, 

comprised of representatives of 

the civic association, nonprofit 

housing providers working in the 

neighborhood, and the City of 

Richmond, governs activities in 

each neighborhood. Each executed 

a memorandum of understanding 

that articulates each partner’s 

activities, spending and expected 

outcomes (see Appendix F). 

nership, legal constraints, and political realities. 

For instance, a partnership may need to 

engage many customers and community representatives 

during the design phase to obtain 

information and buy-in. Once underway, funders 

and technical experts may acquire greater 

decision-making responsibilities. The partnership 

must be aware of investor and customer 

needs and sensitive to the structure to achieve 

high performance. 

Regardless of the approach, the organizational 

infrastructure for a successful partnership has 

several universal characteristics: 

• There must be a cheerleader and champion 

within the leadership. 

• The structure must be manageable—small 

enough to exercise quick, decisive decisionmaking, 

yet broad enough to obtain the support 

and resources to get the job done. 

• All stakeholders should know how to access 

the partnership’s decision-making structure 

and what to expect from it. 

“MCCP’s placement in the Fairfax County 

Executive’s office is a critical factor in its success 

and longevity.” 

Sandra Lowe, Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) 

FIGURE 9-2 

CONVERTING STAKEHOLDERS TO INVESTORS 

Goal: "Everyone Becomes an Investor and a Stakeholder" 

Stakeholder Model 

Investor Model 

High-Performance Partnership 

$ 

$ 

$ 

Time Talent Treasure 

Source: Sandra Lowe and Terry LaVoie, Medical Care for Children Partnership 

(Fairfax) and Kenneth Barbeau, Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee) 



chapter nine 

• Positioning within the community is critical 

to effective decision-making and sustainability. 

Proximity to power can help immunize 

a partnership from the forces that support 

derailments. 

• The governance structure must be strong 

enough to ask non-performers to leave. 

• The organizational structure should be formalized 

with written bylaws that provide 

for collaborative decision-making. 

• The partnership must be customer focused. 

A formal memorandum of understanding 

should accompany the bylaws for governing 

the partnership. It is through this mechanism 

that partners can clearly understand 

their roles and responsibilities, and collaborative 

participation can take place. 

• Performance outcomes must be paramount, 

and the partnership should incentivize 

results. The incentives may include recognition, 

monetary rewards, access, and other 

items. Nonetheless, results must count and 

be communicated to all participants. 

The Lapham Park Venture developed 

a memorandum of understanding 

with the primary partners, 

specifying services that each 

organization is to provide to the 

residents and other partnership 

members. The Venture also 

established a steering committee, 

resident organization, operations 

committee, on-site providers 

team, and resident services committee. 

A formal document lists 

membership and functions for 

these governing committees (see 

Appendix E). 

• Achieve some successes early and build 

upon them. Success, defined in terms of 

quantifiable outcomes, is critical to any 

long-term sustainable partnership. 

• Cultivate the “culture” of partnering. 

The organizational infrastructure must continue 

to evolve as the environment and community 

needs do. It must be sufficiently focused to 

keep an eye on the mission and results. A successful 

partnership reaches a point at which the 

partners and the community “get it.” They are 

actively engaged in solving problems. The 

partnership has then crossed the boundary into 

a performance arena. Once this occurs, it must 

stretch the goals to achieve even greater results. 



Business 





Civic 

Stages of A Partnership: 

What Difference Does 

Maturity Make? 

Chapter10 

Partnerships, whether new 

or old, must achieve the 

attributes discussed in the 

previous chapters: 

extraordinary results, 

effective leadership, missiondriven 

and strategic work, 

adequate resources, effective 

communications, and sound 

organizational principles.

STAGES OF A PARTNERSHIP: 

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES MATURITY MAKE? 

chapter ten 

s a partnership evolves, it encounters different challenges. A well-established partnership 

does not face the same issues as one just forming. This chapter describes how 

A 

partnerships mature and the obstacles they encounter along the way. Every partnership 

and community has unique features, and individual experiences are not a surefire predictor 

of success. However, the collective experiences of the design lab partnerships provide a general 

framework for many issues and concerns encountered along the development continuum. 

There are three major phases in a partnership’s 

development: start-up, developmental, and 

mature. Partnerships do not develop at the 

same pace; the start-up phase can last from a 

few months to years. So, partnership maturity 

is not determined so much by age, but by the 

operation. Table 10-1 depicts each phase’s 

characteristics and challenges for each highperformance 

characteristic. 

RESULTS 

Results are the seminal characteristic of a highperformance 

partnership. Maturity significantly 

influences them. At its inception, a 

partnership focuses on assembling the organizational 

foundation and resources necessary to 

produce results. Thus, the initial results primarily 

involve creating good, sound relationships 

and an organizational infrastructure. 

The collaboration also may focus on 

some “low-hanging fruit” to establish 

momentum and generate broader understanding 

and support. Here, modest successes 

are important. 

As the partnership becomes more established, 

it measures results more systematically. 

How many customers have been 

served? How many units of service have 

been provided? These output measures 

indicate the partnership’s workload and 

community activity. Meanwhile, the partnership 

may have some early indications of 

Life Cycle of Partnership— 

Metamorphosis 

FIGURE 10-1 

SEASONS OF A PARTNERSHIP 

Caterpillar 

Early stage of 

partnership. 

Eat. Eat. Eat. 

Grow. Grow. Grow. 

Cocoon 

Midlife. 

Evolve. Grow. 

Butterfly 

Fully mature HPP. 

Sustainable. 

Improves community. 


Results Characteristics • Derive benefits primarily 

from the partnering 

process 

• Focus on low-hanging 

fruit 

Challenges 

• Establish sound foundation 

to achieve results 

• Achieve some early successes 

• Data 

Leadership Characteristics • Convening the partnership 

• Strong, visible champion 

• Directive, passionate, 

respected 

• Entrepreneurial 

• Inspire participation 

Mission/Strategic 

Planning 

Startup Mid-Life/Developmental Mature/At Scale 

• Output measures 

• Interim outcomes 

• Identify adequate interim 

outcome measures 

• Obtain resources to grow 

to scale 

• Data 

• Leaders are facilitators/ 

managers 

• Joint ownership 

• Empowerment 

Challenges • Find the champion • Leadership transition 

• Handoff from convener to 

facilitator/manager 

• Implement leadership 

succession plan 

Characteristics 

Challenges 

• Compelling mission 

• Clear goals 

• Develop preliminary work 

plans 

• Clearly articulate the mission 

• Achieve the appropriate 

balance between planning 

and action 

Resources Characteristics • Business planning 

• Start up capital 

Challenges 

• Adequacy 

• Rely on single or major 

source of funding 

Communications Characteristics • Internally and funder 

focused 

• Less formal 

• Message more focused 

on the need for partnership 

than the results 

Organizational 


TABLE 10-1 

PHASES OF A HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP 

Challenges 

Characteristics 

Challenges 

• Reconfirm or revisit mission 

• Update strategic plan 

• Achieve mission alignment 

between partnership 

and members 

• Flexibility 

• Redirect resources to 

support partnership 

• Stabilize the base 

• Grow to resources to 

scale 

• Externally focused 

• Institutionalize feedback 

mechanisms from customers 

• Focus on advocacy messages 

to grow partnership 

to scale 

• Outreach to all stakeholders 

feedback system 

• Develop an effective 

• Clear and consistent • Break cultural and organizational 

barriers 

message 

• Funding to develop materials 

of stakeholders 

• Outreach to broader set 

• Lack of results to report 

• Build relationships 

• Decision-making 

structures 

• Initiating systems 

• Build the team 

• Trust 

• Overcome different organizational 

cultures 

• Assemble the right team 

• Institutionalize systems 

• Expand infrastructure to 

grow to scale 

• Expand the infrastructure 

to support expansion 

• Terminate non-contributory 

partners 

• High-performance 

outcomes 

• Achieve outcomes 

without total control 

over intervening 

variables 

• Continuous improvement 

to stay 

effective 

• Leadership diffused 

throughout partnership 

• Institutionalized 

• Celebrate successes 

• Continuous improvement; 

"no cruise 

control" 

• Branching into new 

areas 

• Reconfirm or revisit 

mission 

• Update strategic 

plan 

• Staying relevant 

• Respond to 

changing conditions 

• More diverse, stable 

resource base 

• More efficient use of 

resources 

• Retain efficiency 

• More formalized 

• Less frequent; more 

on "as needed" basis 

• More externally 

focused 

• Maintain investors’ 

interest 

• Listen to 

stakeholders 

• Flexibility to respond 

to changes in the 

environment 

• Retain partners 

• Retrain to stay 

current 

• Competition from 

start up partnerships 




chapter ten 

short or interim success. For example, it can 

measure customer satisfaction and use interim 

data on changes in community conditions for 

the partnership’s duration. However, most 

serious public policy issues cannot be resolved 

in a few years. Even if early trends are positive, 

there is no guarantee that fundamental causes 

have been addressed. During its midlife, a 

partnership may be better positioned to produce 

interim indications of sustainable results. 

A partnership can truly evaluate its effectiveness 

once it has grown to scale. At that point, 

it serves an entire target population, and 

assesses its fundamental improvements for 

clients and the community. The bar for 

achieving results continually gets higher as the 

partnership matures, so the challenge is to live 

up to these increasing expectations. At scale, a 

high-performance partnership leverages its 

impact to achieve results beyond its immediate 

control. Many variables can influence outcomes. 

