Interagency Collaborations: Understanding the Stages of Collaboration

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

            Parents and children of the nineties are consumed within a society which is ravaged by negative elements such as increased violence, poverty, unemployment, substance abuse, child abuse, and abduction coupled with the overwhelming decline in the basic family structure (Dunton, 1994; Morris, 1994; Sobol, 1992; Kirst, 1991; Skolnick, 1991; Slavin, 1989; Garbarino, 1982).  Society is failing to successfully meet the needs of youth-at-risk and their families.

            “Childhood is changing, and schools must change as well” (Kirst, 1991, p. 615).  If the practice of allowing children to fail is not changed, an increasing number of young people will not enter adulthood prepared to lead their communities as an educated citizenry.  Many youths are not successfully completing their educational process because of social, emotional, and physical restraints (US Dept. of Ed., 1993).  Help is needed.

            Today’s champions for children are searching for models of working together which have proven to be successful, that have moved beyond mere lip service and coordination of activities toward a real networking system of collaboration.  But what makes a partnership of ‘strangers’ work?

            Interagency collaborations are currently being encouraged by state and federal governing bodies as the best model to provide an organized system of comprehensive service delivery for at-risk youth.  Experts in the field of education (Fullan, 1991; Comer, 1990; Morris, 1994; Goodlad, 1990) suggest that when the whole village pulls together to

provide for the changing needs of today’s families a more comprehensive delivery system is possible. Friend and Cook’s research demonstrates that partnerships who work in collaboration versus merely working cooperatively results in a stronger, more effective partnership.  True collaborative efforts within a partnership take place when individual participants are able to reach a high level of personal investment.  Effective interagency collaborations, therefore according to Garman (1982), must evolve through the various levels of collaborative development from mere coordination and cooperation toward a deeper sense of reciprocal interaction.

            The whole village concept is brought to life in the form of partnerships who cross agency lines, create partnerships and work collaboratively.  Service related organizations, agencies, and school districts are working toward the same vision, to provide comprehensive services and programs to those in need, however, they are each working in isolation (Wehlage, 1989; Terranova, 1993). Dispersed throughout many regions today, networks called interagency collaborative partnerships are developing in order to maximize their individual efforts of providing support services to families.  Interagency partnerships create a network of strategies and programs which are a more personalized delivery system.  Collaborative partnerships with membership which is representative of all the significant service providers delivers a unified effort toward offering comprehensive services to at-risk youth and their families.

            “Reports and projects aimed at improving the coordination and effectiveness of services for at-risk children have been proliferating around the United States [Grant Foundation, 1988].  There is an increasing realization that many crucial influences on the

education of at-risk children are outside the school’s orbit; schools cannot do it all.  Only an alliance of parents, social service agencies, and educators can make a big difference for children with multiple needs and dysfunctional families” (Kirst, 1991, p. 616).

Purpose of the Study

            This study began with an introduction to interagency collaborations and their importance toward providing comprehensive services to at risk youth and their families.  The purpose of the study has been focused upon understanding the various stages of collaboration which can take place within a partnership.  Based upon the work of Friend and Cook (1992), it is clear that when participants within a collaborative partnership develop a high level of personal investment and commitment to the success of the partnership, the more likely the partnership is to be successful in a real collaborative nature of interaction.

            Educational alliances such as interagency collaborations have been reported to more efficiently and effectively provide a comprehensive delivery system of services to the at-risk population.  Two case studies were selected for this research in order to observe the human dynamics that take place within this kind of partnership.

Research Questions

            To examine the stages of collaboration, the following research questions have guided the study:

            1.         What were the participants actual levels of commitment to a collaborative                           partnership for at-risk youth?

            2.         How do these personal levels of commitment impact the levels of                                        collaboration within the interagency partnerships?

Background of Study

            Secretary of Education Terrel Bell (1981) “impaneled the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) to study the quality of American education” (Crosby, April, 1993).  Two years later the National Commission submitted a report to the United States Department of Education which declared that our Nation was at-risk of not preparing the young people of today for the changing times of our society.  The Nation At Risk report warned the citizenry of the United States of a “rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (1983, p. 5).  This Commission was chartered to pay close attention to the teenage youths of the United States as they were to analyze the existing problems in education as well as the notable successes in program and services in the educational system (p. 2-3).  The overall tenor of the report provided a basis of concern to the general population while sending an alarm to the educational community by posing serious doubts about whether or not the current educational systems were graduating students who would “possess the levels of skill, literacy, and training essential to this new era” (p. 3).  The message was clear that the current educational

systems were failing to prepare the youth of today for tomorrow’s citizenry.  Students might not be graduating with employability skills and literacy competence to assume gainful employment or careers to support their families (p. 7).

            Ten years later, in direct response to the Commission’s report and to the years of educational reform in between, the Clinton Administration approved the Goals 2000 Educate America Act.  This legislation “provided resources to states and communities to develop and implement comprehensive education reforms aimed at helping students reach challenging academic and occupational skill standards” (p.8).  The Goals 2000 Educate America Act established eight National Goals to attain before the year 2000.  Goals one and two demonstrate a need to form a foundation of focus for collaborative partnerships.  In the 1990's, Americans are faced with societal issues which negatively impact the probability that students of today will be able to learn. 

            Goal one resolves that by the year 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn.  Goal two establishes that high school graduation rates will increase to at least 90 percent.  Despite goals and legislation, the realities are that many students in the United States do not come to school ready to learn; many students do not come to school with their fundamental physical or psychological needs having been met.  Therefore, many students who enter the school setting are at-risk of experiencing academic failure early in their lives.  Another strong possibility is the risk of becoming a dropout statistic.

            The United States is faced with increasing numbers of students who never graduate from high school.  Dropout data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (United States Department of Education, 1993) reports the dropout rates of high school students in the United States at the end of 1992 as approximately 3.4 million young

people aged 16-24.  There is a high percentage of young people who are disenfranchised from the educational process and making the decision to leave school in search of something better or more relevant to their world of realities.

            The decay of the family structure and support systems are contributing to the numbers of at-risk youth in our country.  Children are dropping out of school, failing to prepare themselves for life (Gough, 1994).  Families are devastated by the harshness of today’s society and the complexities which exist today that were not present in past generations.  Families and their children are in need of support.  While the schoolhouse has historically been the conduit through which all of society must pass, this agency cannot provide the level of comprehensive support systems required to support today’s families in distress.  A collaborative effort is needed to provide comprehensive support and facilitation of services to families of high need (Lacey, 1988). 

Societal Pressure

            The pressures and conditions of today’s society (increase in crime, violence, drug abuse, and the breakdown of family structures) have come to bear upon the school.  Since the school is a microcosm of the society in which it resides, these pressures are felt in each classroom.  The differences are that as adults and communities strive to maintain a prosperous economic and democratic society within the workplace, the schoolhouse strives to educate, prepare, and nurture the children who will one day become the workforce for society.  School districts working to combat the increasing needs of students can not survive in isolation.  The physical, human, and fiscal resources are too limited.

Economic Pressures

            Economical times are becoming worse in rural, isolated areas.  Upstate and Central New York are plagued by rural poverty, high unemployment, low-income employment and child abuse.  County and State offices are concerned with shrinking tax dollars and the distinct possibility of the federal government redesigning their budgets into block grants with likely decreases in the total appropriations.  At the same time, more restraints and demands are being placed upon the local school district budgets and their community tax payers.

Pressures Upon the School

            Many schools today are overloaded, overcrowded, overburdened, and weighted down with budget and personnel restraints.  There are few elementary and middle school level counselors to address student strategies and problems.  There is little two-way communication between the school,  the community, the agencies.  Schools remain isolated from the support systems required to deal with the magnitude of student and family related problems of at-risk students.  Before schools can be about the business of educating children for their future, they need to develop collaborative support  structures and systems.  Since the schoolhouse is the collective repository of society, the school campus is the natural conduit through which services could be obtained for at-risk youth and their families (Yates, 1994; Wells, 1990; Sinclair, 1990; Weiss, 1989; Kaufman, 1976).

Pressures Surrounding Children and Their Families

            Children cannot come to school ready to learn if they are hungry for food, love or security.  Maslow’s work suggests that students cannot be expected to open their minds to think about abstract issues of learning when their basic needs have not been met.  Unfortunately, this is the reality of conditions for many children in today’s school setting. Education for children will not begin until schools, parents, and community have joined together to address the individual needs of students as described by Maslow’s Hierarchy (1954) of need structure.

            As children and their families bring their stress issues into the classroom, teachers and building level administrators are unprepared (not unwilling) to meet the challenge and impact of those daily needs.  Despite the school district’s inability to know how to respond, someone must.

Interagency Collaborations

            Historically when families were in need of financial, emotional, or health-related services, they would find themselves caught up in a nightmarish bureaucratic web.  Today, there is a conceptual model for providing comprehensive services to families called interagency collaborative partnerships.  This model provides full-service access of services to families by collecting all of the significant service providers into one council of service. This council of decision makers has formed an interagency collaboration that provides an

avenue of service delivery and responsiveness to family needs unlike other programs in the past.  Communities who have joined together by means of an interagency partnership provide an infrastructure of networking, a collaboration of stakeholders for the nurturing and support of families and children.

            The model of comprehensive service delivery is developing at the local and county levels in various states.  The model was born from the needs of families and overworked agencies, and schools.  Inviting all significant service agencies, school district personnel and community representatives to one table facilitates the possibility of a ‘one-stop shopping’ model for families in need of support systems.  Families who approach an agency with a need will no longer have to be passed from one agency to another filling out redundant forms and collecting the same information for each agency.  If all of the agencies are within an interagency partnership, the family files a set of papers to receive help once and from that point on the collaborative network seeks out the needs of the families and matches them to services and support as required.

            Families who are most in need, many times, are least able to understand and move through the service, agency, community and educational hoops to receive the support desired.  The networking of an interagency collaboration is an enabling infrastructure to support at-risk youth and their families.  The Department of Social Services views this model as an extension of their efforts to prevent the need for crisis intervention and extended use of services.  When family and children’s needs are met earlier and circumstances corrected, the result is more economical and more nurturing for the families

involved.  Many at-risk youths of today are withdrawing from school.  Nonschool completion does not best prepare a young person for their future in the workplace.

Significance of the Study

            Other researchers have provided stories of at-risk youth and their families.  The research findings of other studies have demonstrated the merits of intervention and prevention programs for improving the academic standing of at-risk youth.  Some studies have focused upon school completion and improved school attendance as the ultimate goals toward youth at-risk.  Several studies highlight courageous efforts on the part of individual schools, agencies, and private organizations to improve conditions for children within the development of various intervention and prevention partnerships.  While Terranova (1993) studied collaboration within the BOCES governance structure, very little research has been done on the development of interagency partnerships. 

            Interagency partnerships can directly effect society, the family the school, and the children.  There are two major assumptions about interagency collaboration partnerships: (a) that school districts and communities can provide a safety net for children and their families, and (b) that this safety net will reduce the number of youth who are withdrawing from school.  This is accomplished by helping children to come to school REALLY ready to learn by meeting security, nutrition, and love needs.  Students will then be able to focus upon learning and the healthy development of their minds and bodies.

            In summary, this study is significant because it describes the developmental stages of collaboration among the partnership participants at the personal and organizational

level.  This study demonstrates within the development efforts of two interagency collaborations the daily struggles of ‘strangers working together’ within a new context called collaboration.  The question begs to be answered; what might the impact become if those interagency partnerships are able to reach a true collaborative style of interaction versus continuing to work in an isolated or cooperative environment?  When partnerships develop the trust levels found in collaboration does this strengthen the partnership and therefore perhaps maximize their eventual efforts toward supporting at risk youth and their families?

Limitations

            The initial topic of concern toward collaborative partnerships was stimulated around the issues of at-risk youth and their families.  The study of collaboration and the various stages within such a configuration could be grounded in other types of partnerships and issues.  The issues of at-risk youth and their families were selected because of availability and interest of these issues in the region within which the study took place. 

            This study is limited to the analysis of two collaborative partnerships within two regions of New York State.  While there are many other collaborative partnership models available, they did not necessarily bear the same governance structures or restraints as do the two partnerships selected for this study.

            The review of the literature and findings can be generalized across other regions and topics of collaboration.  Understanding the intimate nature of these partnerships is not bound by geography or issues to be studied.

            If time had permitted, a more longitudinal study might bring forth many specific details surrounding the general findings of the study.  Following a population for a period of time can provide data which can only be gleaned while observing a phenomena over an extended period of time.  Observing how the partnerships continued to be served and influenced by their particular stage of collaboration might prove to provide more extensive understanding.

