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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. HOW TO MEET CHALLENGES TO ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE 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. 110 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
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. The Strategies 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 Partnership (Hampton) 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) 111 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
Page 1 and 2:
Powering the FUTURE: High-Performan
Page 3 and 4:
A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8:
CHAPTER 12: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES A
Page 9 and 10:
Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 11 and 12:
Medicare and Medicaid health progra
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
FIGURE 1-1 CONTINUUM OF ORGANIZATIO
Page 17 and 18:
Coexistence: Cooperative: Contractu
Page 19 and 20:
Business FIGURE 1-3 HIGH-PERFORMANC
Page 21 and 22:
“Creating a partnership takes tim
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
FIGURE 2-2 NONPROFIT SECTOR REVENUE
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 2-1 SECTOR DIFFERENCES Public
Page 29 and 30:
eform to establish some form of res
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
FIGURE 3-1 DESIGN LAB PARTNERSHIPS:
Page 35 and 36:
TABLE 3-2 DESIGN LAB — PARTNERSHI
Page 37 and 38:
dren. Nine MCCP case managers made
Page 39 and 40:
FIGURE 3-5 MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDRE
Page 41 and 42:
“The Healthy Families Partnership
Page 43 and 44:
HFP is an excellent model of growin
Page 45 and 46:
identifying specific goals and outc
Page 47 and 48:
5 A DAY FOR BETTER HEALTH PROGRAM N
Page 49 and 50:
FIGURE 3-8 PUBLIC AWARENESS Percent
Page 51 and 52:
esponsible for developing specific
Page 53 and 54:
FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION INDI
Page 55 and 56:
Challenges Despite its solid track
Page 57 and 58:
Challenges NBSD encountered some ba
Page 59 and 60:
early intervention; and an early ch
Page 61 and 62: CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROJECT CENTERS
Page 63 and 64: Medicare insurer, CMS was the ultim
Page 65 and 66: A 1996 survey of La Alma/Lincoln Pa
Page 67 and 68: Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 69 and 70: and establishing performance manage
Page 71 and 72: PROGRAM AREA TABLE 4-2 SAMPLE PERFO
Page 73 and 74: The Lapham Park Venture originally
Page 75 and 76: THE DATA TRAP No partnership can cl
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 5-1 THE 5 C’S OF EFFECTIVE
Page 81 and 82: SURVIVING TRANSITIONS IN LEADERSHIP
Page 85 and 86: Without a well-documented mission s
Page 87 and 88: FIGURE 6-4 CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROGR
Page 89 and 90: FIGURE 6-6 STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE
Page 91 and 92: BALANCING FOCUS AND FLEXIBILITY The
Page 95 and 96: Asset mapping is key to determining
Page 97 and 98: 8. Use third-party payment opportun
Page 99 and 100: partners agree that redirection is
Page 101 and 102: Individual governmental units, foun
Page 105 and 106: dedicate resources to effective ong
Page 107 and 108: The business community does not imm
Page 109 and 110: TABLE 8-3 FAMILY STRENGTHENING COAL
Page 111: Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 115 and 116: The PODER Project was a six-year in
Page 117 and 118: Neighborhoods in Bloom operates in
Page 121 and 122: Results Characteristics • Derive
Page 123 and 124: FIGURE 10-2 PHASES OF LEADERSHIP Ma
Page 127 and 128: The CMS Employer/Caregiver Workgrou
Page 129 and 130: Informal communications strategies
Page 131 and 132: Management Approaches and Attribute
Page 133 and 134: Public managers tend to be risk ave
Page 135 and 136: Putting It All Together Chapter13 H
Page 137 and 138: FIGURE 13-2 ROWING TOGETHER FOR A H
Page 139 and 140: Appendix A Panel Member Biographies
Page 141 and 142: Appendix B Selected Bibliography
Page 143 and 144: National League of Cities. “City
Page 145 and 146: Appendix C Performance Management G
Page 147 and 148: Outcomes: The quantified result, or
Page 149 and 150: Appendix D Design Lab Participants
Page 151 and 152: Heidi Veltman Reston Kaiser Permane
Page 153 and 154: America’s Promise Gregg Petersmey
Page 155 and 156: Appendix E Excerpt from Lapham Park
Page 157 and 158: LAPHAM PARK VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN,
Page 159 and 160: 2. Venture Operations Committee PUR
Page 161 and 162: Appendix F Memorandum of Understand
Page 163 and 164:
ARTICLE I - HIGHLAND PARK SOUTHERN
Page 166:
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINIST
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?