A partnership accepts responsibility 

for changing community conditions. 

As the partnership matures, it must stay current. 

Strategies used to deliver services during 

start-up may not be as successful down the 

line. Continuous improvement and innovation 

are hallmarks of a successful partnership. 

Keeping the partnership energized and innovative 

to produce outstanding results is an ongoing 

challenge, too. 

LEADERSHIP 

One or two individuals generally take the lead 

when a partnership is created. These strong, 

visible champions must be directive in their 

style to pull the organization and mission 

together. They also must inspire others to join 

the partnership and get them moving in the 

same direction. 

Following the start-up phase, the convening 

champions still may be active, yet move toward 

the sideline. Facilitators and managers emerge 

as key leaders because the partnership must 

focus on institutionalizing its operations, honing 

its systems, and producing results. Joint 

ownership of the mission and values is critical, 

as leadership must create shared responsibility 

for activities and outcomes. Leadership equals 

empowerment of the entire organization. 

When a partnership enters its mature phase, leadership 

is diffused throughout the organization. 

Leadership cannot be personality driven over the 

long haul. The next generation must move forward, 

focusing on continual improvement. 

The challenge is to keep the partnership from 

going on “cruise control” when moving into the 

mature phase and at-scale operations. 

Maintenance mode is not acceptable for a highperformance 

partnership. An organization can 

become obsolete if it does not continuously 

improve its operations. The need for “drivers” is 

the one constant about the leadership challenge. 

No matter how mature or successful a partnership, 

someone—hopefully more than one— 

must strive for excellent performance. 

MISSION/STRATEGIC 

PLANNING 

Maturing has a limited impact on a partnership’s 

mission and strategic planning requirements. 

At every phase of development, the 

organization must have a clear compelling 

mission and strategic work plans for accomplishing 

it. Mission statements should change 

little over time. Strategic plans, on the other 

hand, should be routinely updated to reflect 

work plan requirements. 

Gaining consensus on the mission—and clearly 

communicating it to everyone—is the real 

challenge. Aligning the mission with the 

members must occur early in this process. The 

second challenge is developing the strategic 

plan early enough so that there is a collective 

work effort for the most important activities. 

Throughout the partnership’s development, it 

is imperative that the plan be revisited and 

updated as appropriate. 

RESOURCES 

A start-up partnership often scrambles to 

obtain sufficient resources for basic operations. 

Searching for a diversified and secure revenue 

base is integral to most activities. Yet it is more 

intense following the initial start up. 

As a partnership becomes operationalized, its 

members begin to redirect their resources and 

align them with activities. Further, the partnership 

has participated in several budget 

cycles, and has begun to establish its perform- 


FIGURE 10-2 

PHASES OF LEADERSHIP 

Management Skills 

"There's a Crisis" 

"Let's get moving" 

"We need standard 

operating procedures" 

"Check with 

the Customers" 

"Let's reorganize" 

"Follow Me" 

"Mentoring is 

my Job" 

Leadership Skills 

"Yeah Team!" 

Start Up 

Mid-life 

(Development) 

Mature 

Source: John Lesko, Facilitator 

ance track record and independent funding 

streams. During this period, it is working to 

stabilize its resource base, grow to scale, evaluate 

outcomes and processes, and increase cost 

effectiveness. 

By the time the partnership delivers its services 

and programs to scale, its revenue base should 

be more stable. It should have established a 

track record and be positioned to attract 

stronger members and more funding. Fewer 

resources should be invested in building relationships 

and an organizational infrastructure. 


A partnership initially focuses its communications 

strategies on building support among its 

members, funders, and external stakeholders. 

Young partnerships may have difficulty communicating 

their message because they may 

not yet be clear on mission and goals. Yet 

communications are critical to generate sufficient 

support to obtain funding and member 

buy-in. Communications are more intense 

and critical to secure lasting relationships that 

will be the basis for the long-term partnership. 

Communications channels are less formal and 

more focused on the need for the partnership, 

not results. 

As the partnership enters its operational/developmental 

phase, communications channels 

become more formalized and varied. 

Newsletters, brochures, annual reports, and 

other materials should be available for electronic 

and print distribution. In addition, the 

partnership can report its results. Recognizing 

its good work can become a major focal point 

when customer and stakeholder communications 

are established. Closing the feedback 

loop and acting on input are critical activities 

during the mid-life period. 

Once the partnership reaches maturity, communications 

channels should be very formalized, 

with annual reports, routine meetings of 

the governing body, partners, and staff, and 

institutionalized customer feedback loops. 

The challenge of keeping stakeholders 

informed never dissipates entirely, but it 

should become easier once the institutional 

framework is in place. 




chapter ten 



Organizational infrastructure means assembling 

the right parties with a capacity to perform, 

and developing of underlying systems 

and relationships necessary to support effective 

performance. During the early phases, a partnership 

must focus on convincing strong, 

capable public and nonprofit organizations to 

participate. Civic associations, which reach 

out to the entire community and provide 

access and approval, must agree to actively 

support the partnership. Much of this period 

is spent creating an environment based upon 

trust and teamwork. 

The developmental stage focuses on building 

capacity among the partners. This is the time 

when partnership must assess its strengths and 

weaknesses. Strong partners are encouraged to 

stay, while weaker ones may leave. At this 

point, the partnership invests in expanding its 

organizational infrastructure to grow its operations 

to scale. 

A high-performance partnership never 

becomes challenge free. At every stage of 

development, it faces new and recurring obstacles 

to improving outcomes for customers and 

the community at large. These challenges may 

differ somewhat over time, but “maintenance 

mode” cannot be in the vocabulary of a performance-oriented 

operation. 



Business 





Civic 

How Does the 

Scope of the 

Partnership Matter? 

Chapter11 

6 

High-performance cross-sector partnerships can 

occur anywhere geographically—national, 

regional, state, local, or neighborhood. Indeed, 

those featured in this report range from a single 

building to the entire nation. The needs, assets, 

and environments differ widely from one 

community to the next, whether the 

communities are 100 people or 250 million. 

Community conditions influence any initiative. 

Yet every high-performance partnership must 

conquer the challenges of the six defining 

characteristics of such endeavors. These 

characteristics may take on different aspects, 

demands, or criteria as the scope changes. 

6. Special thanks to Spencer Schron and 

Lindsey Cometa, CMS, for their tremendous 

efforts in developing and refining 

this chapter.

HOW DOES THE SCOPE OF THE 

PARTNERSHIP MATTER? 

chapter eleven 

he previous chapter discussed how partnership maturity influences these six defining 

T 

characteristics. The design labs also explored how a partnership’s scope of activities 

impacts its progression toward—and obstacles to reaching—high-performance status. 

Unfortunately, conclusions on scope are not definitive. The design labs consisted of eight local 

partnerships and two national ones. Without the benefit of a wider array of experiences, the 

impact of scope on a partnership’s creation and success cannot be fully defined. 

Additional research is needed, not only to further 

examine the inherent challenges in collaborating 

at different levels, but also to understand 

the vertical interactions among them. 

National collaborations enlist national, state, 

and local partners, and vice versa. As shown in 

Figure 11-1, partnership issues and challenges 

flow among levels— bubbling up and trickling 

down the national-state-local hierarchy. The 

design labs noted but did not explore this phenomenon 

in depth. However, this report offers 

preliminary observations. 

RESULTS 

Achieving extraordinary results is the hallmark 

of a high-performance partnership, no matter 

the scope. National partnerships have the 

opportunity to produce results for a national 

audience, and must deal with the challenges 

that come with this broad scale. The broader 

the scope, the more difficult it may be to reach 

out to an entire network of stakeholders with 

diverse interests. Methods for analyzing success 

are more costly and ways to document 

outcomes usually are more formal. The potential 

for unrelated variables affecting results is 

greater when the scope is broader. For example, 

it is easier to measure the impact of a campaign 

to improve children’s health at the local 

level than at the state or federal. The data are 

more manageable. 

LEADERSHIP 

Leadership is key for all high-performance 

partnerships. Mobilizing a nation and mobilizing 

a town each is challenging in its own 

FIGURE 11-1 

PARTNERSHIP SCOPE 


State 

Bubble up 

National partnerships must engage and 

mobilize local partnerships to achieve 

national results. 

Local 

Regional 

Filter down 

The genesis or challenges of HPP can flow from level to level. 


The CMS Employer/Caregiver 

Workgroup Partnership exceeded 

expectations for its ability to distribute 

Medicare information. It 

included organizations with related 

missions and reached 

employed caregivers through their 

respective constituencies. 

Examples are the National 

Federation of Independent 

Businesses (607,000 members), 

Small Business Administration 

(contact with one million small 

businesses),Washington Business 

Group on Health (175 employers, 

40 million employees), Society for 

Human Resource Management 

(165,000 members), and 

Administration on Aging (25,000 

organizations in Aging Network). 

Spencer Schron, Centers for Medicare 


way. The design labs did not identify fundamental 

differences between leadership characteristics 

in national partnerships and those at a 

smaller scale. No matter what its scope may 

be, the partnership must have a champion to 

initiate, nurture, and make it work. The champion 

of a local partnership primarily will be 

concerned with the mission and strategy and a 

common goal. The champion of a national 

partnership may be concerned with keeping 

the partnership together and making sure that 

“noses do not get out of joint.” 