Definitions

            For the purpose of this research the following definitions apply:

At-risk children.  Children most at-risk include a large portion of young people from        poor families of all races.  They include minority and immigrant children who face       discriminatory policies and practices, large numbers of girls and young women           who miss out on education opportunities routinely afforded males and children             with special needs who are unserved, underserved, or improperly categorized         because of handicap or learning difficulties.  Children at-risk are capable of success             in school or work.  However, many miss out on those opportunities to their own         and the nation's determent (Lacey, 1988, p.11).

Dropout students.  Schreiber (1965, p.16) defines a dropout student as a pupil who          leaves a school, for any reason except death, before graduation or completion of a    program of studies and without transferring to another school.  The term dropout       is used most often to designate an elementary or secondary school pupil who has

            been in membership during the regular school term and who withdraws from          membership before graduating from secondary school (grade 12)  or before        completing an equivalent program of             studies.  Such an individual is considered a     dropout whether his dropping out occurs during or between regular school terms, whether his dropping out occurs before or after he has passed the compulsory        school attendance age and, where applicable, whether or not he has completed a    minimum required amount of school work.

Prevention strategies.  At-risk programs and policies must be tailored to meet the needs   of the whole child within the context of school, family, and community.          Furthermore, the three most important investment strategies are prevention       through early intervention, restructuring the foundations of education, and             retention and re-entry (Lacey, 1988, p 3-6.).  Students who feel that the teachers      and administration care about them enough to provide a calm, nurturing        environment, will remain in school.

Linkages.  Linkages refer to those individuals or organizations who have the ability, skills,           or access to provide support or intervention techniques to promote success for   students while working in a collaborative effort.  The communication within     partnerships is viewed as circular and reciprocal in nature.

School withdrawal.  School withdrawal refers to the point at which a student       withdrawals from the school setting and their attendance is sporadic or leads to    formal extinction of school attendance.  Psychologically and emotionally students

            who have begun to feel isolation and failure within the school setting 'withdrawal'             or retreat to a more comfortable setting--usually outside of the educational arena. Characteristics of Collaboration.  in this study collaboration is described by using six           defining characteristics as developed by Friend and Cook (1992).  There are six    characteristics depicting the fundamental structures of collaborative interactions:   (a) collaboration is voluntary, (b) requires parity among participates, (c) is based            upon mutual goals, (d) depends upon shared responsibilities for participation and   shared decision making, (e) resources are shared, (f) accountability is shared for             outcomes.  The characteristics will be defined in the context of interagency            collaboration (Friend and Cook, 1992, p. 6-8):

                        Characteristic one. 

            Voluntary membership within a collaborative effort is imperative.  Individuals       mandated or assigned without the voluntary desire to contribute to the partnership            will be wasting their own time and damaging to the origin purpose of coming together for a common goal because of a mutual desire to effect changes.  All             participants must be willing to contribute to and assume responsibility for the         decisions, achievements, and evaluations of this collaborative process.

                        Characteristic two.

            Parity among participants refers to equal partnerships in which each person's           contribution to the partnership is equally valued regardless.  Power, organization,          and decision making are shared equally among participants.  Agencies that have        never worked together will need to acquire new skills to foster trust and open             communication.  All participants will be able to demonstrate equal authority and    power in the decision making processes of the group.  Without parity, one             particular person or group would monopolize the general direction of the           collaborative, thus weakening the overall effect for families.  It is important to

            highlight that parity may be the desired goal for the overall action of the team but that on small, processes or individual issues, parity does not always have to exist.

                        Characteristic three.

            Within a collaborative partnership it is significant that there be mutual goals.          Everyone in the partnership must agree upon what the end result is to become.         Each member is  working toward the same goal or set of goals develops strength        and quality within the efforts.  Each person working together toward common             goals based upon the their available resources and desired outcomes.  Common      goals are created when two people/agencies/community members shares this            common objective.  The entire collaborative partnerships does not have to agree or        desire to facilitate each goal personally, but they should be in agreement with the             general concept and support the efforts of those caring out the specific goal.

                        Characteristic four.

            An important characteristic of a collaboration is for participants to share     responsibility and power in making decisions.   Shared responsibility within the partnership refers to actively interacting in decisions and jointly being responsible         for those acts.  One of the most significant  barriers to interagency collaborations   lies within this characteristics--’sharing turf’ as it is commonly referred to within         organizations.  The scarcity of resource mentality fostered by the lack of trust can     cause people and various organizations to seek a perceived position of power and       authority.  Within a partnership across many agencies and walks of life, there will be much cause for misunderstanding and breaks in communication.  However, for       a collaborative partnership to be successful, people must enter this arrangement    willing to work toward creating trust, jargon-free communication and be             responsive versus closed toward a different way of viewing issues.

            People become so accustomed to following processes or delivery services in a set   manner that it seems threatening to think in terms of a different system, format, or          manner of keeping data.  Every agency or organization at the interagency table will       have been involved in an established set of procedures and regulations which surround them.  The key is to remember why each person (and the agency they      represent) are at the table--to provide a way for families of youth-at-risk to receive       services in a more comprehensive and less threatening manner.  Working together     to streamline these efforts will naturally require that some of the former procedures             will need to be set aside or even completely changed.  The focus must be to the     family and not to remain restrained by rules and procedures which after all were         created by people and not set in concrete.  Collaborations of efforts begin with the         desire to manipulate paper work and regulations to the point of comprehensive            service versus the rules and regulations taking the place of importance to the          detriment of the families in need of assistance.

                        Characteristic five.

            Resources are an important aspect of each agency and/or participant.  Sharing        resources among all partnership members is significant.  Akin to the issues which            surround  turf or power concerns, the use of funding streams becomes even more complicated.  Each company or agency like the school district has received funds   for their particular program and/or constituents based upon estriguient criteria and             eligibility constraints.  These agencies feel that they are not at liberty to empty their   coffers out onto the table in the name of being collaborative.  There are actual reports to be dealt with, regulations surrounding these monies, and specific             audiences which are to have access to these funding streams over others.    However, these restrictions need not hinder the efforts necessary to support    families.  It may require a variety of excepts to be made, flexibility in areas that can

            easily lend itself, and creativity toward how to work together and match, blend, or            reinforce efforts while still staying true to the spirit of the funding stream.

                        Characteristic six.  

            Collaborative efforts include sharing responsibility for the services provided to      families and shared accountability for the outcome of events. Working   cooperatively and sharing resources, responsibility and decision making also     demands accepting accountability for the results of your labors.  As people make a            concerted effort to unify services which were once fragmented and out of reach,        there will also be some challenges to overcome with respect to shared        accountability for the delivery of said services.  In the past, each agency knew the       parameters of offering and the consequences there of, now as the interagency        effort moves to melt services toward a seamless delivery, there can be s high stress          level with assuming responsibility.  Just in any newly formed relationship, there are difficulties in knowing who will do what and when.  Collaborative partnerships are           the only way to provide seamless services and agencies will need to find there way             toward the accountability pieces with openness and support, not blame and            sidestepping.

Levels of Personal Involvement

            The final conceptual lens relates to the quality of involvement within those             collaborative interactions as described by Garman’s (1982) research.  The four             basic types of personal involvement within an educational alliances attempting         collaborative interactions are non-working involvement, working-acceptance             involvement, genuine participation, and organic reciprocity.

                        Non-working participation

            Non-working involvement is represented by people who are resistant, hostile, or     abrasive within the group.  As interagency representatives first come to a           ‘collaborative’ table of discussion, the tone is one of mistrust, sometimes confusion

            and many times the climate is one of uncertainty.  This uncertainty is like the          beginning of many human relationships, the parties involved in this new process of       working together are very unsure as to who, what, when, and how all of this will           turn out.  Today with the demands placed upon the time and expertise of the             individual in each agency, it is no wonder that people become more select in who and what they invest time, energy, funding, and alliance.  As agencies come      together for the good of children in a particular community, they have a common   reason for trying out this collaboration of effort.  However, they are new at the      process and have not developed into real ownership of becoming a stakeholder in          this unified effort.

                        Non-working involvement is characteristic by the stage of becoming           introverted and not wanting to become open to this new situation, fairly sure that if       one can just hold on through the first meetings this talk of collaboration will evaporate and they can go back ‘home’ to business as usual and yet, because they             were present in the meetings not be accused of being uncooperative.  There is a      sincere hope that this will all blow over.

                        Working-acceptance participation

            Working-acceptance refers to group participants who basically exhibit polite           behaviors and participate behaviors 'transcend lip service'.  Closely aligned to the        non-working involvement category is the person who approaches collaboration         with the same discomfort level but with a new approach for how to deal with it.              Politeness highlights this mode of interaction, the desired outcome for this             individual is to be able to maintain their own sense of territory, self respect, and          consideration while allowing the same for the other members of the group.  The    focus is then upon being agreeable, polite, and considerate of anything and             everything that is presented by someone else, and expecting the same in return.      This level of interaction is merely lipservice and is quite superficial as it relates to

            group or person-to-person interactions.  This mode of communication allows          barriers or walls to surround each participant and to protect them from someone           else’s viewpoint.  Indeed, the goal of this individual is to participate without being       changed or altered by the exchange or information presented.  Yet, to leave this         interaction without other members thinking that they were not cooperative or         contributing to the cause at hand.  Lipservice to collaboration is cold and          indifferent while having the appearance of trying to work together.

                        Genuine participation within collaboration

            Genuine participation stems from a sincere desire to form an interagency    relationship which will serve children and their families.  Collaborative      relationships as already discussed do provide an arena for discomfort and      uncertainty because by enlarge the agencies represented do not  know how to        actually create a system by which families will receive comprehensive, seamless             services.  They have the desire, they came to the table, now what?  The participant    who is willing to genuinely participate, must roll up their sleeves and be willing to be open and vulnerable to whatever happens in order to reach the intended goal.         This type of involvement is characterized by sincerity and risk taking to the point           of being honest, uncomfortable, and sometimes assertive in moving the effort    forward at the cost of embarrassment for themselves or others at the table.              Participation at this level tend to make a concerted effort to leave their egos and    self esteem outside the meeting door and focus upon getting the job at hand dealt   with versus political or personal posturing which often times consumes most meetings.

                        Reciprocity participation

            The fourth type of involvement is one of reciprocity.  Webster defines this as, "a    mutual exchange of privileges; mutual dependence, action".  Intelligent and        talented individuals can create a great deal on their own, but when the same types         of individuals set aside personal agendas and work collaboratively true synergy             evolves.  There is an intense environment of high energy that evolves with people brainstorm and troubleshoot ideas to the point of pushing and moving single ideas toward a brand new--stronger evolution of thought.    Reciprocity involvement   enables the total wealthy of intellectual and emotional capacity of the collaborative    to unite and be raised to a higher level of input and therefore, output of product.

Interpersonal collaboration.  Interpersonal collaboration is style for direct interaction      between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making         as they work toward a common goal (Friend and Cook, 1992, p. 8).

Cooperation.  Cooperation assumes that two or more groups with separate and     autonomous programs agree to work together to make each program more    successful. [While collaboration, on the other hand, implies that the parties involved share responsibility and authority for basic policy decision making and     share human and financial resources] (Syracuse University, 1992).  The advantage        of collaboration over cooperation is the possibility to restructure, design and            deliver services that are developmental rather than remedial in philosophy,             preventative rather than remedial in approach, and centered on the total needs of   the child and family (Melaville & Blank, 1991).

Non-crisis intervention strategies.  Non-crisis intervention strategies involves       intervention into a cycle of failure on the part of a school district personnel, parent,       or agency worker.  These strategies are usually employed before a crisis takes    place and is intended to minimize or eliminate a crisis for child or family.

Summary

            The purpose of this study and the research questions which decided the research were outlined and discussed.  The significance and the limitations of the study were presented.  Chapter I concluded with the definitions of terms as used within the research.

The review of the literature in Chapter II provides a basis of foundational knowledge about the concerns facing school districts, agencies, and communities who serve at risk youth and their families.  Chapter III provides the research design and methodology for conducting the data collection within the case study data as presented in Chapter IV.  Chapter V concludes the study with conclusions about interagency collaborations and recommendations for future research endeavors and practitioners interested in collaborative partnerships.

.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

            This study was informed by a review of the literature which included an understanding of the at-risk youth of our society, what their families are like, and a marginal understanding of what social services and support systems are needed to improve their circumstances for their future.  Chapter II introduces the concept of interagency collaborations, their benefits and ability to coordinate efforts across the community.  The chapter concludes with the summary of research surrounding the success and design of working collaboratively.

Background and Context

            The human spirit is such that we require personalized interaction with people who care and will invest in our growth.  Children will  not develop to reach their full potential if they do not have a substantial and consistent support structure which provides a sense of well being and security.  It does in deed and practice takes the whole village working as a collaborative unit to educate each child.  Home-school-community collaborations provide the infrastructure needed today in the 1990’s to support, protect, and nurture young people through their educational process.

            The schoolhouse is the doorway through which all of America must pass, therefore it is the natural conduit for service delivery.  While school is an extension of the home in preparing young people intellectually, the school cannot carry the responsibility of educating children alone.  These issues consume many individual school districts, schools

and communities, agencies, children individually as they struggle to help at-risk youth survive.  The school cannot successfully assume the role of parent, doctor, social worker, and minister to meet the affective needs of students.

            Collaborative partnerships among home-school-and community extend the educational experiences into the world beyond the school walls consequently, reducing the traditional isolation of schools from the community (Lacey, 1988, p. 65).  Interagency collaborations have the ability to provide the vehicle of comprehensive service delivery to at-risk youth and their families.  However, linking agency to agency, to family, to community, to school is fraught with many barriers.  How have these linkages been successful and what impact has this collaboration had upon young people completing school?

In Earlier Days.

            The family unit was the first teaching system of the past, as society expanded parents organized the school system to provide the ‘book learning’ for their children. With the separation of church and state issues clearly defined, the family and home environment worked together as the moral leaders of the child.  Today, children find themselves embroiled in an era that is fraught with confusion and mounting problems. 

            Morris (1994) depicts society as being caught up in a redevelopment of the culture, as “undergoing a revolution in its folkways, norms, and values”.  Youth are more easily caught up in a sense of  bewilderment and ambiguity caused by the rapid changes taking place in the world.  Hence, more than ever before, the complexity of society, the

crime, and depth of poverty coupled with the eroding of the family structure, more youth will become at-risk of failing to successfully transition from one stage of life to another.

            Youth are in search of a significant person who will connect with them and be their mentor through their world of adolescence.  Despite the drastic changes in society of the nineties, children, youth, adults, still require a human bonding to nurture their growth in education, toward future employment and toward a healthy and productive life.  If more and more of the family structures are ceasing to provide this nurturing and guidance, students turn to the next most significant ‘institution’ in their lives--the school---their teachers.

            Teachers while understanding the various affective, social, and emotional deprivations that exist for many of their students, are commissioned to teach to students the academic subject matter.  While it is the obligation and charge of the school to ‘educate’ children, it is equally true that each successful adult today, can reflect back to a person, usually a teacher, who has made a difference in their life.  “...Teachers are perhaps the only individuals in their lives who can help students to see options; to encourage a break in an isolation and ignorance bond of their family” (Lewis, 1994, p. 181).

            During his speech at the Spring ASCD Conference in Chicago, IL, James Comer, compared his family's school/home relationship with today.  "His mother and teacher often would meet at the local A & P to talk about his progress and behavior in school, sharing and reinforcing family and school values, naturally" (1994).  There was an informal link of collaboration between home and school.  Children felt this bond and were nurtured by the security of this networking effort.  Education and student-teacher relationships during the

era of the one-room country school were very personalized.   Each child was dealt with as an individual with time and personnel provided to nurture them to the fullest extent of their intellectual abilities---because that’s what school was all about.

A Nation At-Risk

            Historically, the United States has been the leader of world power and strength since its birth. Today, studies find that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and as a people” (1983, p. 5).  The National Commission on Excellence in Education sent a wake up call to the Nation reporting that we are at-risk of failing to be competitive in the world. This report highlighted the deplorable conditions with which our society has allowed education to fall.  The purpose of the A Nation At-risk study was to shock the country toward an emergency  reality check of educational conditions before it was too late to reclaim the quality of the American citizenry and the future workforce.

            “We live among well-educated, and strongly motivated competitors” ( A Nation At-risk, 1983, p. 6).  And yet, educational institutions are currently allowing students, the future adult-working population of the future, to drop away from their educational preparation for life.  We are allowing students to condemn their futures to a lower level of  life style and quality of living due to entering adulthood prematurely, ill-prepared to support themselves and their families.  Will the at-risk youths of today always remain on the outside looking in?

            When educational institutions lower the quality of education and become slipshod in their commitment to high standards and student expectations, students are not well served.  A nation that loses the sight and zeal to continually strive for excellence begins to plummet and will find the end result one of national mediocrity and vulnerability.

Federal Legislation: Goals 2000

            If we are to prepare children to come to school ready to learn “early care and education are needed more than ever, thanks to fractured families, overburdened single parents, and economic factors that press more than half of all mothers of young children to work outside the home” (Gough, 1994, p. 3).  Gough (1994) implores educators and legislators to search deeply into the budget for monies to provide early care and preventative educational programs.  The best time to support students is during their formative years of physical and emotional development.  This is the time to invest in the healthy development of children, before there is a need to provide remedial or intervention program.  The practice in many districts has been to wait until students are identified as possible dropouts when the damage is already taking hold of the student.

New York Legislation: The New Compact for Learning

            In March 1991, the State of New York Legislation passed the New Compact for Learning.  Goal one, in the Compact, states that 'All children can learn'.  All children are capable of learning and contributing to society.  No child should be allowed to fail.  This a  very ambitious set of expectations for the schools of New York.  The dropout rate is quite

high especially within minority and low social economic populations (Hodgkinson, 1985; Slavin, Karweit and Madden, 1989).  Individually, the schoolhouse, parents, nor the community service agencies can provide enough support to students in order to assure their success in school.  However, a united front, or a collaboration of efforts among all interested stakeholders would more likely to attain the New Compact goals of zero failure rates for all children in New York.  Collaborative efforts need to be based upon trust, open communications, shared decision making responsibilities and accountability for home-school-and community members (Fullan, 1991).

Participating and Nonparticipating Stakeholders

            In a partnership when one or more of the stakeholders are not participating, there is a breakdown.  Today, as the family structure is deteriorating, as school districts are over taxed and relax their standards of achievement, there is a need for added strength to help these two partners.  The community within which families and schools reside pay the ultimate price when these two institutions fail.

            In the past, academic standards were high and students found themselves confronted with these expectations at home, as well as in the school.  Home, school, and the community took responsibility for educating their children.  For centuries students have been sent to school to ‘receive a better education than we[the parents] received’.  Today, students are in jeopardy of not surpassing their parents level of education because they are failing to complete school themselves.  Today, students are educated in a more objective and formalized manner, perhaps due in part to the mass number of students

found entering schools today and the increasing complexity of societal issues with which the schoolhouse is faced.

Background Summary

            Students are failing to prepare themselves for their future.  Why do students disappear from the school rolls?  What are they turning toward as a better answer?  Why has school become nonrelevant to many of today’s youth?  More importantly what will be the end result for tomorrow’s adult population of workers and citizenry?  Families of at-risk youth are struggling against odds they cannot battle alone.  What can be done to assist these families? 

            Families are faced with structural changes which have left fewer support systems in place, high stress levels, economic turmoil, and emotional issues to resolve (Garbarino, 1982; Thompson and Hupp, 1992).  School personnel are feeling isolated and overwhelmed with trying to accommodate the increases in at-risk youth and the emotional and physical issues which have arrived at school unresolved.  Social service agencies are stretched to full capacity with heavier workloads due to the rising numbers of dysfunctional families and shrinking county budgets.  Local businesses and community agencies are frustrated at the rise in crime and dropout rates of students.  The quality of the future workforce seems to be depreciating, therefore causing unwanted expense for retraining or shortages of quality in the labor force.  As documented by the National Educational Statistics, our Nation is at-risk of failing more than 3.4 million students as of 1992.

            Our Nation is at-risk of failing a large portion of  the next generation of adults by virtue of benign neglect. The United States is faced with increasing numbers of students who never reach the graduation steps to complete high school. A  high percentage of young people are becoming disenfranchised with the educational process and making the decision to leave school in search of something better or more relevant to their world of realities.

At-Risk Youth and Their Families

            At-risk youth, as defined by Lacey (1988), include a large portion of young people from poor families of all races.  They include minority and immigrant children who face discriminatory policies and practices, large numbers of girls and young women who miss out on educational opportunities routinely afforded males and children with special needs who are unserved, underserved, or improperly categorized because of handicap or learning difficulties.  Richardson and Colfer (1990, p.107-110 ) identify at-risk youth in categories of condition such as a chronic truant, underachiever, troublemaker, economically disadvantaged or poor, minority young people, runaways, delinquents, unemployed teens, and young people who lack motivation.

            Purkey (1970) finds that children who come from unstable family environments often have a poor self-concept which hinders their development affectively and educationally.  The healthy development of a child’s self concept has direct bearing upon their behavior.  Researchers (Orland, 1990; Herman, 1994; Richardson, 1990) have agreed that there is a direct correlation between self concept and school achievement.  Poverty, single parenting, and substance abuse environments likewise plunge children toward the possibility of dropping out of school.

            In order to develop “a personal sense of competence and success” (Wehlage, 1989, p. 27) children need help to develop a sense of identity and social integration to acquire the skills that make an individual healthy and happy as an adult.  Children at-risk are capable of success in school or work.  However, the journey is much more perilous due to the lack of support and consistency.

            Hodgskinson (1985) characterizes students entering schools today with twelve major at-risk foundations centered around the home, environment, and academic issues.  Central to these findings is the fact that a large portion of young people from poor families of all races are classified as at-risk of academic failure.  Likewise, minority and immigrant children who face discriminatory policies and practices were seen as increasing in number as well as, a large number of girls and young women who miss out on education opportunities routinely afforded to males.

            Lacey (1988) warns that missed opportunities for human resources are to the determent of the student, the community, and the nation.  Too often children with special needs who are unserved, underserved, or improperly categorized because of handicap or learning difficulties also become fragile students.  Children at-risk are capable of success in school or work.  However, many children fail and drop away from school.  President Clinton, (1994) on several occasions reminded the public that  if our society is going to appropriately educate the next generation of citizens toward employability, it cannot foster this depth of waste; not even one mind can afford to be lost.

            “The increase in stress experienced by families since 1950 has been dramatic.  Increments in family dissolution, child abuse, and other family pathologies are causes for harm” (Swick & Graves, 1993, p. 7).  As a society, we have created the dilemma in which at-risk families find themselves.  Economic, legal, social, and family resources are completely outmoded as compared to the needs of today’s families.  Skolnick’s research (1991) of the American family caught up in a world of uncertainty reports that there is a

distinct “mismatch between the new realities of family life and social arrangements based on earlier family patterns”.  Skolnick’s work provides examples which are considered commonplace today; such as, the latch-key child, no-fault divorce, congested work schedules for both parents, marital breakdowns which have resulted in violence, chaos or frequent marital disputes which often involve or at least surround the child, not to mention, the increase in single family units often living in a low-income environment.  The younger the child the greater the negative impact that these family stressors place upon the child’s future development.  The future educational and economic well-being of these children is jeopardized the longer they exist in a dysfunctional and unsettling family environment and neighborhood.

            It is commonly agreed (Honig, 1986; Purkey, 1970 ; Morris, 1994) that there are categories of families which seem to be more likely at-risk and in a higher need structure of support from society.  Families found in extreme poverty or low-resource social contexts, and families caught in a world of emotional, financial, or environmental violence are most in need of support.  This population is growing not only in the urban areas but also in rural areas.  As these conditions persist family members are called upon to expend so much emotional and physical energy to survive through and against the odds that little is left for growth, nurturing, security or peace of mind.  Children growing up in these conditions then not only  sacrifice healthy minds and bodies but the emotional development of self esteem and mental wellness likewise erode.  Maslow (1954) maintains that students cannot concentrate upon enhancing their mind and adhering to regiment and daily routine when they feel as though their personal lives are caught up in a chaotic state. 

Families Estranged From School Environment

            Morris, (1994) and Engel, (1994) report that at-risk youth many times come from at-risk home environments which also may have experienced alienation from school and the community.  As students and their family members have many urgent physical and emotional need deficits both children and parent have difficulty focusing upon the educational endeavors of the child.

            Blazer (1989) and Swick (1993) stress that an inadequate home-learning environment does not provide the modeling and encouragement needed to extend the lessons begun in the classroom.  Families at-risk often are lacking in literacy skills, an interest in learning, and resources to foster academic development from the home base.  Parents struggling to raise their children in a hostile society with limited educational levels themselves provide little or no support.  School and academic success have many times become strangers to the parents of at-risk children.  When their own school experiences were negative and unsuccessful, it is difficult for them to convey anything but the same message to their own children. 

            Blazer (1989) feels that the most alarming attribute of families caught in a failure cycle is the ‘ecology of despair’ that permeates the family structure.  Additional conditions may also exist which work against the family such as; minimal or poor health care, malnutrition, chemical and/or substance abuse, and circumstances which evolve toward child abuse and violence.  Families in a dysfunctional cycle may perpetuate this series of cycles for generations until it is broken by outside influences.  Issues of poverty, illiteracy, and other risk features if kept to a minimum or experienced singularly, can be remediated with educational, economic, or social service agency providers interceding.