For a national effort, partners may seek prominent 

national sponsors or figureheads. 

Increased visibility may cause more significant 

time delays, scheduling delays, and potential 

changes for agreed upon goals. National partners 

should decide early the value of the leadership 

sponsor in promoting the project given 

potential trade-offs. 

Leaders of national partnerships must recognize 

the importance of local partners and 

demonstrate their beliefs through interaction. 

They must convey the partnership’s vision to 

many layers of the organizations and engage 

local leaders in design, development, and implementation. 

Early on, leaders should spend time 

with people responsible for implementing the 

model in their communities and incorporate 

local examples into the national message. 

MISSION AND STRATEGIC 

PLANNING 

A partnership must have a clear and compelling 

mission and strategic plan, regardless of its 

scope. This characteristic may be even more 

critical as the partnership grows. Coordinating 

agencies from different sectors and geographic 

regions is extraordinarily difficult without a 

shared mission. A definitive plan outlining partners’ 

roles and responsibilities becomes more 

critical as a partnership expands. 

A partnership is more likely to agree on a plan of 

action and achieve a shared mission when a single 

neighborhood is involved. The opportunity 

to reach consensus and mobilize action is easier 

when the scope is smaller, as is the potential for 

a bold initiative. The risks can be more readily 

defined and easier to embrace, even if relatively 

high. At the national level, the chances of success 

increase the more diluted the mission and 

risks. Mid-course corrections in the strategic 

plan can be accomplished more quickly with 

smaller partnerships, as well. Large-scale partnerships 

cannot turn on a dime; they are not as 

nimble as those with a local scope. 

At the national level, a mission and strategic 

plan may be viewed as the guiding concepts for 

launching regional and local action plans. The 

strategic plan should provide flexibility for 

local complexities and the communities’ 

implementation role. 

RESOURCES 

Obtaining sufficient resources can cut both 

ways in terms of a partnership’s scope. 

Broader partnerships may suffer from the 

“Daddy Warbucks” factor, as organizations 

may perceive that resources exist at the state 

and national levels. This perception can lead 

some to join the partnership in hopes of 

receiving some “mythical largesse,” only to 

realize that the perception is wrong. At the 

same time, the design lab participants noted 

that leveraging additional resources is poten- 





The National Cancer Institute has a partnership 

with the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Extension 

Service, which has agents in 3,500 counties. The 

staff network throughout the county is a significant 

resource. 

Lis Handley, 5 A Day for Better Health Partnership 



All partnerships need comprehensive communications 

strategies, but the need grows considerably 

as scope expands. Although face-to-face 

discussion becomes more challenging, the 

communications vehicles themselves are similar 

whether the audience is local, national, or 

somewhere in between. However, a partnership’s 

sheer complexity and breadth complicate 

its ability to maintain effective internal and 

external communications, no matter the vehicle. 

It is harder to keep all partners aligned 

and stakeholders informed when they are larger 

in number and physically dispersed. 

tially greater with a broader scope. These partnerships 

have greater access to funding, expertise, 

and other assets than localized initiatives. 

Efficiency is achieved through national partnerships 

that can yield local replication. Since a 

multiplier effect is desired, state and local representatives 

should be included in developing the 

national strategy to ensure the model allows for 

local customization and partnerships. However, 

the “not invented here” attitude may create local 

resistance to the national project. 

National partnerships benefit local organizations 

through sharing lessons learned, evaluation 

methodologies, social marketing research, 

media buys, facilities, and other assets. 

“With just a few keystrokes, national organizations 

can reach their entire membership with breaking 

news about the partnership. As information on 

noteworthy initiatives is forwarded to other personal 

and professional networks, support for the 

partnership may grow exponentially.” 



The Director of the National Alliance for 

Caregiving, a member of the CMS Caregiver 

Workgroup, provided extensive expertise to help 

identify caregiver issues and concerns; introduced 

CMS staff to major players in the caregiver and 

employer communities; gave CMS recognition; and 

joined the partnership. Through developing a productive 

partnership with the Administration in 

Aging, CMS has enlisted its participation in the 

Caregiver Workgroup and gained access to the 

25,000 outlets in the Aging Network. 

Spencer Schron, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 


Informal communications strategies are less 

effective in these situations. There, the opportunity 

for misinformation and misunderstanding 

is greater. 

At the same time, communications technologies 

have made national meetings and virtual 

partnerships a growing phenomenon. 

Conference calls, satellite broadcasts, webcasts, 

and Internet “communities of practice” convene 

large numbers of geographically distant 

partners. National organizations bring their 

communications infrastructures. Coalitions 

often use electronic newsletters, listservs, and 

conferences to convey information. Large 

numbers can receive consistent, accurate, and 

quick information. In addition to the formal 

communications infrastructure, members frequently 

disseminate information through their 

personal networks. These dynamic vehicles 

create further unanticipated support. 

Listening is key to ensure that a project will 

work at the local level. National partnerships 

often rely on local affiliates to carry forward a 

“message” at the teachable moment. 

Sustaining the effort past the initial “splash” is 

critical. Since local, state, and regional organizations 

must balance the national effort with 

local priorities, communications must surface 

competing demands for time and resources. 

Face-to-face interaction during the development 

phase is critical to obtain local input. 

Building regional partnerships among affiliates 

and the supporting communications mechanism 

are very important. 



Partnership scope can significantly impact the 

complexity, size, and attributes of the organizational 

structure. As scope grows, so too will 

the number of partners and stakeholders. 

More formalized decision-making structures 

are required to deal with this complexity and 

ensure that diverse interests are appropriately 

represented. As a partnership grows, so must 

its sensitivity to consensus building among 

diverse, demanding, and political national 

partners. A state or national partnership probably 

cannot rely on informal breakfasts at the 

neighborhood diner. It more likely would 

require a state dinner at the White House. 

“With just a few keystrokes, national organizations 

can reach their entire membership with breaking 

news about the partnership. As information on 

noteworthy initiatives is forwarded to other personal 

and professional networks, support for the 

partnership may grow exponentially.” 



By virtue of the huge constituencies represented 

by national partners involved with the Caregiver 

Workgroup, CMS has accessed an audience of 400 

employers with a potential employee audience of 

50 million employees. This is the ultimate impact 

of scope as portrayed by a national partnership. 

Spencer Schron, Centers for Medicare 






Broader scope also expands the challenge of creating 

a supportive environment. More players 

are involved and more perspectives must be considered. 

It is one thing to garner support for a 

partnership in a single neighborhood, but 

another to gain nationwide endorsement. The 

converse is that a federal or state agency generally 

has regional or local offices that extend the 

reach, and potentially the effectiveness, of a partnership. 

Public and nonprofit organizations at 

the national and state levels have organizational 

infrastructures and other resources upon which 

to draw. A broader scope may add complexity 

to an organizational framework, but the structure 

may offer additional resources to enhance 

the partnership’s work. 

Governments at every level often are seen as 

bureaucratic, ineffective, slow, and not very 

efficient. However, this impression seems 

more prevalent with a federal agency than a 

local one. The approvals required to move a 

“The fundamental principles for building a small office 

building or a large office complex are the same. But 

does the difference in scale make a difference in the 

complexity of the endeavor? Of course, it does.” 

Connie Bawcum, Project Director 

decision through the Executive Branch and 

Congress support this perception. Myriad 

conditions and paperwork may dissuade 

organizations in other sectors from participating 

with a federal agency in what otherwise 

may be an attractive partnership cause. 

Conversely, the aura and prestige of being 

associated with a national or statewide partnership 

can lure organizations that might not 

otherwise participate. For some, endorsement 

by the White House or a governor’s office may 

be more compelling and valuable than local 

publicity. 

SUMMARY 

The design labs began the discussion of the 

impact of scope on high-performance partnerships. 

The conclusion was that scope does matter. 

Added complexity, size, and diversity 

heighten the inherent difficulties of collaborating 

across the public, nonprofit, private, and 

civic sectors. A larger scope adds to the challenges 

of developing an organizational structure 

that effectively accommodates every partner 

and stakeholder interest. It augments the 

need to communicate effectively, yet makes 

that communication harder. The broader the 

scope, the greater the resources needed to 

achieve meaningful results and the greater the 

difficulty in measuring them. 

At the same time, state and national partnerships 

have a wider array of potential members 

to draw upon and potentially more avenues of 

“reciprocity” to entice them. The resources 

that national organizations can harness— 

expertise, branch locations, staffing, and sometimes 

funding—can be benefits. Perhaps most 

important of all, the broader the scope, the 

more people are positively impacted. Bottom 

line: scope matters. 


Management 

Approaches 

and Attributes 

Chapter12 

Managing a high-performance 

partnership is not the same as 

overseeing a single agency, no 

matter the sector. Management 

approaches that work well in 

hierarchical organizations do 

not always transfer readily to a 

collaborative results-driven 

environment.

MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 

AND ATTRIBUTES 

chapter twelve 

I 

n traditional hierarchal organizations, an effective manager is technically competent 

and well equipped to deal with vertical decision-making. The manager 

achieves results by working with employees and volunteers, reporting to a single boss, 

and having a defined set of responsibilities, powers, and authorities. 

The design lab participants identified different 

skills for high-performance partnership managers, 

who must focus on achieving results, not 

overseeing work processes. The ends—not the 

means—are top priority. Also, the manager 

must be adept at embracing, organizing, and 

facilitating a collaboration of members with 

different perspectives, needs, and ways of 

doing business. Time and energy are needed 

to glue the partnership together and keep its 

members engaged, on track, and productive. 

Managers must be able to embrace a vision 

that stretches beyond a single organization and 

convince others to do the same. A high-performance 

partnership ultimately is accountable 

for its outcomes. A manager overly focused on 

“Just speaking the language of partnering does not 

mean you know how to do it.” 

Tony Macklin, Family Strengthening Coalition (Indianapolis) 

process can lose sight of the desired outcome. 

Table 12-1 highlights some of the most important 

differences between a high-performance 

partnership and a traditional organization. 

A partnership integrates organizations that 

have potentially overlapping or competing 

agendas. The management approach must be 

to build consensus using negotiation and facilitation. 

A manager cannot dictate a decision 

but must share power. Given the participants’ 

broad range of perspectives and cultures, managers 

must recognize the value of differences 

and weave them into a coherent organizational 

fabric. If results miss their target, the manager 

must assess the situation quickly, change tactics, 

and move the partnership forward. 

Hierarchical rigidity is not nimble or sufficiently 

responsive in the high-performance 

arena. Flexibility is essential. 

Communicating up, down, and across is critical. 

Identifying the right message also is key. The 

communications challenges discussed earlier 

TABLE 12-1 


HIGH PERFORMANCE VS.TRADITIONAL 

Management 


Traditional 

Characteristic 

Partnership 

Organization 

View Visionary Task 

Driver Results Process 

Decision-making Shared Directive 

Structure Team Hierarchical 

Communications 360˚ Top down 

Style Coach Directive 

Focus Customer Organization 

Boss Multiple Single 


Public managers tend to be risk averse, and tackling 

complicated issues and sharing authority can 

be risky. Swift public and media scrutiny creates 

a tendency to emphasize control. As such, it is 

difficult for the public sector to accept some failure 

as a consequence of proactively and creatively 

solving complex problems. 

can only be addressed by those that focus significant 

energy on ensuring that every participant 

understands every aspect of the partnership. 

The manager must primarily be a coach, not a 

commander. A high-performance cross-sector 

culture is not conducive to pyramidal organizations 

where issuing orders is the norm. Effective 

managers must be able to marshal peer, leadership, 

and even external stakeholder support. 

These approaches and skills sets are not 

reserved for the leadership team. They are 

needed throughout every level of a partnership, 

from the first line team leader to the chief 

operating officer. The following sections compare 

management approaches in a high-performance 

partnership with those in typical 

public, nonprofit, business, and civic organizations. 

These broad-based comparisons help to 

illustrate prevailing management styles. In the 

emerging performance-oriented multi-sector 

environment, broader management attributes 

will become increasingly relevant. 

PUBLIC SECTOR 

MANAGEMENT 

Governments are in the public’s eye and have 

strong fiduciary responsibilities, making them 

very process oriented. Rules and regulations 

abound, making the transition to a performance-based 

partnership difficult. Governments 

should not become laissez-faire about their 

accountability, but high-performing ones have 

learned that onerous rules and regulations can 

inhibit results. Public organizations must have 

more entrepreneurial and flexible management 

styles to be true partners. 

The public sector represents an entire community’s 

interests, so it naturally has more structure 

than other sectors. Organizing work and 

responding to diverse constituencies are strengths 

for many public administrators. Successful ones 

must be adept and tenacious in breaking through 

bureaucratic red tape. Those who have learned to 

achieve results through cooperative approaches— 

not only direct line authorities—do well with 

cross-sector partnerships. 

NONPROFIT SECTOR 

MANAGEMENT 

Stereotyping nonprofit organizations is difficult 

because they differ in size, service area, funding 

source, and maturity. However, the design lab 

participants identified several areas where their 

management differs from a high-performance 

cross-sector partnership environment. 

Nonprofit organizations are focused on their 

mission because they serve a particular purpose—education, 

social, health, or cultural. 

Values and social norms are prevalent in nonprofit 

decision-making so it can be difficult for 

managers to recognize and deal with public 

and business partners’ motivations, constraints, 

and interests. 

Reputation and results are more personality 

dependent in the nonprofit sector than in the 

public sector. Managers sometimes are selected 

based on their commitment to the mission 

rather than for their professional skills. Staff 

bench strength and good financial and administrative 

systems can be limited. 

The public sector contributes stability and 

longevity to a cross-sector partnership. 

Political winds may change, but governments 

rarely go out of business. The same cannot be 

said for a nonprofit organization dependent on 

securing scarce resources for its survival. As a 

result, nonprofit managers often are more 

adept at responding to change and adversity. 



AND ATTRIBUTES 

chapter twelve 

Generally, nonprofit organizations and their 

managers are respected in the community and 

can reach segments of the population that government 

alone cannot. With the civic sector, 

they provide grassroots organizing skills that 

are key to achieving positive and lasting outcomes 

in many communities. 

BUSINESS SECTOR 

MANAGEMENT 

Business sector management skills are very valuable 

in a high-performance environment. 

Strong business managers generally are strong 

strategic planners. The focus on bottom line 

results and profitability can provide good 

grounding and efficiency for the partnership. If 

these skills can be married with nonprofit values 

and public sector accountability and openness, 

the groundwork is laid for extraordinary results. 

At the same time, many business executives are 

not adept at managing collaboratively, sharing 

authority, and working to build consensus. 

Corporate managers usually bring a performance 

orientation, but not collaboration skills, 

to a cross-sector partnership. 

CIVIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT 

Civic leaders are among the most skilled at 

working collaboratively, yet they frequently are 

overlooked. Citizens often are perceived as 

clients, not full partners. They sometimes feel 

that their value is not recognized or respected. 

Without a sense of empowerment, civic organizations 

may tend to hang back, reserving 

judgment and full participation. However, 

they can play a tremendously important role in 

collaborative efforts. 

To be full participants, civic organizations 

must impart leadership skills and share 

accountability for outcomes. Indeed, they 

must be inclusive and endeavor to reach out to 

every segment of the community they represent. 

Their ability to build consensus among 

diverse perspectives and priorities also adds 

strength and credibility. 

Civic leaders, often volunteers, must be able to 

commit their organizations’ resources, such as 

access, stakeholder management, communications 

channels, ideas, and in-kind services. 

They do not always have the time or ability to 

be actively engaged in the partnership’s workplans 

and decision-making, but they can be a 

powerful contributor when they do. 

Several design lab participants identified the 

lack of stability and succession planning in 

civic leadership as a significant obstacle. This 

causes civic leaders to be viewed as less reliable 

than other partners. However, others had an 

opposite impression. As with any organization, 

the degree to which civic leaders contribute 

depends largely on the commitment 

and capacity of the individuals involved. 

Civic partners share many of the same management 

issues as other sectors. But, they have 

valuable skills to reach out to a diverse membership, 

build consensus, and accept shared 

ownership and accountability. When they are 

at the table, cross-sector collaboration is more 

likely to be effective. 


Putting It All 

Together 

Chapter13 

High-performance cross-sector partnerships 

are becoming one of the most 

important approaches that a community 

can use to address difficult, complex 

issues. They bring together an array of 

organizations that have a stake in making 

a difference. Collaboration provides 

communication, greater trust, and mechanisms 

to share resources, decision-making, 

and accountability for results. Most 

important, the performance component 

distinguishes a high-performance crosssector 

partnership from other 

collaborative efforts.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER 

chapter thirteen 

performance-based partnership provides the framework for focusing on the commitment 

of key players and organizing their work. A partnership builds its capacity to be 

A 

successful by assembling essential components identified in the design labs: a clear mission 

and strategic plan; adequate, well coordinated resources; effective internal and external 

communications; and a sound infrastructure for organizing investors and other stakeholders. 

At the same time, success can be realized only 

through effective leadership. Leadership is the 

spark that melds these building blocks into a 

dynamic, functional venture. It overcomes the 

challenges articulated in this report and turns 

the capacity for success into tangible results. 

Leaders must have the tools with which to work: 

resources, mission, work plans, partners, and a 

compelling message. But the champions bring 

the tools together and infuse them with life. 

Partnerships are hard work. High-performance 

partnerships are extraordinarily so. Not 

every situation requires the combined energies 

of multiple sectors—public, nonprofit, civic, or 

business. Some issues can be solved by a single 

sector alone or by a cross-sector relationship 

that is not performance based. Before leaping 

into a partnership, parties should be sure that 

the projected benefits are worth their time and 

energy. Partnerships can be expensive. 

FIGURE 13-1 

COMPONENTS OF A HIGH- 

PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP 

Results 


Mission/ 

Planning 

LEADERSHIP 


Resources 

Source: Connie Bawcum and Camille Barnett 


FIGURE 13-2 

ROWING TOGETHER FOR A HIGH-PERFORMANCE 

PARTNERSHIP 

LEADERSHIP 

STAKEHOLDERS 

STOCKHOLDERS 

INVESTORS 

STAKEHOLDERS 

INVESTORS 

MISSION/PLANNING 

RESOURCES 



HIGH- 

PERFORMANCE 

PARTNERSHIP 

Furthermore, a community may not be ready 

for a partnership. A lack of trust and common 

purpose may preclude sharing resources, 

responsibilities, and accountability. If the timing 

or environment is not right, success is 

unlikely. The Wilder Foundation has developed 

a tool, the “Collaboration Factors 

Inventory,” that assists organizations and communities 

in assessing their readiness to undertake 

a partnership. 7 

Nonetheless, when all the elements are in place 

and leadership emerges to unite them, crosssector 

partnerships can generate a synergy that 

generates extraordinary results for direct beneficiaries 

and the community at large. Highperformance 

cross-sector partnerships can 

provide a solution when no other approach 

has worked. 