            However, “when these risks [e.g., poverty, illiteracy, etc.] are embedded in a human relationship system that is characterized by despair, powerlessness, isolation, and extreme insecurity, the potential for creating a ‘culture of riskness’ is very high” (Swick, 1993, p. 44).  Families which continue in this state cling to negative recursive behavior patterns that appear to insulate them from disaster.  Consequently, “these behaviors usually erode their sense of efficacy and further embed them in a cycle of dysfuntionality” (Swick, 1993, p.44).

            Swick (1993) further describes the identifiable patterns of behavior found in families of distress (Table 1).  The loss of control is apparent in most dysfunctional families, thus the desperation and disorientation within the personal setting spills over into the 'Monday-morning' issues of the schoolhouse.  Comer (1990), Edwards & Young (1992), Perna (1994) agree that as societal characteristics become more complex and families are more isolated from each other and the school, educating the youth of tomorrow poses a more challenging prospect than even ten years earlier. Perna, (1994). stresses the fact that the lack of communication and support between school and family often times fosters negative relationships which are later manifested in the achievement and satisfaction levels of students.

            According to Finders & Lewis (1994) there are many barriers which stand between parents of all economic levels from coming to school.  Alienation between parents and school is a common condition.  Some parents are intimidated by their perception of the school personnel, by the interactions with other parents that the might feel are more welcome due to their social or economic standing in the community.  Parents who are already intimidated by their own past school-related failures find it difficult to set across from a teacher who ’has all of the answers’ and listen to the negative points in their child’s academic record.  Parenting is a very personal and important task, it is made more difficult

by feelings of isolation and high discomfort levels if that is their experience each time they dare to darken the door.  It is important to the well being of students that their parents dispel this feeling of discomfort in visiting the school and that parents find a way to feel welcome.  The next step is to encourage the parent to feel as a contributing member of the team working to help their child.  Once parents become stakeholders their child will succeed.

Student Issues

            Swick (1993) suggests that students fail for a variety of reasons which seem valid to them at the time of school disenchantment.  Their peer group doesn't seem to value school and is also experiencing school failure or perceived rejection.  Since peer pressure and identification is especially strong during adolescence this is an important influence upon attendance and their investment in academic endeavors.  Many times their parents have not experienced positive interaction with school and academic success in their youth. Consequently, when a student is experiencing the same type of difficulties as a parent experienced, it becomes an automatic permission for the student to continue in their academic difficulties.

            Yates (1994) points out that one of the most difficult barriers for at-risk youth is their lack of positive and successful role models.  Many of the adults in their lives or environment were unsuccessful in school but are perceived to be successful now as adults.  Therefore, a case is created for justifying poor academic success as appropriate because of their role models.  Additionally, Yates (1994) and Purkey (1970) feel that competition and the prospect of public embarrassment cultivate the student's fears of failure.  They quickly develop mechanisms for protecting their self respect and self esteem, to the point of excluding themselves from scholastic endeavors which the student perceives for potential embarrassment or disclosure of their lacking skills.  Everyone desires to be unique or different from the crowd.  When success in school does not provide those opportunities, linking with other failing students becomes more prevalent and seems very justifiable.

            Wattenburg & Clifford (1964) report that self concept is the most important vehicle by which information is filtered through to the inner core of a person. 

Purkey (1970) feels that children who have major social, emotional, and physical problems are more prone to develop a poor self concept.  There seems to be a cause and effect issue surrounding a student’s development of a negative or poor self concept and low

performance in the school setting.  “There is little professional argument with the common-sense notion that our thoughts influence our behavior.  Once we have acquired an idea about ourselves, it serves to edit all incoming information and to influence our future performance” (Purkey, 1970, p. 23).

            Purkey suggests that early intervention and prevention strategies must be in place for students who are even suspected of possible identification as an at-risk child.  These strategies should be implemented by Kindergarten and intensified as the child moves throughout the grades until a smooth transition can be made for this child against their at-risk odds.

            Several authorities (Garbino, 1982; Gordon, 1975; Schaefer, 1991) claim that unfortunately today, there are more programs and efforts in place for after the damage has been demonstrated by the child and/or their family situation.  Remediating such a situation is very difficult, costly, and almost always leaves many scares.  As researchers share their results concerning self esteem, once the child has developed the poor self-image, it is difficult to turn the tide for the future.  “Family integrity and individual integrity are comprised of four key elements: self-esteem, a sense of mastery, meaningful social supports, and a belief system that is characterized by a sense of faith and optimism” (Swick, 1987, p. 17).  When these elements are threatened there is more potential for individual and family dysfunction

            Whitaker (1994), Perna (1994), and Geene (1966) are in agreement that if all children are to be successful in school and to become learners as adults, there must be a change in the delivery system of education and the services which surround families.  There must also be a major difference, in which the adults responsible for educating these children, interact with one another.  Linking effort, interest, skills, and resources through a collaborative style of delivery, children and families will be served.

Dropout Students

            When academic and intellectual pursuits no longer become relevant to a student's world, they 'fall away' from school.  Schreiber (1965, p. 16) defines a dropout student as “a pupil who leaves a school for any reason except death, before graduation or completion of a program of studies and without transferring to another school.  The term dropout is used most often to designate an elementary or secondary school pupil who has been in membership during the regular school term and who withdraws from membership before graduating from high school (grade 12) or before completing an equivalent program of studies.  Such an individual is considered a dropout whether his dropping out occurs during or between regular school terms, whether his dropping out occurs before or after he passed the compulsory school attendance age, and, where applicable, whether or not he has completed a minimum required amount of school work”.

            Stern (1987) reports that roughly 25 percent of eighteen to nineteen year old and 15 percent of twenty-four year olds nationally have not completed high school and presumably are considerably less skilled than most of their age cohorts.  The fifth annual report to Congress published by the National Center for Educational Statistics, presents data reporting the dropout rates of high school students in the United States as of 1992.  Data presented in a report by the National Center for Educational Statistics approximates that 3.4 million persons in the United States aged 16-24 had not completed high school and were not currently enrolled in school.  This represents about 11 percent of all persons in this age group. 

            Elmore (1994) reminds us that neither these figures nor the problem is new, nor is the problem, the statistics do highlight a parallel between dropout rates and quality of the current workforce.  Society can not continue to accept this level of failing students.  The

future well-being of this country depends fundamentally upon striving toward at least the 90% successful graduation rate suggested by the America 2000 goals. 

            The National Center for Educational Statistics (1993) reports the dropout rate of high school students in the United States.  Highlights of that report include that facts that:

in 1992, some 4.4 percent of 15 to 24-year olds in grades 10-12 dropped out of school.  In the late 1970’s, the annual rate was over 6.5 percent.  This known as the event dropout rate.  While low income students were more likely to dropout than their peers, only about one-third of all dropouts lived in low income families.  The majority of students who dropped out over the last year were white, under 20 years old, and live in middle income families in suburban or non-metropolitan areas.

            In 1992, approximately 3.4 million persons in the U.S. aged 16 through 24 had not completed high school and were not currently enrolled in school.  This represented about 11 percent of all persons in this age group.  This represented about 11 percent of all persons in this age group.  This is the status of dropout rate.  Although the status dropout rates for black were higher than the rates of whites, when comparing blacks and whites by income level, there were no differences between status dropout rates.

            High school completion rates were comparable for males and females, but differences were evident for racial-ethnic groups, income levels and regions of the country.  Students who were black or Hispanic, living in families with low income, or living in the South or West, were more likely to complete high school.

            In the spring of 1992, 88.4 percent of the 1988 cohort of eighth graders were either enrolled in school or working towards high school or passed an equivalency test.  Among, the dropout rates from this cohort (11.6 percent), over one-half reported plans to get a GED or complete regular high school.

            Experts Elmore, (1990) and Purkey, (1970) remind that societal  problems which promote dysfunctional families and high school dropout rates are not only the concern of parents and educators but present problems for the community at large.  Young adults who enter the workforce ill prepared inwardly with poor self esteem and inadequate educational foundations have great difficulty becoming productive citizens.

            Swick and Graves, (1993) remind us that our country was built upon the premise of fostering a democratic way of life through an educated citizenry.  Home, school, and community must become partners in the promotion of a better success rate for the children of the United States.  Educators from the Mott's Foundation, (1988) and Jackson, (1994). warn that if this partnership does not take place, there will be a decay in the quality of the workforce, the ability to compete internationally will be diminished, and the quality of generations to follow will be in jeopardy.

Reasons for Leaving School

            Lacey (1988) states that many potential dropouts feel that 'No one at that school knows me and no one cares about me!'  Therefore, school and home have been unsuccessful in reaching the student in question and have also been unsuccessful in working together to support one another and the student. There are several reasons given for students leaving school, among them are issues surrounding student alienation, inappropriate pedagogy, lack of personal relationship within the school with staff members, high levels of frustration with repeated failure experiences in the classroom, poor or no role models in the home setting.  Students feel alienated from the school setting because they have, by virtue of their own pattern, set up a cycle of events leading up to the only real avenue--dropping out of school

            Many noted educators have found that (Lacey, 1988; Glasser, 1990; Cervantes, 1965; Greene, 1966; Hahn, 1987; Natriello, 1986; Orr, 1987; Paulu, 1987; Peck, 1989; Sheffield, 1988) students who withdrawals from school feels alienated and abused by rigid discipline and codes of conduct   Teachers who show little care for students' daily problems and concerns, soon drift away from their academics; and consequently, they dropout of school.  Students who eventually dropout of school do so, in part, because of an estrangement between them and their school.

            Teachers who have a positive attitude toward students-especially students at-risk will be searching for ways to engage those students.  They should ask themselves everyday whether the material for that particular day is necessary and what is the best way to present the material inorder to engage each student?  Teaching students how to memorize facts and information is short changing the educational experience and serves as one cause for boredom with school.  Educators, who have positive attitudes toward students and learning, will seek creative ways to connect each student to the learning process on a daily basis.

            Greene (1966), Orr (1987), Goodlad (1991), and Glasser (1990) stress the importance of providing a climate which nurtures students and parents toward the education of each student.  Barriers to school success need to be removed to enable a circle of collaboration among school-parent-child-community.

            Fullan (1993) urges all adults who interact with children, especially the disadvantaged, to possess a condition he refers to as moral purpose.  Moral purpose is making a difference in the lives of students rather than merely talking about it.  When adults provide for children with a sense of passion to make changes happen, learning takes place.  Students are more likely to stay in school, to possibly reach their potential.

Patterns of Student Failure

            Recent Gallup Polls and other national statistics; reports inform the nation that students are not being educated to their capabilities, not reaching their potential.  Student dropout rates, retention and expulsion statistics along with other student 'removal' data reinforce this indictment of the school system.  Many students find themselves spinning in a cycle of failure characterized by the fact that they see little or no connection between themselves and their school.  Lacey (1988) and Kamii (1994)  suggest that students

trapped in an academic slump are not able to see a connection between school experiences and 'their real world' of existence.  Consequently, students grant themselves the permission to fail.

            From the at-risk student's perspective there are more devastating reasons not to continue in the school setting.  Swick (1984) lists among these barriers is the fact that their friends' value academic failure and rebellion; there is displaced loyalty to parents' negative values over school's values with student's encouraged not to do better than their parents.  Dropping out of school is often a defense against fearful competition and embarrassment or boring work.  Students sometimes develop an early stage of self being the class clown in order to 'cover' their academic distress.  Purkey (1970) argues that there is a strong association between learning and unpleasant experiences of the past either at school or in the home.  This serves as a psychological block to learning.  Threats upon a student's self esteem and their ability to maintain self respect in front of peers often encourages them to avoid ego-threatening situations in an academic or social setting.

            While most students have desire to feel unique or to be different, Yates (1994) and Swick (1993) feel that this desire is confirmed in a positive manner not as an academic failure or as an academic whiz kid.  Students have an intense need to be affirmed by their adult interactions.  This need for adult affirmation works negatively for students who devote their focus of mentoring to an adult who did not do well in school or who has undesirable social behaviors.

            Research findings of Wehlage and Rutter (1984) suggest that there may be a connection between school experiences and the low educational, social, or occupational aspirations of students. Students’ negative attitudes about school have come from some experiences in school on the part of staff and administration which fosters this negativeness.  Many dropout students complain that the school is fraught with unfair and unfeeling disciplinary policies, and that the teachers treat them like a mere number and not a human being.

            Lacey (1988) forewarns that students who are in danger of dropping out of school start to develop a pattern with the following characteristics; more than 20 days absent in the preceding year, functioning more than two grades below expected level, participation in an existing intervention program, has been retained at least one grade, has frequent disciplinary referrals, and has a demonstrably unstable family environment When school becomes yet another source of failure and does not relate to their current circumstances, students give up the struggle of continuing for what is perceived as a battlefield everyday. They drop out to seek a situation where they have a 'perceived chance to fit in'.  They seem pretty sure it is not the classroom.

            Researchers Wehlage and Rutter (1984) focused upon these student views of the school, (a) teachers' interest, (b) effectiveness of school discipline, and (c) fairness of school discipline.  Results illustrate the need for school districts to look toward initiatives and responsibility for at-risk student populations and their families.  Opportunities need to be developed which will link troubled students and their families to the school to avoid school exiting.

            In their final analysis, Wehlage and Rutter (1984) recommended three directions for school reform: (a) an enhanced sense of professional accountability among educators toward all students, (b) a renewed effort to establish legitimate authority within the institution; and (c) a redefinition of school work for students and teachers that will allow a greater number of students to achieve success, satisfaction and continue with additional schooling.

Prevention Versus Intervention

            Prevention is usually the better between remediation and intervention.  There exists in schools today programs directed toward youth at-risk of academic failure which serve to make interventions and attempt to break the failure patterns which have evolved from their past experiences. School district personnel who have a more proactive manner of dealing with at-risk youth plan to identify early signs and characteristics of youth who are experiencing problems and surround them with a series of preventative measures.  Prevention by its very definition means that one tries to stop or prevent something from taking place (Webster. 1983).  Early detection and prevention strategies are the successful combination for minimizing the negative effect with in which at-risk youth find themselves.  Connecting the parents into this plan is significant as well.  Parents must become an integral player in the prevention plan for their child.  This often times requires providing the same support systems, needed by the child, to the parent.

            Intervention programs seek to intervene and break a failure cycle which has already begun for a child and perhaps their family.  To intervene with strategies which will transition a child toward a more successful experience in school and foster more healthy feelings about themselves.

Fostering School Relevance to Children

            In his book, The Quality School, Glasser (1990) discusses a mental image of valuing that each child (adult) has tucked within his or her memory bank--it's called the ‘Quality world'. "We collect pleasurable memories into what is called a quality world, and this memory world becomes the most important part of our lives”  (Glasser, 1990, p. 59). 

Everyone has their own sense of reality and relevancy to their lives.  If school work and the activities that take place in the classroom are not perceived as relevant to that child's quality world, they will not learn.  They will not attend school and they will not be productive citizens.

            Glasser (1990) encouraged school leaders and teachers to understand this 'quality world' of students and find ways to become part of that world for each person.  Stakeholders in the education of students need to find ways to help school/class assignments/life-long learning to become an active part of the student's inner 'quality circle' of valuing.  Students who feel that school work is boring and that it is not significant--do not have education and the related experiences in their quality circle.

            Glasser (1990) further suggested that people need to be motivated from within since outside coercive motivators don't work.  Students must be able to see benefits for themselves.  Punishment does not work.  Freud and other behaviorists point out that punishment strategies, at best, just provide immediate extinguishing of the behavior or the problem.  Glasser's (1990) Lead Management theory can be used to encourage students to develop positive attitudes and opportunities.

            More to the point, school personnel cannot make students learn.  But they can "attempt to create a work (learning) situation that is warm and friendly and totally non coercive.  Students quickly realize that this teacher isn't their adversary and is not trying to satisfy his/her own need for power by bossing them” (Glasser, 1990, p. 52).  Control of and for teachers and students stems from trusting thus empowering; honesty, thus openness, leading therefore to forming patterns of relationships built upon trust and not cohersion.

Connecting Learning to Life

            Morris (1994) and Glasser (1990) have observed that as young people from fairly dysfunctional families attend classes in school, they are many times turned away from school work because their perception is negative, what these teachers are asking me to do is not real, it is not what my life is all about.  It is also a reality that students coming from a negative home environment, have a great deal of difficulty connecting to the perceived superficalness of classroom academics.  Teachers who are caught up in the sequential, rigidity of neat rows, paper-pencil, fill-in the blank assignments are many items a very real deterrent to students staying in school.  Students perceive these teachers to be more dedicated to working through the textbook and assigning homework than to being dedicated to fostering the development of young lives.  School seems to be a nucianse that is in their way of really living, something else to be endured versus school being thought of as a vehicle for development of their future.

            Clark (1986) advises teachers that the presentation of academic material can be done using a variety of interactive, experiential methods.  When teachers are perceived by their students as caring more about the teaching of subject matter more than the desire to enable students and their abilities, the students will give up and leave school.

            Students are motivated to learn in school for several reasons:

            1.  The love of learning,  children are born with an innate curiosity about life and the world around them, if this curiosity and excitement are facilitated, they will continue to learn throughout their school years.  Clark (1986) reports that students will endure a ‘dry’

 classroom if they can manage to stay impassioned with the idea of learning what this class ‘might’ give them.

            2.  Berlinger and Casanova (1993) have found in their research that students will many times stay in school and open their minds to learning because of a significant person in their lives.  Regardless of the educational level of their parents, students will learn if the perception of valuing education is held by significant person in their lives.  When an adult tries to encourage attaining good grades, a complete education, students strive for school completion and development because someone is pointing out the pay off later in their adult life.  School becomes relevant to a child when a significant adult in their life helps them to perceive education as a means to get to their successful adulthood.

            3.  Goodlad (1979) found that school become relevant when at least one teacher in a child’s life becomes a significant person who provides a role model for their development.  Students tend to personalize content areas to distinct teachers.

Marzaono (1992) reinforces the notion that the student’s perception of being accepted by the classroom teacher is significant to the overall effectiveness of the student’s learning process (p. 18-22).  If there is a positive relationship and perception of that teacher, the student will learn ‘that teacher’s homework’.

            4.  Lastly, Maslow’s work (1954) students will be motivated to learn when they discover the realization of why educational systems were created in the first place--to prepare them for their future careers and life.  When the connecting moment of truth comes to a young person that education is the tool for ensuring them success--school becomes relevant.  Once they realize that the skills and information they have been collecting for twelve years is to prepare them for the real part of their lives, learning

becomes a passion.  Glasser (1990) believes that students will self-actualize toward adulthood as life long learners because school and education are within their circle of quality and they value their own abilities to obtain knowledge and skills.

Successful Program Strategies

            Intervention, prevention and support teams constitute the most typical program strategies in place today for at-risk youth.  Lacey (1988) reports that most successful programs are characterized by several basic features such as counseling, basic skills instruction, work experiences designed and operated jointly by school and business representatives, schools within schools, community-based alternatives for dropouts, programs for pregnant teenagers and teen parents, in-school suspension, intensive tutoring, summer and/or after school recreation and enrichment programs, provisions from social service agencies.  Interagency collaborations which incorporate the social, health, and educational communities have proven to be successful toward a comprehensive service model.

            Youth support teams within school districts have proven to be able to employ all of the desired basic types of supports for at-risk youth.  While also seeking to enter the child’s life at a noncrisis point if possible.  Families and students are more easily helped when approached directly before they are in a state of crisis.

            The key element in the youth support model is that of human-reaching-out-to-human to save a life from despair.  Successful programs are those which enfold children and their families in a network of meaningful relationships. However, since “improving schools and lowering the dropout rate require additional resources and broad based

collaboration” (Paula, 1987, p. 12) a partnership needs to be crafted which incorporates all major stakeholders in the task at hand.

Interagency Collaborations

What is Collaboration

            Collaboration, according to Webster (1983), simply means ‘working together’.  Agencies and community service providers working together as an interagency collaboration will provide a vehicle for families to receive comprehensive services.  Fabrizio (1977) observes that collaborative partnerships in general have basic characteristics or similarities such as a colleagic working attitude and rapport as the partnership matures, the ability to refine a compatible system of data gathering and sharing of information to benefit  students and families with a long-range commitment to the collaboration.  Partnerships which are working together toward common goals, objectives, and processes have a better chance for sustained success rate of impact upon the identified population.  If the dropout tide of students and the isolation of home and school are to be diminished, it is imperative for an interagency  collaborative effort to replace the isolation of the past.

            Linkages of efforts among home, school and community stakeholders involve a fundamental understanding of collaboration.  For the purpose of this research the operational definition of collaboration refers to "interpersonal collaboration [as] a style of direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work [together] toward a common goal" (Friend and Cook, 1992, p. 5 ).  A collaboration of efforts then refers to the working together toward providing support and networking which is mutually respected and beneficial.

Interagency Collaboration

            Interagency collaboration (See Table 2) provides a circle of support to families who are most in need.  While it is true that historically schools and one or more agencies have worked cooperatively to help students and their families, it has not been enough and it not sufficient with today’s level of need.

Barriers to and Benefits of Collaborations

            Once communities have identified a need or series of needs within their community and have agreed that working in isolation will not provide services to families, partnerships are born.  This is a major step toward helping families and consequently fostering students to remain in school to complete their education.  However, there are stressors when a partnership of people and agencies do not know how to work together.  However, there are many barriers for this collaborative to resolve in order to offer the desired level of  comprehensive delivery services.  Agency issues to be resolved surround matters of client confidentiality, bureaucratic rules and regulations, blending funding streams which are using connected exclusively to one agency or project, coupled with the confusion of how to blend these matters toward a true wholesomeness of service delivery. 

            Research efforts from the Rural Education Advisory Committee (1992) suggest a number of commonly encountered problems in the journey toward collaboration.  The most frequently cited problems were: conflicting regulations or policies, scheduling or coordinating services, sharing confidential information, determining the relative authority of the participants, lack if administrative or practitioner support, lack of time, hiring freezes, and funding, difficulties encountered in obtaining client or participant transportation, and the absence of child care for adult participation in programs

            Shablak (1992) argues that school district barriers are of a different nature in that the issues revolve around the practical and physical nature of the service delivery.  There is a lack of physical space within most school sites and even districts to provide room for

service intake, service delivery, and parenting educational pieces that are all critical to the delivery system.  Time is a barrier to school personnel and to the time perceived as being taken away from the school day for students to become involved in the support systems needed for many.  Student and family mobility is seen as a barrier both to consistent delivery of identification and service.  Stakeholders in the collaboration are concerned with the expense both in time, human, and fiscal resources to establish a system of delivery plan which may be for naught if the clients decide ‘overnight’ to leave the area to another community, county, or state. 

            Coleman (1994) suggests that some barriers are shared among all stakeholders at the home, school, agency, or community level (SUNY New Paltz Conference, 1994).  Issues such as a common language which would facilitate communication and service delivery, both education and service providers seem to have their own professional language.  There is a concern about technical assistance to establish this collaboration and the means of creating, and sharing student and family data--what software and hardware package is consistent or compatible across this interagency collaborative? 

            Shablak (1992) points out that some participants are concerned with the security of employment.  If systems of service delivery are blended together, will there be a downsizing of personnel needed to conduct business?  Many systems joining the collaborative have in place various negotiated contractual issues which may interfere with true collaborative agreements as the partnership deepens.  While it is true that everyone represented at the interagency table is there to provide a seamless delivery of service model, there is concern  about how to develop one set of definitions for one service

delivery area, and development of cooperative goals and a strategic plan which has consensus from the total group.

            Lastly, Shablak (1992) suggests that time is the major concern to already burdened agencies, schools, families and community participants.  While the research suggests that this is the best manner to facilitate services to families who are in need, who have great difficulty in being passed from one agency office to another, it is also true that these stakeholders are pushed to their limits on a daily basis.  This level of work load is evidenced by the high turnover rate in the various service provider agencies.  Burnout and high stress levels seem to be synonymous with such providers.

Benefits in Forming Interagency Collaborations

            Friend and Cook (1992) suggest that a sense of community and ownership cultivate motivation and consequently higher success rates for partnership linkages. When groups form a successful collaborative effort, there are several emergent benefits which are a positive outgrowth of that partnership One important benefit is a bonding of stakeholders who have a 'stake' in the success of this child's progress.  Despite the differences in modern times, communities can pull together to be the ‘village’ responsible for each child.  Collaborative efforts enable people to form the human linkages needed to extend the home and supplant efforts of the school.

Connecting Parents into the Home-School-Community Partnership

            Whiter (1987) suggests an important way to begin connecting with parents would be through providing several opportunities for their meaningful involvement in their child's school.  Examples of those opportunities include creating parent centers which foster conversation and communication between parents and school personnel, community

conferences which would provide informational resources to the public about various topics of interest, parenting classes which provide basic parenting skills and support for their roles and responsibilities as a parent, opportunities for parent and community involvement in school decision making thus providing the sense of involvement and becoming stakeholders.  Community organizations, agencies and universities provide supportive services and training to families and schools, collaborative efforts via the schoolhouse would provide a natural conduit for better serving families who are at-risk or of a high need status.

            The Rural Education Advisory Committee’s (1992) survey results suggest that an interagency collaborative which works at the highest level of collaboration may prove to be a support system to itself.  When the workload is shared, families can be served more efficiently and expediently to the benefit of recipient and provider.  The following suggestions may serve as benchmarks for future collaborative partnerships: participants should keep their eye on the prize of true collaboration, know how to share, to trust each other, to make good communication a priority and to continually be involved in learning and adapting as the process unfolds.