This report has described this model and identified 

challenges to creating a successful one. 

To simplify a rather complex endeavor, the 

brief checklist in Table 13-1 lists the essential 

elements for a high-performance partnership 

and the investments that add significantly to 

the likelihood of success. 

The high-performance partnership can power 

the future. As a model for doing the community’s 

business, it marries the advantages of 

collaboration and performance. It makes an 

extraordinarily positive difference for communities 

and people. 

7. Mattessich, P, Marta Murray-Close, and Barbara R. Monsey, Collaboration: What Makes It Work. 2nd Edition. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2001. 


PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER 

chapter thirteen 

TABLE 13-1 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP CHECKLIST 

Things to Have/Where to Direct Energy as a Partnership Builds to Maturity 

Each phase of development builds upon the foundation laid at the partnership’s inception 

START UP PHASE 

Essentials 

• CHAMPION 

• List of specific desired results 

• Mission statement 

• Governance structure 

• Right partners involved 

• Initial funding and allocations to partners 

• Trust/team building among partners 

Excellent Investments 

• Strategic plan with work tasks, timelines, and assignments 

• Asset map 

• Business plan, including revenue needs and sources 

• Communications materials for internal and external audiences 

• Baseline data 

• Data collection formats and reports 

• External evaluator 

DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE 

Additional Essentials 

• CHAMPION 

• Outputs and interim outcomes 

• Mission alignment/overlap with partners 

• Shared ownership of the mission 

• Baseline data 

• Routine reporting of results 

• Administrative and operational systems to manage the work 

• Communications materials 

• Return on investment for funders and partners 

• Reaffirmation of the mission 

• Strategic and business plans 

Excellent Investments 

• Meaningful long term outcomes 

• Succession plan for key leaders 

• Comprehensive communication plan, including marketing materials 

• Diversified revenue base 

• Plan to grow to scale 

• External evaluation of results 

• Celebrations of success 

• Mentoring and training 

MATURE/AT SCALE PHASE 

Additional Essentials 

• CHEERLEADER 

• Meaningful long term outcomes 

• Succession plan for leaders 

• Strategies to reinvent and re-energize the partnership 

• Mentoring, training, and retraining 


Appendix A 

Panel Member Biographies

PANEL MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES 

appendix A 

PANEL BIOGRAPHIES 

Camille Cates Barnett, Chair—Managing Partner, The Public Strategies Group. Former Chief 

Management Officer, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 

Authority; Senior International Municipal Specialist, Center for International Development, 

Research Triangle Institute; City Manager, City of Austin, Texas; Associate, Center for Excellence in 

Local Government; Associate, PMC Associates; Director of Finance and Administration, City of 

Houston, Texas; Deputy City Manager, City of Dallas, Texas. 

Christine Becker—Deputy Executive Director, National League of Cities. Former Senior Associate, 

Carter Goble Associates; Chief, Office of Human Resource Development, and Chief of Staff, 

Department of Corrections, Government of the District of Columbia; Director, Local Elected 

Officials Project, and Director, Training Institute. 

Peter Goldberg—President and Chief Executive Officer, Families International, Inc., and Alliance 

for Children and Families (formerly Family Service America, Inc.); Chief Executive Officer, Family 

Foundation of North America, and Ways to Work. Former President, Prudential Foundation, The 

Prudential Life Insurance Co. Former positions with Primerica Foundation, Primerica 

Corporation (formerly American Can Co.): Vice President, Public Responsibility; Director. Former 

Project Director, New York State Heroin and Alcohol Abuse Study; Special Assistant to the 

Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services; 

Sandra J. Hale—President, Enterprise Management, International. Former Commissioner of 

Administration and Chair, Executive Management Subcabinet, State of Minnesota; Co-Editor, 

Managing Change: A Guide to Producing Innovation From Within; Associate Professor, 

Metropolitan State University, Twin Cities; President and Chair, Guthrie Theater Trustees, 

Minneapolis; Chair, Minnesota State Arts Board; Presidential Appointments: Eighth Circuit Court 

of Appeals Judicial Nominating Commission and National Council for the Arts. 

Sara E. Melendez—Professor of Nonprofit Management, School of Business and Management, 

George Washington University. Former President and Chief Operating Officer, the 

Independent Sector. 

Michael Rogers—Executive Vice President, MedStar Health. Former Executive Director, 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; City Administrator/Deputy Mayor for 

Operations, Government of the District of Columbia; Director, Minority Business Development 

Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce; Director, Mayor’s Office of Contracts and Chief 

Procurement Officer, New York City; Vice President, Municipal Services and Executive Director, 

Javits Convention Center; Deputy General Manager, Washington, DC Convention Center; 

Associate, Temporary Commission on Financial Oversight of District of Columbia; Assistant to 

Executive Director/Director, Minority Executive Placement Program, International City 

Management Association. 


Appendix B 

Selected Bibliography

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

appendix B 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Austin, James, Mark Moore, Suzanne Morse, and Walter Powell. “Working Together: Collaboration 

Among the Sectors.” Facts & Findings, Vol. 3., No.1. 

Berman, Evan and Xiao-Hu Wang. “Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for 

Reform.” Public Administration Review, September/October 2000. 

Brudney, L. Jeffrey, Ted Hechert, and Neil S. Wright. Public Administration Review. 

January/February 1999. 

Casey Foundation. The Path of Most Resistance: Reflections on Lessons Learned from New Futures. 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995. 

Coble, Ran. “The Nonprofit Sector and State Governments: Public Policy Issues Facing Nonprofits in 

North Carolina and Other States,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Spring 1999. 

Fosler, R. Scott. Working Better Together: How Government, Business, and Nonprofit Organizations 

Can Achieve Public Purposes Through Cross-Sector Collaborations, Alliances, and Partnerships. 

The Three Sector Initiative, 2001 

Hsieh, Alice. Study of Public/Nonprofit High-Performance Partnerships, Phase One: Outreach and 

Synthesis (unpublished). National Academy of Public Administration, 1998. 

Independent Sector. The New Nonprofit Almanac in Brief: Facts and Figures on the Independent Sector. 

The Independent Sector, 2001. 

Kohm, Amelia, David LaPiana, Alfredo Vergara-Lobo, and Heather Gowdy. “Strategic Restructuring: 

Findings from a Study of Integrations and Alliances Among Nonprofit Social Service and Cultural 

Organizations in the United States.” Nonprofit Sector Research Fund Study. 

Lasker, Roz, Elisa S. Weiss, and Rebecca Miller. “Partnership Synergy: A Practical Framework 

for Studying and Strengthening the Collaborative Advantage.” Center for the Advancement of 

Collaborative Strategies in Health, Division of Public Health, The New York Academy of 

Medicine, 2001. 

Lewin Group. Evaluation of W.K. Kellogg Foundation Grantmaking in Health 1994-1999: An Executive 

Summary of the Final Synthesis Report. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2000. 

Linden, Russell M. Collaboration and Partnerships: The Key to Working In A “Blurred” World (unpublished). 

Linden, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making Collaboration Work in Government and 

Nonprofit Organizations. Wiley/Jossey-Bass, 2002. 

Mattessich, P. and B. Monsey. Collaboration: What Makes It Work. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1992. 


National League of Cities. “City Halls & Community-Based Organizations.” Issues & Options,Vol. 5, 

No.9, October 1997. 

National League of Cities. “New Directions for City Halls and Community Based Organizations.” 

No.1,Summer/Fall 1998. 

National League of Cities. Reducing Poverty & Revitalizing Neighborhoods: Making Collaboration Work. 2000. 

O’Connell, Brian. “A Major Transfer of Government Responsibility to Voluntary Organizations” 

Proceed with Caution”. Public Administration Review. Volume 56, Number 3, May/June 1996. 

Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is 

Transforming the Public Sector. Addison Wesley, 1992. 

Poister, Theodore H. and Gregory Streib. “Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: 

Assessing the State of the Practice,” Public Administration Review.July/August 2000. 

Snavely, Keith and Martin B. Tracy. “A Comparative Study of Rural Nonprofit Community 

Collaboration.” Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, The Aspen Institute. 

Thomas, June. “A United Front? Improving Collaboration Between Community Development 

Nonprofits and Government Agencies in Detroit and Wayne County” (website summary). 

Nonprofit Sector Research Fund. 

United Way of America. Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. 1996. 



Appendix C 

Performance Management 

Glossary of Terms

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

appendix C 

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 8 

Activity Measures: Provide information on workload/volume of business (e.g., number of applications 

processed). 

Balanced Scorecard: A management instrument that translates an organization’s mission and 

strategy into a comprehensive set of performance measures to provide a framework for strategic 

measures and management. The scorecard measures organizational performance across several 

perspectives: financial, customers, international business processes, and learning and growth. 