Getting An Interagency Collaborative Started

            Shablak (1992) warns that despite the fact that agencies, educators, parents, and community members who begin to participate in a collaborative partnership because they want to work together for the best interest of students in their community, the journey will into be an easy one.  Despite the good intentions this is going to be a change, a challenge. and a totally different environment within which to do business.  The review of literature

surrounding collaboration by the Rural Education Advisory Committee (1992, p. 28-30) highlights five stages involved in creating an interagency partnership:

Stages of Formation.

            1.  The social and political climate in a community.  As people decide to create an interagency collaboration, the partnership strives better in an environment in which ‘the solution to a complex problem is a top priority’ of the group.  Members of a partnership come together to assess needs, support families, and break the wall of isolation surrounding each agency or person at the table.  This is a time for openness and an attempt at relaxing the rigid format that each agency represents ‘in the name of working collaboratively.

            2.  The communication and problem solving process participants use to establish

goals and objectives, agree on roles, make decisions, and resolve conflicts.  Forming this collaborative will go more smoothly if there is a concerted effort to establish a shared vision, one that is clear, focused, and “generally an articulated goal involving substantial and significant change” (Shablak, p. 28).  Participants must work toward developing a shared vision of what this collaborative is all about.  When this is kept practical and manageable, success is achieved.  The focus should center upon solutions “when all partners ultimately focus on what there is to be gained, rather than on how much power and control might be lost” (p. 29),  the collaborative will sustain itself and become very productive.

            3.  The people who lead, participate in, and implement the activities of a partnership.  Effective leadership is a significant to the success of this collaborative.  Especially at the beginning there needs to be a leader or shared leadership which will facilitate the newly formed partnership toward problem solving and consensus.  This leadership must embody a person(s) who exhibits both a pragmatic side and one of vision.  The key however is that the leadership encourage and lead the partnership to understand that the benefits of this collaborative effort will far “outweigh the advantages to continued independence” (p. 29).

            4.  The set of governing policies each agency brings to the table.  All participants with the exception of parents will bring rules and regulations which govern their particular agency organization.  The newly formed partnership will need to develop a compromise as to what rules and policies must be consistently adhered to within this setting.  “Arrangements that guarantee confidentiality while allowing multiple agencies to work together on behalf of the same client are possible, but they require sensitivity, patience, and, often legal assistance to create” (p.29).

            5.  The availability of resources will determine (a)  whether or not the changes in the services and service delivery the joint effort has established will become permanently institutionalized, and (b)  the size of the population that will benefit from these changes. Resources can often be more readily obtained when the partnership has created a vision with an action plan.  These goals can then become the focal point to direct seeking grants, combining already existing funding streams and other possible sources (p. 29).

            Establishing a solid fiscal picture will enable the partnership to realize the implementation of their goals and will foster an institutionalization of this collaborative for the future.  Collaborative partnerships can be the beginning vehicle through which many other needs or projects evolve, go forth, and move on to the next issue.

At the State Level.

            During December of 1993, the New York State Senate sponsored an Interagency Collaboration Conference.  From a large focus group, the following suggestions were given to the Senate as ideas for assistance.  (Table 3 reflects that list).  Assistance from the State Department of Education and State Legislature is to smooth the process of seeking relief from regulations and variances to mandates at the state level.  This assistance will encourage and enable other collaborative efforts.

            As the research findings from Shablak (1992) suggest, a collaborative effort is needed to provide comprehensive support and facilitation of services to families of high need, support from state officials will be important.  Communities who have joined together by means of an interagency collaboration provide an infrastructure of networking which will encourage schools in their restructuring efforts despite the issues that students are bringing with them to school.

Collaboration Development

            Interagency collaborations evolve through a series of stages and levels of interaction.  As agencies come together there will be obvious coordination taking place.  Perna (1994) suggests that agency and school collaborations can be initiated by school personnel attending community agency meetings and becoming acquainted.  Establishing an open professional relationship will ease the window of opportunities for collaborative support system.

            A collaboration is comprised of individuals who interact by trying to practice and encourage open lines of communication in which everyone feels comfortable.  Banathy (1991) offers four areas of communication to be developed as the partnership begins to take hold:

1.  Information exchange in which there is a two way flow of information and direct communication among the educational and other community agencies.

2.  Cooperation with other systems that enhance the combined functions of all interested parties.

3.  Coordination of efforts which interlocks educational, societal, and human systems toward providing a seamless  networking of services for at-risk families.

4.  Integration of all of these efforts into a clearinghouse of service providing.

Summary

            The review of the literature clearly indicates the need and an interest of all major stakeholders within our society to work cooperatively inorder to ease the burdens of

at-risk youth and their families.  The educational and reform movement initiative of both the federal and state government is to better prepare the children of today to take their respected place in tomorrow’s democratic society.  This task has become more difficult to meet as there have become serious breakdowns in the structure of today’s family.  Crime and substance abuses have become more prevalent, consequently, placing a strain on the service providers within each community.  School districts are charged to enlighten and foster learning in the young minds of each child who arrives at their doorstep.  But this task is faced with insurmountable barriers when the basic needs of many children have not been met.  Children do not come to school ready to learn because of these deficits.

            This review of literature presents the research which demonstrates  the need for school districts and agencies who are working in isolation, to form a partnership.  Previous research has indicated that when schools, organizations and communities work in a collaboration style, their partnership can provide the needed infrastructure of mutual support.  Comprehensive services can be then be obtained for all families.  These collaborative efforts seem to be successful in dealing with the diverse odds that are most certainly waging war against the family, the school, the community, as well as all community resource providers.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

            Chapter III presents a detailed description of the research procedures employed during this study.  The various components include; research questions, unit of analysis, sample population, and the sampling techniques.  The research design was qualitative.  The selection process of the research site and description of the participants, an explanation of how the researcher gained access and involvement within each site, as well as, what agreements were needed to take place in order to conduct the study are included.  There were a variety of research strategies used to collect data from the field.  Those procedures are described as well as techniques utilized to ensure for reliability and validity of the data.  The plan for the method of data analysis and how to demonstrate its relationship to the conceptual framework of the study are provided. The chapter concludes with a summary.

Research Questions

            The following questions guided the research study:

            1.         What were the participants observed personal levels of commitment to a                             collaborative partnership for at-risk youth?

            2.         How do these personal levels of commitment impact the stages of                                       collaboration within the interagency partnerships?

Unit of Analysis

            The unit of analysis for this research was the leadership council (Education Committee) within each interagency partnership.  This research examined two separate interagency partnerships to determine personal levels of interaction of the participants which in turn demonstrates the stages of collaboration which have led to the development of comprehensive services to at-risk youth and their families.  The research is categorized as a “bounded system of study” (Mirriam, 1988, p. 45) in which the focus of analysis included circumstances or issues as suggested by participants within each of the partnerships or by professors and legislators who lent support and guidance to each partnership during the formative stages of development.

            Within each unit of analysis (the Education Committee), a subunit of analysis (individual participants) was applied to determine the impact of personal levels of interaction upon the stages of the collaboration within the partnership.  A scale of interaction was created by the researcher which summarized (placed into a category) each participant’s interaction into three generalizations; casual, moderate, and exceptional.

            Data were collected in each partnership site through a multiplicity of methods.  One source of information was derived from individual and focus group interviews.  The information provided in the presentation of these case studies was derived from 115 interviews, three small focus group sessions, and one large regional focus session.

Sample Population

            The sample for this research are two interagency collaborative partnerships: the Edwardsville-Springfield-Coleville ( ESC) Youth at-risk Educational Collaboration and the Sterling Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Sterling County Department of Social Services Liaison Educational Partnership.  These two partnerships were selected because of their similarities of size, years in the partnership, leadership, general partnership composition and focus toward at-risk youth and their families through program and services.   The collaborations are also unusual in that they have a BOCES component which is missing in many other collaborative efforts throughout the State.  The BOCES component brings unique advantages and disadvantages but also links the State Education Department to the partnership.  This component has drawn the interest of legislators, state educational leaders, and local Senators.

Sampling Technique

            The purposive and nonprobability sampling approach (Merriam, 1988, p. 49) in this research was two case studies of comparable description and composition.  Each collaborative partnership is governed by a leadership council referred to as the Education Committee.  The sampling of this study will focus upon that leadership core of people who set the tone of the partnership.

Access and Entry to Site

            The researcher participated in two initial meetings with the leadership of each BOCES.  The next step was to meet with the leadership from each Department of Social Services to collect preliminary data about how this partnership has evolved from their perspective.  The researcher then obtained a schedule of routine meetings to take place this semester between the leadership and the larger collaborative, sometimes referred to as ‘liaison meetings’.

            The researcher then became acquainted with each group or individual who’re to  become a part of the research.  The researcher attended the normal organizational and routine meetings as well as informal meetings with each of the two collaborations ( ESC BOCES and Sterling BOCES).  Historical and background information and perspectives were acquired at this time.  This information allowed for additional questions in a second phase of interviewing sessions that were developed.  A better understanding of the historical issues lent information for answering the questions posed by the research questions.

            Agreement consent forms (are on file with the Office of Public Information) were developed by the researcher to provide written consent to use the information obtained from their partnership for the purposes of research involved in a dissertation study.  It was agreed that all participants and settings would remain unnamed, fictitious names and locations would be used in place of real identity.  The idea of the research is to describe the processing of levels of collaboration not to disclose personal information.  Each person interviewed signed a consent form and expressed no concerns. 

Research Strategies for Data Collection

            This research was conducted in a case study format in order to allow for the amplification of descriptive data which included human experiences, conflicts, issues, and sequences in the interagency collaboration process.  Such naturalistic studies within qualitative research provide the opportunity for rich interaction between researcher and interviewee ( Miles and Huberman , 1984).  Additionally, qualitative studies conducted in a case study design allow for a holistic and life-like snap-shot of the phenomena of interest.  This naturalistic approach has provided an investigative forum within which the data collected in observations, interviews, documents, and observations provide assurances of reliability and validity of the information gathered.

Triangulation

            Qualitative research requires a different approach to establishing with credibility data which is reliable and valid.  Mirriam (1988, p. 166) “proposes using the terms ‘truth value’ for internal validity, and ‘transferability’ for external validity and ‘consistency’ for reliability”.  Mirriam suggests employing six different strategies to ensure internal validity (p. 169): triangulation, member checking, long-term observation, peer examination, participatory modes of research involvement, and acknowledgment of the researcher’s biases up front.  All of the six strategies were employed in this research study.            Multiplicity of data with member checking for accuracy and further suggestions provided the triangulation methodology necessary to maintain objectivity within the scope of collecting rich data (Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Merriam, 1988).  Data collection was obtained through observations during routine meetings of both partnerships as well as  interviews conducted individually, in small focus groups, and in larger focus group

settings.  In addition there was a thorough examination and comparison of documents which created the historical picture of the partnerships over time through their stages of development.  Background data as seemed pertinent to the study surrounding each partnership was obtained by searching census data and district profiles.  Throughout the data collection process, individuals were interviewed who were outside each of the partnerships but who had contributed or observed the collaborative growth and could provide confirmation of the researcher’s next steps.  Often people who served as outside sources provided direction or information about the case study participants which might not have been discovered otherwise.  Table 4 provides the complete listing of method, type, and setting.

Observations

            Observations were made of the participants during their routine meetings of the partnerships.  This allowed the researcher to unobtrusively observe the interactions and general level of communications which took place among the partnership participants.  Body language revealed a great deal about the individual participant’s level of interest and subsequent investment to the issues at hand.  Informal, spontaneous conversation also served as indicators.

Documents

            Documents were requested which would provide a better understanding and background of the two partnerships.  Such documentation’s included, minutes of past and current partnership meetings, evaluation documents, and grant proposals which had been submitted to join the collaborations into a viable unit.  In addition the researcher was provided copies of the collaborations’ contractual agreements and county/legislative petitions which were submitted to create and support these interagency collaborations. Notes and information were also gathered from attending regularly scheduled meetings of the collaborations.

            Documentation provided about each partnership was placed in folders for that group along with notes made in the margin to guide questioning or observations.  Once the interviews began, the researcher used the documentation of minutes, and contractual agreements to better focus the next interview sessions.  Each person or group were interviewed two or three times to serve as a member checking process for clarification and to refocus the next ‘days’ efforts.  The researcher spent multiple days at a time on site with each partnership over a period of several months in order to concentrate time and opportunities for information and  access to those being interviewed.  Schedules were created prior to the researcher arriving to the site as an attempt to be respectful of the interviewee’s time and to maximize the opportunities for data collection.

Interviews

            Individual interview meetings were arranged with key individuals as suggested by the leadership inorder to further tell the story of the collaborative process.  Interviews took place in the format of one-to-one, as well as small focus group sessions.  An interview protocol of questions (examples of these questions and interview forms are found in the Appendix) was used with each group and individually where appropriate.  Unstructured discussion took place when reinterviewing an individual or when interviewing outside resources

            One hundred and fifteen individual interviews were conducted by the researcher to provide information from the individual perspective.  The breakdown of interviews is as follows:  twenty-five people were interviewed from Case Study One;  eighteen people were interviewed during three different sessions, and seven people were interviewed only once.  Twenty-eight people were interviewed from Case Study Two; thirteen people were interviewed during three different sessions, and fifteen people were interviewed only once.

Small and Large Focus Group Interviews

            Interview data was also collected during two small focus group interviews (one in each case study) and concluded one large focus group setting.  Each of the focus interview sessions (Kreueger, 1988; Stewart  & Shamdasani, 1990) yielded an extension of information, ideas, and feelings about the particular interagency partnership within which people were working.  This style of interviewing process allowed for an open, frank description of the participants collective attitudes and perceptions. 

            According to Krueger (1988) group interviews lend themselves to the spontaneity made easier in a group situation versus a one-to-one interview.  Participants are sometimes more readily at ease in a group scenario.  Many times hearing the responses of other participants will spark a memory or response which is quite important to the interview moderator and the impressions of what is really being said.  The general purpose

for using focus group interviews was employed to promote self-disclosure among the participants.  As Kruger suggests, focus groups are characterized by a prearranged meeting of seven to ten people who are not necessary familiar to each other,  but who have a common goal or set of experiences which are related to the interview moderator’s interest.

            The researcher concluded the field work by arranging a regional meeting between the two interagency collaborations involved in this study and other regionally local collaborative partnerships.  An open invitation was extended.  This focus group session was designed to seek information from a group experience that is difficult to obtain in a more personal setting.  Due to the extensive number in attendance (135), the researcher utilized a college to serve as a moderator to facilitate the flow of the meeting.  The meeting began with an opening speech by a guest speaker to set the tone for discussions about interagency collaborations.  The speaker referred to collaborative partnerships as being the tapestry of mankind, with each thread woven tightly to form a bond of strength. 

            The large focus group session took place all day with people engaged in discussions at tables established throughout a large hotel ballroom.  There were table facilitators who lead each table through discussions surrounding the following questions:

·         What are the barriers that you currently face in your partnership of collaboration?

·         How would you describe the rapport among members of your partnership?

·         Why do you think that your partnership has reached it’s current success level?

·         Where do you see this collaboration going next?

            The researcher served as one of the table facilitators.  Table participants brainstormed data about the discussion questions, this data was captured on large flip charts.  Each participant was able to contribute information, perceptions, feelings toward, or suggestions for the topic at hand.  Intermittently throughout the day, the table discussions would come back to full group discussion which provided an in-depth

discussion of how they had been responding to the above questions.  The table facilitator recorded each tables lists and answers.  The researcher summarized the data from the focus group session and included the data with respect to each case study.

            The authentic and natural interaction among people who have been involved at various levels within an interagency collaboration from two distinct settings provided for rich insights and perceptions for this research , while also providing a unique experience for those participating in this type of large focus process. A cumulative report created by the researcher was created within a week following this meeting with copies sent to attendees and the Senator who encouraged this meeting.  Additional funding from the New York State Senate Education Committee has been provided to the partnerships in attendance because of their fine work and reporting.

            Focus group interviews provided qualitative data that suggested possible insights to the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of participants.  Communication during these exchanges was aggressively encouraged by the moderator utilizing well crafted, open-ended questions. Observations throughout the interviewing process provided opportunity for quality analysis of the written comments later.

Member Checking

            As a follow up strategy, on a subsequent visits to the field, the researcher was able to establish individual interview meetings with those who had previously been interviewed.  These follow-up sessions enabled the researcher to opportunity check for accuracy of the previous data received and a chance to refocus questions or inquire more deeply about certain areas of observation or interest.

Peer Examination

            Periodically through the collection of data and through the period of data analysis, the researcher conferred with two local college professors, colleagues, to seek their advice and suggestions about the process or procedures being employed.  Each time, these colleagues were able to provide assistance in suggested changes or additions.  The researcher worked very closely with the dissertation chairperson as the process and findings evolved.  Each person’s perspective provided the researcher a deeper understanding of the process.

Long Term Observation

            Interviews and on-site observations were conducted by the researcher on  six individual entries to the field over a period of six months.  After each interview and meeting attended there was time set aside to transcribe and then summarize the field notes, tape recordings.  Summaries was reviewed which also incorporated documents collected from the field for each session.  These reflective summary notes and memos were utilized by the researcher to make determinations about the next series of interviews.  Each interview process enabled the researcher to determine if the focus was clear and concise or if adaptations were needed in order to keep the research on target for the desired results.

Participatory Modes of Research Involvement

            The researcher observed case study participants during routine meetings, case discussions, small and large focus group without being obtrusive to the procedures in

progress.  There had been a good rapport developed among the key participants and the researcher which enabled the researcher to be unintrusive. 

Researcher’s Biases

            Attention was given to the possibility of researcher bias as the study began.  Consequently, there was conscious effort during the collection of data and especially during analysis of the findings to be objective and detached.  This was attained by member checking and conferring with colleagues throughout the process.

Data Analysis

            Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding processes were used to analyze the data.  Raw data and gathered documents were first divided by emerging themes or circumstances by open coding as described by Strauss and Corbin (1990).  The first step in analysis was to glean through the interview data and memo notes taken from observations and impressions during partnership meetings, informal discussions and interviews by using a method called open coding.  In the open coding phase, the researcher compared and categorized the data.  According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), this is “the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data” (p.61). The researcher reviewed each piece of data line by line first, then by paragraph, and by summary of the interview or document. 

            Themes emerged that formed patterns of information for comparison, frequency, and categories.  As suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1992), the thematic patterns evolved into categories which lent themselves to an operational continuum of frequency patterns.  The patterns were describing the personal levels of interaction, investment, and

ownership of the collaboration process.   These patterns of data emerged into three categories; frequency of that participant’s interaction with others, their reasons for participating in the partnership, and their desired outcome for the collaborative.  Patterns were organized by using a conceptual cluster matrix as developed by Miles and Huberman, (1984, p. 128) to track the information as it evolved (Table 5).  Each of the three areas related directly back to frame answers to the research questions and to provide a relationship consequently to both the level of involvement of the participants and to the current stage of collaboration held by each partnership.

            Data was then axial coded to establish the relationships with the categories which had emerged during the open coding phase of analysis.  The use of Axial coding in this study refers to “the procedure whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 96). 

The process of axial coding provided the researcher with data which automatically divided into subcategorizes of interaction.  A scale of frequency of interaction was created by the researcher for descriptive purposes to match the information presented in the data.  Each case study participants were ranked on a scale of interaction according to their level of interaction and consequent involvement in the partnership.  Accounting for levels of interaction can be can best be represented by the following categories: Exceptional accounts of interaction, Moderate levels interaction, Casual levels of interaction (Table 6).

            Exceptional accounts of interaction refers to this participant not only attending regularly scheduled meetings and finding opportunities to serve the partnership within meetings held in-between regularly scheduled sessions, but also informally and formally called or met with individuals who could further develop the goals of this collaboration.  Aggressive attempts routinely demonstrated to solve issues as they arose and seemed to basically ‘be-on-call’ for the good of the partnership but more importantly their focus seemed to be the philosophy of ‘Whatever it takes’ let me know and it will get done!’.

            Moderate accounts for interaction is defined as faithful attendance at regularly scheduled meetings and extra efforts made informally or formally to facilitate the progress of goals within the partnership.  Casual accounts of interaction refers to those participants who attended the regularly scheduled meetings and were involved in the agenda of those meetings. 

Relationship of Theory to Data Analysis

            Garman’s (1982) four-tiered conceptual model provides an infrastructure to address “the nature of personal involvement between and among the people working in an educational alliance” (p. 43).  Garman’s (1982) research describes four basic types of involvement within collaborative interactions:  non-working involvement, working-acceptance involvement, genuine participation, and organic reciprocity.  These types are conceptual indicators which suggest that the level of personal commitment to a task, such as being a participant within an interagency collaboration, lends itself to predict the types of success eventually reached by the organization.  A modified case-ordered effects matrix as developed by Miles and Huberman, (1984, p. 210) was used to display the relationships

between levels of involvement and the thematic patterns of interaction which had emerged during the coding process.

Application of Friend and Cook

            The final filter of this research was to discover at what levels of personal commitment (Garman, 1982) does genuine collaboration (Friend and Cook, 1992) occur. There are six characteristics depicting the stages of collaboration: (a) collaboration is voluntary, (b) requires parity among participates, (c) is based upon mutual goals, (d) depends upon shared responsibilities for participation and shared decision making, (e) resources are shared, (f) accountability is shared for outcomes.

            Data presented from the matrix was then filtered through the conceptual framework of Friend and Cook (1992) Each of the case study provided a relationship back to that participant’s level of involvement and consequently then, to the stage of collaboration achieved by the partnership.  Charts were created which demonstrated those findings.

            A cross-case analysis of the findings was conducted to demonstrate the similarities and the differences among the case studies as it relates to the eventual stage of collaboration observed in each partnership.  Charts were created by the researcher to display these findings.

Summary

            Chapter three described the research questions, research design, and selection of the sampling within the two-case study populations.  The procedure for data collection and analysis were described with charts and findings.  The relationship between Garman’s personal levels of involvement and the stages of collaboration from Friend and Cook was presented in an analysis of the data findings.  The chapter concluded with a cross-case analysis which provided insight about the relationship between one’s personal investment and the stages of collaboration obtained by an educational alliance known as an interagency collaboration.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CASE STUDIES

Introduction

            Chapter IV presents two case studies which examine interagency collaboration partnerships.  The chapter begins with an overview of background issues which describe the reasons why there is a need for interagency collaborations and the formal presentation of the specific data that has emerged from the two collaborative partnerships in a rural area.  Next there is a brief description of each partnership’s characteristics and the subsequent program components which have evolved from their collaborative partnership.  Chapter four concludes by providing a comparative analysis of similarities and differences between the two case studies.  This summative comparison provides the basis for the application of a theoretical analysis of personal involvement and ownership with respect to varied stages of collaboration within the partnership as a unit.  The chapter concludes with a summary of organization.

Background

            Throughout the country there is a model of intervention which is working to promote successful school completion and to minimize the crisis types in families who are at-risk.  This partnership model, interagency collaboration, promotes preventive strategies and intervention types of entry for families in distress.  The concept of interagency partnerships finds its first validation by the call for new approaches to serving children as articulated in the Moreland Commission Report:

                        Education and Human service coordination--the State should direct the commissioners of the departments of Education and Social Services to create family resource centers at school sites, within three years, to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged children and their families presently maintained by SED, the departments of Social Services, Labor and Health, the Office of Mental Health, the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, the Division for Youth, and the Council on children and Families, the Divisions of Probation and Substance Abuse Services and other databases as deemed appropriate.

            Interagency collaborations exist throughout the country in many formats and with varied success rates.  For the purpose of this research the following two collaboration partnerships are presented; the Edwardsville-Springfield-Coleville ( ESC) Youth at-risk Educational Collaboration and the Sterling Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Sterling County Department of Social Services Liaison Educational Partnership.

            Each research question will be analyzed for an understanding of what organizational level of collaboration has been achieved within each partnership and what level of personal commitment achieved by individual participants have perhaps impacted the depth of that particular partnership.

Presentation of Case Study One

            Case Study One portrays an interagency collaboration which has been in existence for four years at the encouragement of a school district superintendent who was concerned with the increasing number of students dropping out of school.  The Department of Social Services decided to become participants inorder to curb the financial drain on the DSS budget which were caused by the increases in PINS students, students in need of foster care placement, and child abuse interventions. 

Partnership Membership and Organization

            The ESC Educational Collaboration initiated its partnership in 1991.  Membership in the partnership includes: the Perryville Department of Social Services, the ESC BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services), and  four school districts. This collaboration was formed to work collaboratively toward increasing intervention programs and provide preventive efforts within the local school districts for youth at-risk.

            Leadership and organization of their monthly meetings were planned and implemented by the Youth at-risk Coordinator employed by the  ESC BOCES.  Attendance at these meetings consisted primarily of School District Superintendents and designees of the four participating component school district systems, the Perryville County Department of Social Services represented by the Commissioner and the Director of Services and/or their designees; the  ESC County Board of Cooperative Educational Services represented by the District Superintendent and/or their designees; and the DSS Case Workers from each school setting.  Membership of those participating in this collaboration are presented in Table 7.

Roles and Relationships within the Partnership

            Once a shared vision for their partnership was established, the next step was to develop a description of the roles and duties of each partner within the collaboration.  Anderson led the partnership through this process.  The following list of roles clearly describes and clarifies the roles and expectations of each:

DSS:                -will provide Supervisor of the Social Work Assistants

                        -will fund through Optional Preventive Services

                        -provide sign-offs and approvals, as appropriate

                        -participate in hiring Social Work Assistants and Case Aids

                        -will attend monthly implementation meetings

BOCES:          -will hire Social Work Assistants and Case Aids

                        -will finance the Supervisor position (30% of a DSS employee will be                                 earmarked to provide supervision)

                        -will handle personnel issues:  employee time sheets and mileage

                        -will oversee grant implementation: chair meetings, maintain budget, renew                        forms and budgets, purchase equipment, contract for evaluation and                            parenting services.