Baseline: A set of data used as a base to measure the impact of changes over time. 

Benchmarking: The process of continuously comparing and measuring performance against others 

in order to gain information that will help take action to improve performance. 

Customer: The person or group that receives or uses government services, or the person or entity 

directly served by the county. 

Cost-effectiveness: Minimizing the cost of achieving an intended result through a certain strategy. 

Cost-efficiency: Minimizing the cost per unit of good/service produced. 

Efficiency Measures: Indicators that measure the cost, unit cost, or productivity associated with a 

given outcome or output. They provide information on how well the organization used its 

resources to produce certain goods and services (e.g., cost per operation, cost per applicant). 

Goals: The general ends toward which agencies or departments direct their efforts. A goal addresses 

issues by stating policy intention. 

Inputs: The resources that a county uses to produce services, including human, financial, facility, 

or material resources (e.g., number of dollars expended or tons of material used). 

Intermediate Outcome Measures: Provide short-term “markers/indicators” of progress towards a 

longer-term outcome. 

Mission: An enduring statement of purpose; the county or department’s reason for existence. The 

mission describes what the county or department does, who it does it for, and how it does it. 

Objectives: Clear targets for specific action. More detailed than goals, objectives have shorter time 

frames and may state quantity. 

8 These definitions are taken largely from the glossary published by the National Association of Counties at 

www.naco.org/research/issues/perf_tool.cfm 


Outcomes: The quantified result, or impacts, of action on a particular population or problem area. 

Outcomes are not outputs; an output is the quantity of a service or good produced. An outcome is 

the result, or impact, of the output. 

Outputs: The goods and services produced (e.g., number of students trained or miles of roads 

repaired). 

Performance Management: The use of performance measurement information to help set agreedupon 

performance goals, allocate and prioritize resources, inform managers to confirm or change 

current policy or program direction to meet those goals, and report on the success in meeting 

those goals. 

Performance Measure: A quantitative or qualitative characterization of performance. Indicators of 

the work performed and the results achieved in an activity, process, organization, or program. 

Performance measures generally can be divided into outcome measures, output measures, input 

measure, or efficiency measures. 

Stakeholder: One who has an interest in the outcome. 

Strategic Planning: A long-term, future oriented process of assessment, goal setting, and decisionmaking 

that maps an explicit path between the present and a vision of the future. Relies on careful 

consideration of an organization’s capabilities and environment, and leads to priority-based 

resource allocation. 

Vision: An inspiring picture of a preferred future. A vision is not bound by time, represents global 

and continuing purposes, and serves as a foundation for a system of strategic planning. 

Workload Indicator: External forces, which convey effort, required for performing a task or activity.Usually 

considered an output measure (e.g., tons of solid waste disposed). 



Appendix D 

Design Lab Participants 


DESIGN LAB PARTICIPANTS 

appendix D 


Denver, CO 

Jim Martinez 

Assistant to the Mayor 

City and County of Denver 

City and County Building 

Denver, CO 80202 

jimm@ci.denver.co.us 

Veronica Barela 

Executive Director 

NEWSED 

1029 Santa Fe Drive 


303-534-8342 

vbarela@newsed.org 

Myrna Hipp 

Director, Housing and 

Neighborhood 

Development Services 

City and County of Denver 

City and County Building 


myrna.hipp@ci.denver.co.us 

Leroy Lemos 


New Cole Community Development 

Corp. 

3532 Franklin Street 


303-308-0397 

303-292-4315 

lemospower@hotmail.com 

Johnny Maguina 

NEWSED 

1029 Santa Fe Drive 


303-534-8342 

maguina@newsed.org 

Des Moines, IA 

Sgt. Chan Wallace 

Des Moines Police Department 

25 E. First Street 

Des Moines, IA 50309 

515-771-8481 

cpwallace@ci.des-moines.ia.us 

Ed Leedom 

Neighborhood Inspections Division 



515-283-4193 

elleedom@ci.des-moines.ia.us 

Kandi Reindl 

Administrative Analyst 

City Manager’s Office 



515-283-4758 

kpreindl@ci.des-moines.ia.us 

Steve Gunson 

Assistant to the City Manager 



515-283-4141 

sagunson@ci.des-moines.ia.us 

Connie Cook 

President 

Carpenter Neighborhood 

Association 

1301 24th Street #6 


515-262-5486 

connie.cook@dmps.k12.ia.us 

Maureen Van Syoc 

President 

Capitol East Neighborhood 

Association 

1414 E. Dean Avenue 


MVS117@hotmail.com 

Patty Daniels, President 

Drake Neighborhood Association 

1905 E.P. True Parkway Ste. 211 

West Des Moines. IA 50265 

(515) 453-7303 

Pdaniels@FirstRealtyHomes.com 

Fairfax County, VA 

Sandra Lowe 

Director, Office of Partnerships 

Fairfax County 

12000 Government Center Parkway 

Fairfax, VA 22035-0047 

703-324-5171 

Sandra.lowe@co.fairfax.va.us 

Al Burris 

5359 Ravensworth Road 

Springfield, VA 22151 

703-642-1795 

carshal@aol.com 

Terry O’Hara Lavoie 

TOHL House, LLC. 

6377 Landess Street 

Alexandria, VA 22312 

703-750-2859 

lavo@erols.com 

Mindy R. Rubin 

Manager 

Community Relations Washington 

Market 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the 

Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. 

2101 East Jefferson Street 

Rockville, MD 20849 

301-816-6405 

Mindy.R.Rubin@kp.org 


Heidi Veltman 

Reston Kaiser Permanente 

11445 Sunset Hills Road 

Reston, VA 20190 

703-709-1614 

heidi.veltman@kp.org 

Hampton, VA 

Mary Bunting 

Assistant City Manager 

22 Lincoln Street 

Hampton, VA 

757-727-6109 

mbunting@hampton.gov 

Margaret Causby 

Executive Vice President 

Old Point National Bank 

10 South Mallory Street 

Hampton, VA 23663 

757-728-1296 

mcausby@oldpoint.com 

Walter Credle, Director 

Hampton Department of Social 

Services 

1320 LaSalle Avenue 


757-727-6188 

wcredle@hampton.gov 

Diana LoVecchio 

Vice President 

Sentara Hampton General Hospital 

3120 Victoria Blvd. 

Hampton, VA 23669-0640 

757-727-7454 

dllovecc@sentara.com 

Debbie Russell 

Resource Development and 

Communications Manager 

Healthy Families Partnership 

100 Old Hampton Lane 


757-727-1343 

drussell@hampton.gov 

Indianapolis, IN 

Jane A. Henegar 

Deputy Mayor for Neighborhoods 

2501 City-County Building 

200 E. Washington Street 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

317-327-3611 

jhenegar@indygov.org 

Kristen LaEace 


Coordinator 

3901 North Meridian Street 

P.O. Box 88409 

Indianapolis, IN 46208-0409 

317-921-1264 

laeace@uwci.org 

Tony Macklin 

Indianapolis Foundation 

615 N. Alabama Street, Suite 119 


317-634-7497 

tonym@cicf.org 

Monte Hulse 


Indianapolis Neighborhood Resource 

Center 

1802 N. Illinois Street 


317-920-0330 

director@inrc.org 

Chuck Preston 

Lilly Endowment 

2801 N. Meridian Street 


317-916-7420 

Ellen Quigley 


Greater Indianapolis Progress 

Committee 

200 E. Washington, Suite 2501 


equigley@indygov.org 

Christine Glancy 

Vice President of Community 

Services 

United Way of Central Indiana 

3901 North Meridian Street 

P.O. Box 88409 


317-921-1292 

glancy@uwci.org 

Milwaukee, WI 

Susan July 

Director, Economic Development & 

Supportive Services 

Milwaukee Housing Authority 

650 W. Reservoir Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53212 

414-286-2177 

sjuly@hacm.org 

Sister Lucina Halbur 

Executive Director, SET Ministry 

2977 N. 50th Street 


414 449-2680 

lucina@execpc.com 



appendix D 

Milwaukee, WI—cont. 

Oakland, CA 

Richmond, VA 

Stephanie Stein 

Director, Department of Aging 

Milwaukee County 

235 W. Galena Street 


414-289-6876 

sstein@milwaukeecounty.com 

Chriss Hess 

Assistant Director, Long Term 

Support (Retired) 

Milwaukee County Department on 

Aging 

845 N. 60th Street 

Wauwatosa, WI 53213 

Barbara Steinhaus Moore 

Administrator, Community Care 

Programs 

1555 S. Layton Boulevard 


414-385-6600 

bmoore@cco-cce.com 

Mary Ann Lough, PhD, RN 

Associate Dean for Undergraduate 

Program 

Marquette University 

P.O. Box 1881 

Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 

414-288-3809 

loughma@marquette.edu 

Ken Barbeau 

Milwaukee Housing Authority 

650 West Reservoir Avenue 


414-286-2905 

kbarbe@hacm.org 

George Musgrove 

Assistant City Manager 

City of Oakland 

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

510-238-3872 

gmusgrove@oaklandnet.com 

David Kears 

Agency Director 

Alameda Co.Health Care Services 

Agency 

1850 Fairway Drive 

San Leandro, CA 94577 

510-618-3453 

dkears@co.alameda.ca.us 

Dennis Chaconas 

Superintendent of Schools, OUSD 

1025 Second Avenue, Room 301 


510-879-8828 

chaconas@ousd.k12.ca.us 

Michael Howe 

President 

East Bay Community Foundation 

501 Wickson Avenue 


510-836-3223 

mhowe@eastbaycf.org 

Robert C. Bobb 

City Manager 

City of Oakland 

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor 


rbobb@oaklandnet.com 

Laura Pinkney 


Safe Passages 

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 6306 


510-238-4458 

lpinkney@oaklandnet.com 

Susan Crump 

Vice President, Community Building 

Richmond United Way Services 

P.O. Box 12209 

Richmond, VA 23241 

804-771-5820 

crumps@yourunitedway.org 

David Sacks 

Department of Community 

Development 

900 E. Broad Street 


804-646-6360 

dsacks@ci.richmond.va.us 

Selena Cuffee-Glenn 

Deputy Director 

Richmond Redevelopment & 

Housing Authority 

901 Chamberlayne Parkway 


804-780-4200 

Greta Harris 


Richmond LISC 

100 W. Franklin Street 

Suite 301 


804-644-0548 

gharris@liscnet.org 

T K Somanath 

Director, Better Housing Coalition 

100 W. Franklin Street 


804-644-0546 

tsomanath@aol.com 

Barbara Abernathy 

808 W. Marshall 


804-788-1286 

bbaberna@vcu.edu 


America’s Promise 

Gregg Petersmeyer 

Board Member and Senior Vice 

President 


909 N. Washington Street 

Suite 400 

Alexandria, VA 22314-1556 

703-535-3845 

greggp@americaspromise.org 

Carolyn Berkowitz 

Senior Vice President for 

Community 

Mobilization 



Suite 400 


703-535-3833 

carolynb@americaspromise.org 

Gardner Humphries 


Suite 400 


gardnerh@americaspromise.org 


Lis Handley 

Associate Director for 

Outreach and Partnerships 


Building 31, Room 10A10 

31 Center Drive, MSC 2580 

Bethesda, MD 20892-2580 

301-402-5575 

HandleyE@mail.nih.gov 

Elizabeth Pivlonka 

President 

Produce for Better Health 

Foundation 

5301 Limestone Road 

Suite 101 

Wilmington, DE 19808-1249 

302-235-ADAY 

Epivonka@5aday.com 

Gloria Stables, M.S., R.D. 

Program Director, 5 A Day 

Health Promotion Research Branch 

Behavioral Research Program 

National Cancer Institute, NIH 

6130 Executive Boulevard, Room 

4082 

Bethesda, MD 20892 

301-496-8520 

gloria_stables@nih.gov 

Rhonda Wilt DeJoice 

Health Promotion Branch 

Office of Education and Special 

Initiatives 


6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 202 

Bethesda, MD 20892 

301-594-9002 

DeJoiceR@mail.nih.gov 

CMS 

Lindsey Cometa 

Development Group 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services 

52-23-05 

7500 Security Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21244 

410-786-1569 

lcometa@hcfa.gov 

Spencer Schron 


Services 

52-23-05 



410-786-1075 

sschron@hcfa.gov 

Lois Serio 


Services 

S1-12-26 



410-786-0680 

lserio@hcfa.gov 

Pat Gongloff 


Services 



pgongloff@hcfa.gov 

Harriet Kelman 


Services 



hkelman@hcfa.gov 

Henry Tyson 


Services 

75 Hawthorne Street, Suite 408 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

htyson@cms.hhs.gov 

Jane Riney 


Services 

75 Hawthorne Street, Suite 408 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

jriney@cms.hhs.gov 



appendix D 

CMS—cont. 

Lovell Brigham 


Services 


S2-23-05 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

lbrigham@cms.hhs.gov 

Bob Adams 


Services 


S2-23-05 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

radams2@cms.hhs.gov 

Facilitators 

Patricia Esslinger 

Groupware Facilitator 

www.PatEsslinger.com 

301-657-8013 

Pat@PatEsslinger.com 

John Lesko 

Group Facilitator & Decision Coach 

15289 Bowmans Folly Drive 

Manassas, VA 20112 

703-680-7938 

john.lesko@saftas.com 

Carolyn Cukierman 

Facilitator 

1834 Dalmation Drive 

McLean, VA 22101-5406 

703-609-1953 

vccukierman@earthlink.net 

Stephanie Kron Raffetto 

Consulting Services 

24 S. Hudson Street 

Arlington, VA 22204 

(703) 920-8810 

skronraffetto@hotmail.com 

JR Holt 

JRH Associates, Inc. 

P. O. Box 11244 


888-257-4462 (888-2-JRHINC) 

www.JRHAssoc.com 

jrholt@jrhassoc.com 


Appendix E 

Excerpt from Lapham Park Venture 

Strategic Plan and Partnership 

Structure 


EXCERPT FROM LAPHAM PARK VENTURE 

STRATEGIC PLAN, AND PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE 

appendix E 

EXCERPT FROM LAPHAM PARK VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN AND 

PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE 

STRATEGIC PLAN, JULY 1, 1990 – JUNE 30, 2002 

MISSION 

The Lapham Park Venture is a partnership between providers and residents whose mission is to 

collaborate in order to create a supportive continuing care community where low-income older 

adults can comfortably age in place. 

Goals 

I. To promote quality of life, health, and housing stability among Lapham Park residents in an 

aesthetically pleasing environment. 

II. To foster/nurture a sense of community, pride and ownership empowerment, and self-advocacy. 

III.To maintain the collaborative partnership of the Lapham Park Resident’s Organization, 

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County Department Agency, SET 

Ministry, Community Care Organization, St. Mary’s Family Practice Residency Program, 

AHEC, and other partner organizations to foster a sense of program unity and cohesiveness in 

this service team. 

IV. To create and replicate a model service program for the City of Milwaukee and other housing 

communities. 


LAPHAM PARK VENTURE 

STRATEGIC PLAN, JULY 1, 1999 – JUNE 30, 2002 

Workplan 

1 Quality of life, health, and housing stability. 

Objectives: 

1.1 Develop coordinated, holistic, meaningful, easily accessible on-site services based upon needs 

identified by the residents. 

1.2 Improve the housing stability rate; resident satisfaction with the building environment; and 

lower the crime rate at Lapham Park. 

Task Responsible Entity Start/Completion Dates 

1.1.1 Form a Program/Services 

Workgroup of 5-10 Venture members 

HACM as convener 8/30/99 

1.1.2 Review all available data collected 

on resident needs, e.g. Marquette’s Workgroup 

Program/Service 

analysis, client satisfaction surveys 

done by individual organizations, 

strategic planning, internal and external 

analyses 

1.2.1 Determine Lapham Park’s "rate of 

housing stability", level of satisfaction 

with building environment, and crime 

rate 

1.1.3 Determine need for additional 

assessment using tools such as surveys, 

focus groups, R.O. meetings 

1.1.4 Design/implement additional 

assessments, incorporating residents’ 

perception of whether services are 

meaningful, related, holistic, and easily 

accessible. (Coordinate with Asset 

Mapping Workgroup – see Goal 2) 

1.1.6/1.2.2 Develop a plan to meet resident 

needs based upon results 

1.1.7 Seek additional funds for plan 

implementation 

9/1/99-10/30-99 

HACM 8/30/99-10/1/99 

Program Service 

Workgroup 

Program Service 

Workgroup 

11/1/99-1/15/00 

1/15-6/1/00 

Program/Services 9/1/00-12/30/00 

Workgroup with 

Steering Committee 

approval 

Steering Committee 1/1/01-ongoing 

1.1.8/1.2.3 Re-assess needs, evaluate HACM, 

success in improving housing stability, Program/Services 

resident satisfaction with building environment, 

and lowering crime 

Workgroup 

rate 

Annually 




appendix E 

STRUCTURES WITHIN LAPHAM PARK VENTURE 

DESCRIPTIONS 

1. LPV Steering Committee 

PURPOSE: To provide overall direction to the Venture to fulfill its mission and goals. 

MEMBERS: Administrative level representatives of the organizations providing services to the 

Venture. 

FUNCTIONS: 

■ Guides the mission and philosophy of the Venture; 

■ Provides strategic planning and oversees implementation of plan; 

■ Provides evaluation of Venture services and organization as a whole; 

■ Provides oversight for the venture as a whole- 

• Creates pathways of communication and receives information from entities within the 

venture to assure fulfillment of Venture goals and objectives; 

• Delegates decision making for day-to-day issues; 

• Notes and responds to opportunities for program enhancements; 

• Keeps informed of the addresses external factors affecting the Venture; 

• Promotes and guides replication of the Venture; 

• Identifies and promotes educational processes to assure best practices; 

• Decides on adding members and/or service providers; 

• Monitors factors affecting cohesion and services, and addresses issues not able to be 

resolved in other forums. 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

■ Each organization representative uses report format to report for their organization 

■ Provides policy direction to the operations committee 

■ Reviews reports from sub-committees 

■ Discusses external factors affecting the Venture and guides Venture 

■ Discusses internal organization decisions that affect the Venture and guides Venture 

■ Communicates decisions, changes in philosophy, direction or policy to operations 

Committee in writing 

■ Provides copy of meeting minutes to operations Committee contract after each meeting 

■ Reviews and provides direction regarding issues referred by Operations Committee 


2. Venture Operations Committee 

PURPOSE: To provide direction for operations of the Venture. 

MEMBERS: Comprised of 3-4 representatives of the major service providers appointed by the 

major service providers. 

FUNCTIONS: 

■ Communicates and interprets direction/decisions of Steering Committee as necessary; 

■ Makes decisions necessary for day-to-day operations of service providers as a group in situations 

where group is unable to or does not have authority to arrive at a decision; 

■ Assists in resolving problem areas not able to be resolved among providers as a group; 

■ Identifies and addresses system issues relevant to on-sight providers, e.g. referral systems, 

abuse issues, security concerns; 

■ Assures necessary policies and procedures are in place for on-sit team; 

■ Appoints person to serve as 1) point of contact for communication, from R.O. Resident 

Services Committee and On-Site Provider Team; 2) convener of meetings of Operations 

Committee; 

■ Reports to the venture Steering Committee using the prescribed format. 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 

■ Each organization representative uses report format for their organization 

■ Assists in writing Venture policies that translate philosophy, policy direction, mission into 

daily operations 

■ Reviews referrals made by On-site Committee, RO, and any other committee and participates 

in active solution finding 

■ Committee designates representative to report to Steering Committee, copies of pertinent 

information are sent out to committee members in advance 

■ Prior to each monthly RO meeting the operations contact person will call the RO president 

and update him/her on the Venture matters; 

■ After each RO meeting the operations contact person will call the RO president and obtain 

follow-up information pertinent to Venture matters. 




appendix E 

3. Resident Organization of Lapham Park 

PURPOSE: To represent the interests of the residents of Lapham Park in matters that affects 

them. 

MEMBERS: All residents of Lapham Park, who elect a president and other officers according to 

their bylaws. 

FUNCTIONS as the Resident Organization relates to the Lapham Park Venture: 

■ Represents the residents of Lapham Park 

■ Communicates Venture initiatives and other matters of the Venture to the LP residents 

■ Keeps Venture informed of internal factors that may affect the Venture 

■ Keeps Venture informed of RO activities 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 

■ RO President and one other RO representative attend all Steering Committee meetings 

■ The president or his/her designee attends all Venture Operations Committee meetings 

■ Each organization representative uses report format to report for their organization at committee 

meetings 

■ Gives Venture update report at all RO meetings 

■ The president/designee keeps Venture Operations Committee informed of major RO sponsored 

events/activates 

■ The president/designee brings resident concerns regarding venture activities to the 

Operations Committee 

■ The president/designee participates in solution finding with other Operations Committee 

members. 


Appendix F 

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

Highland Park – 

Neighborhoods 

in Bloom (Richmond) 


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HIGHLAND 

PARK—NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM 

appendix F 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

HIGHLAND PARK – NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM 

This Memorandum of Understand (hereafter knows as “MOU”) is made and entered into on this 

4th day of June, 1999 by and between the following parties: Highland Park Southern Tip 

Neighborhood Association (Hereafter known as “HPSTNA”), Elder Homes Corporation (hereafter 

known as “EHC”), Housing Opportunities Made Equal (Hereafter known as “HOME INC.”), 

Highland Park Restoration & Preservation Program, Inc. (hereafter known as “HPRAPP”), 

Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (hereafter known as “RRHA”) and the City’s 

Department of Community Development (hereafter known as “City”), 

WITNESSETH: 

1. WHEREAS, this collaboration and plan is consistent with the chosen priorities of the Highland 

Park Community and the City’s philosophy and vision for the development of the Highland 

Park community’ and 

2. WHEREAS, EHC, HOME INC., HPRAPP, and RRHA have been collaborating to coordinate 

community development efforts in Highland Park, including, specifically, the identification of a 

geographic target area within which to concentrate joint and complementary efforts in order to 

achieve immediate and noticeable improvements that, in turn, may serve as the building blocks 

for future community development both within and outside the target area; and 

3. WHEREAS the city council of Richmond has adopted the Neighborhoods in Bloom (hereafter 

know as “NIB”) plan for targeting Community Development Block Grant (hereafter known as 

“CDBG”) and Home Investment Partnership Program (hereafter known as “Home”) funding 

for maximum impact; and 

4. Whereas, Highland Park has been selected as one of the first six NIB target areas; and 

5. Whereas, the City issued Requests for Proposals (hereafter known as “RFP”) to provide development 

within the NIB target areas. 

6. Whereas, EHC, HOME INC., HPRAPP, and RRHA have agreed to a comprehensive, joint NIB 

CDBG/Home application in response to the City’s RFP; and 

7. Whereas, in the event that the comprehensive, joint NIB CDBG/HOME application is accepted, 

EHC, HOME INC., HPRAPP and RRHA desire to continue to work together collaboratively 

toward the execution of the strategies and plans set forth in the joint proposal, consistent with 

the degree of community participation envisioned in the City’s NIB plan. 

NOW, THEREFORE, HPSTNA, EHC, HOME INC., HPRAPP, RRHA, and the City hereby agrees 

each with the other that the successful execution of the comprehensive NIB CDBG/HOME applications, 

and the resulting benefits to the Highland Park community, will depend upon each party’s 

considered commitment to the following obligations, provided, however, that the bodies agree that 

the MOU is non-binding and nothing in the MOU shall be deemed to create or recognize any 

rights enforceable, or liabilities recoverable, at law, in equity, or otherwise. 


ARTICLE I – HIGHLAND PARK SOUTHERN TIP NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 

1. Develop a beautification process for the neighborhood to: 

■ Maintain the fonts of our streets on each block by sweeping and picking-up trash as it 

appears. 

■ Planting flowers in the ‘Tot Lot’ and other places where it proves necessary 

2. Develop programs to allow the elderly and children to be outside more through the following 

activities: 

■ Exercise programs for the elderly residents. 

■ Summer programs for the children. 

3. Develop ongoing relationships with other civic associations in the Highland Park that will allow 

joint efforts in keeping the neighborhood safe. 

ARTICLE II – ELDERHOMES CORPORATION 

1. Execute a Home Repair Grant Program in the six-block target area first and then to Highland 

Park residents and property owners at large. 

2. Work with HOME INC., HPRAPP, RRHA and the City to establish guidelines for the home 

repair grants. 

3. Work with the Highland Park governance board to provide progress reports on the home repair 

grants. 

4. Continue to work in partnership with HPRAPP and RRHA to ensure the successful implementation 

of the NIB strategy in the Highland Park area. 

5. Provide 10 minor home repair grants and / or loans for low and moderate-income homeowners. 

ARTICLE III – HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES MADE EQUAL 

1. Provide comprehensive housing counseling services to families living in the target area. These 

services include rental, pre-purchase, mortgage default, fair housing and home equity conversion 

counseling. 

2. Provide down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers who meet program criteria. 

3. Work with the City of Richmond’s Code Enforcement units to seek alternative housing for families 

who may face eviction as a result of code violations. 

4. Provide Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Counseling (HECM) to seniors in the target area. 

5. Hold group sessions that relate to services provided in the Neighborhoods in Bloom community. 

6. Work with the Highland Park Southern Tip Civic Association to identify other needs that can 

be addressed by t he services provided by HOME. 


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HIGHLAND 

PARK—NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOM 

appendix F 

ARTICLE IV – HP-RAPP INC. 

1. Rehabilitate 9 blighted homes for single-family homeownership. 

2. Construct 2 new homes for single-family homeownership. 

3. Provide down payment assistance for 9 units. 

4. Provide assistance for 10 major rehabilitations of homeowner-occupied properties. 

ARTICLE V – RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY 

1. Acquire 9 blighted properties to be deeded to HPRAPP for rehabilitation to single family 

homeownership. 

2. Provide 5 major home repair/rehabilitation loans/grants for existing homeowners. 

ARTICLE VI – CITY’S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

1. Continue to work in partnership with EHC, HOME INC., HPRAPP, and RRHA to provide 

technical assistance and ensure the successful implementation of the NIB strategy in the 

Highland Park area. 

2. Work with HPRAPP and RRHA to designate Highland Park as a HUD Neighborhood 

Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA). The NRSA designation will provide greater flexibility in 

housing to assist in the revitalization of the Highland Park target area and in the Highland Park 

community at large. 

ARTICLE VII – COMMON RESPONSIBILITIES 

1. Attend meetings held by the Highland Park governance board and other meetings as needed to 

provide progress updates/reports and obtain ongoing community input. 

2. Work together to successfully implement the City’s NIB strategy in the Highland Park area. 

3. Work to enhance community awareness about the NIB strategy in Highland Park. 

4. Work to ensure the maintenance of Highland Parks historic, architectural and cultural integrity 

in the rehabilitation of properties in the Highland Park target area. 

5. Work to hire and promote the use of qualified minority contractors under the NIB Highland 

Park Project. 

SIGNATURES 

Carroll E. Goldsmith 

Highland Park Southern Tip 

Neighborhood Association 

Constance Chamberlin 

Housing Opportunities Made Equal 

John Bushey 

ElderHomes Corporation 

Robert S Everton 

Richmond Redevelopment and Housing 

Authority 

Ellen Robertson 

Highland Park Restoration & 

Preservation Program, Inc. 

S. Mark Strickler 

City of Richmond 

Department of Community Development 


NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 

1100 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 1090 East 

Washington, DC 20005

High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?