                        -will provide resources and support to Social Work Assistants

Supervisor:      -will assist Social Work Assistants to gain access to information and other                          appropriate agencies

                        -will provide day-to-day supervisory assistance

                        -will provide performance evaluations with the input of school district                                contact persons.

Social Work Assistants:

                        -will participate in Youth Intervention Teams in each district

                        -will conduct screening of referred students

                        -will provide supervision for the Case Aid

                        -will act as a  between school districts, DSS and other participating                                                 agencies

                        -will act as an advocate for target students

                        -will maintain records of children and services provided

                        -will complete Uniform Case Record requirements

                        -will assist in meeting the transportation needs of clients

                        -will provide short term direct services to clients in emergency situations

                        -will collect reporting data, prepare written materials including program                              information, reports, budget expenditures and other, as appropriate.

Youth Intervention Teams:

                        -will develop Single Point of Entry to identify potential target students

                        -will meet regularly (at least every two weeks) to identify students-at-risk

                        -will act as a  to teaching, pupil personnel and administrative staff

                        -will monitor status of target students through scheduled, periodic reviews

Case Aids:

                        -will assist with processing of clerical work

                        -will provide transportation services as directed

                        -will assist in coordinating services between agencies as directed.

Measurable Goals

            The partnership formalized a plan of where they were going and how to get there.  The collaboration met several times, using a facilitator to guide the process; they developed several goals for the collaboration which could be measured at the conclusion of the year.  The measurable goals of the interagency partnership are the following (Purchase of Services Request, 1994):

Goal    1.0       To improve social service delivery for participating students and families                            including case planning, case conferencing and avoiding duplication of                                   effort by coordinating service delivery.

                        Strategy:

                        Social Work Assistant will keep a log of contracts and conferences with                             clients.

                        Person responsible:

                        Social Worker Assistants trained by Department of Social Services                                                 Supervisor.

Goal    2.0       To Lower the percentage of children going into foster care from the                                    participating school districts.

                        Strategy:

                        Conduct a comparison of target students to those in families in which                                 traditional service delivery takes place.

                        Person responsible:

                        Department of Social Services Supervisor

Goal    3.0       To improve attendance of target students

                        Strategy:

                        Conduct a comparison of attendance of target students from the present                             year (since receiving services) to: 1)the previous year; and 2)the previous t                                three years.  Consideration to be given to whether attendance was a                             problem prior to the initiation of services and extenuating circumstances.

                        Person responsible:

                        Social Worker Assistant and school district personnel.

Goal    4.0       To improve academic performance

                        Strategy:

                        1)Pre/post teacher observations using grade report comparisons; and 2)                               teacher completed Youth Intervention Team Assessment Survey

                        Person responsible:

                        Social Worker Assistants will provide support and assistance to the team                            leader and teachers to ensure that the survey is completed.

Goal    5.0       To improve behavior in school by target students

                        Strategy:

                        After services have been provided, use the Y-5 form to assess whether                               improvement has occurred.

                        Person responsible:

                        Social Worker Assistant

Goal    6.0       To decrease the number indicated on the State Central Registry Reports on                        families identified as having previous Children Protective Services                                       involvement.

                        Strategy:

                        1) 20% decrease in rate of repeats for families having previous                                             involvement; and

                        2) 20% decrease in rate of reports for all families in target districts.

                        Person responsible:

                        Department of Social Services Supervisor

Goal    7.0       To improve working relationships and communications between school and                        social service personnel.

                        Strategy:

                        Open-ended surveys will be developed collaboratively by the team to be                            given to administrative and pupil personnel services individuals involved                              with project activities.  team refers to the Perryville County Youth At-risk                                    Collaborative Project which is made up of the four school districts involved                         in this collaboration and any which will join in the future.

                        Person responsible:

                        District Contact Persons

Goal    8.0       To increase parenting awareness and skills of targeted families.

                        Strategy:

                        Series of classes offered to targeted families as well as district parents                                which include provisions for child care, food, and transportation.

                        Person responsible:

                        Social Worker Assistants

Partnership Story

The Beginning

            This partnership began because Superintendent Anderson and his faculty were very concerned about the increasing drop out rate of at-risk youth in their high school.  After meeting with staff, it was clear that most of the problems were caused by the unmet social, emotional, and physical needs of students.  School personnel alone did not have the time and or expertise to meet this challenge.  Students did not arrive at school ready to learn; they arrived at school infrequently and when they did they were fraught with unmet physical , social, or emotional needs.

            At the same time, the Department of Social Services and other helping agencies in the community were facing cuts imposed upon their fixed budgets by legislators at the county and state types. Families and at-risk youth were placing increased demands upon those services being provided by the agencies.  Consequently, this trend of need in the community began to escalate the costs of foster care and PINS placements.  Correspondingly, school districts could ill afford the financial or educational costs accrued by the increased numbers of student drop outs.

            School districts and agencies worked in isolation to address the increased social service needs of families, they were experiencing only minimal successes while the needs of students and their families were continuing to increase.  There was an apparent growing need to plan intervention strategies for student and their families in crisis circumstances.  It was recognized however, that the real need was to develop prevention strategies and programs which could ward off the current state of affairs in the school setting but more importantly in the home environment.  A partnership was needed.

            Mr. Anderson sought the help of Dr. Nick Carroll, Professor SUNY at Carthage.  Dr. Carroll and Mr. Anderson co-authored a project proposal requesting State funding through an Efficiency Study Grant.  As early as 1985 the Lawerence School District was awarded this initial Efficiency Study Grant along with yet another grant which focused upon youth at-risk.  With these two successful proposals in tact, Mr. Anderson began to court the alliance with the Department of Social Services.  Small gains were made with new program initiatives and strategies.  The concept of a school based intervention team

was created and implemented with relative successes for children.  However, resources were limited.  The school found that through the needs assessment data obtained about the community for the Efficiency Study grant and the Youth At-risk grant, there were tremendous unmet social and emotional needs within the community and the school district alone could not meet this challenge.

            Mr. Anderson explained that the next steps were to begin earnest conversations with the Department of Social Services in Perryville County about their willingness to work together toward address the social and emotional needs of families Lawerence School District.  Documentation collected from the field demonstrated the fact that many meetings and conversations took place between the school district and the Department of Social Services Commission as they were each experiencing concerns over increasing numbers of families in distress.  According to Anderson, the school’s drop out rate was also increasing which he considered to be a direct symptom of youth living in distressful situations. 

            John went to visit the Commissioner in Perryville County and tried to begin dialogue about forming a partnership to help his new school district and their foster care placement numbers.  His initial visit was not met with open arms but he did not give up.  He continued to revisit and make small steps toward a coordination of resolving both the needs of his school and the needs of the DSS Department as it related to ‘his’ school children and their families.

            Finally after many months the DSS office was willing to begin discussion about strategies like those used earlier in Carthage. The concept for the structure of the  ESC

Youth at-risk Educational Liaison Collaboration was begun based upon the successes experienced in the Carthage School District and Carthage County when Mr. Joseph Anderson was employed with the Carthage School System, now presently the Superintendent of Lawerence Central School District.

            According to John, the next step was to take his ideas to the District Superintendent of the BOCES to brainstorm whether or not that agency could serve to facilitate the situation.  Dr. William Lincoln, District Superintendent was willing to support John’s ideas through the funds of the BOCES Youth At-risk program.  Many meetings and discussions took place that next year between the offices of the DSS, the BOCES, and John Anderson’s district.  From those meetings evolved the collaborative partnership of agencies, community, BOCES, and four school districts to test a model for better service delivery to at-risk youth and their families.  Dr.  Lincoln and Mr. Anderson decided to seek a Youth At-risk Grant to fund a collaborative partnership which would join stakeholders to brainstorm ideas which will create programs to help children.

            The Lawerence School District formed a partnership with the Commissioner of the Department of the Social Services and other agencies within the community.  Services and programs were developed which began to provide the necessary support for students and their families within the Lawerence System.  Services were more accessible to the families because of this new service delivery. The conception of the partnership began at the school building level and moved up to the administrative level.  Both the Efficiency Study grants and the Youth At-risk grant provided financial support to implement prevention and intervention strategies as well as to begin coordinating efforts

among the major stakeholders within the community and agencies who would provide assistance in support at-risk youth.

            Finally after many months the ESC partnership was formed between the school and the agencies.  According to John, the next step was to take his ideas to the District Superintendent of the BOCES to brainstorm whether or not that was interested in joining this newly formed collaboration.  Adding the BOCES organization to the partnership added more of the local political power base, more decision makers in the partnership, and connected the partnership into the BOCES aid funding mechanism from the State Education Department.  Many meetings and discussions took place that next year between the offices of the DSS, the BOCES, and John Anderson’s district.  According to the DSS Commissioner, Mrs. Brighton, when Mr. Anderson and Dr. Lincoln approached her about common problems each agency was experiencing with at-risk youth, they decided to pool their resources and services into an interagency collaboration.

            The ESC BOCES was successful in obtaining the Youth at-Risk grant and formed an educational  committee to discuss ways to work together.  There were four neighboring school districts who were served by the  ESC BOCES who wished to participate in this partnership.  In 1991 four school districts, the Perryville Department of Social Services and the  ESC BOCES came together in a collaborative partnership.  Over a period of a few months, according to Mr. Anderson, the initial stages were in place for this partnership and thus the forging of the interagency collaboration took place.  This was the forging of the interagency collaboration currently known as the ESC Youth at-risk Educational  Collaboration.

            Many individuals within this partnership were in agreement that (the  ESC Youth At-risk Coordinator, Carthage City Pupil Personnel director, four school district superintendents, building level DSS Case workers, and the Commissioner for the Department of Social Services),  Mr. Anderson was instrumental in the creation of the  ESC Collaboration by providing encouragement to the  ESC BOCES and also to the leadership of the District Superintendent William Lincoln.  Interview participants were in agreement that the  ESC Collaboration began because one man cared very deeply that students were not staying in school and that there seemed to be no hope for this trend to turn around if the school kept doing the same thing in the same way.

            There is general agreement that John Anderson’s compassion started this partnership.  “It takes someone, who is personally committed to making a change--to make a change happen”(DSS Commissioner).  The  ESC  partnership was truly “the brain child of John Anderson.  He started this model based upon his concept of what education can do for students and his passion for helping people in need”(Sarah Kellog, Youth at-Risk Coordinator).  It has been stated by every  ESC participant that John Anderson was the catalyst of this partnership.  Each time there was a stress level or roadblocks to be dealt with, John Anderson was there to move them past the stress.  When interviewed over the course of several weeks, John was asked, why he was so persistent, so determined, almost driven to see this to completion. His response was , “We just have to find an answer for these kids”.

            The BOCES hired a Youth At-risk Coordinator, Sarah Kellogg, to facilitate meetings and supervise the school based DSS caseworkers.  Sarah seemed very committed to keeping the partnership on task, the budget running in the black, and served as general trouble shooter for the caseworkers on a daily basis.  Sarah was the coordinator for the regular meetings, monitored spending, and was the author of the next year’s grant monies to fund the Youth at-risk  Coordinator’s position and the coordination of this partnership.  While Sarah assumed the leadership role of the partnership, she worked closely with Mr. Anderson for advise, guidance, assistance and support. 

Barriers and Benefits Experienced

            Participants in the  ESC collaboration expressed many obstacles or barriers that they were encountering or about to as they were trying to work together.  The most chronic among those cited were the issues surrounding turf issues, lack of funding and the constraints of state and county rules and regulations.  Especially during early discussions and meetings, there was much concern around how to deal with meeting different fiscal calendar years, how to help the DSS people stay in compliance with regulations that they needed to honor to keep their funding types maintained and issues which surrounded matters of confidentiality.  Compliance with regulations and the adherence to non-blurable funding streams coupled together seemed to dictate the most stressful barrier issue.

            The end of the year evaluation report about the collaboration conducted by a local college provided good information.  The data seemed to highlight that the current the types of need for foster care placement and intervention were on a decline.  Student drop out rates were declining and attendance also was improving by the school districts participating in the partnership.  The results cited in this report provided encouragement to those who are serving in the trenches of preventative programs and partnerships.

Analysis of Case Study One Data

            This section reports the analysis of the qualitative data presented in case study one. The data collection and this analysis are guided by the research questions and the theory behind understanding the types of involvement at a personal level (Garman, 1982) which in turn impacts the stages of collaboration (Friend and Cook, 1992) reached as a partnership. 

            During the intial stage of data analysis, the researcher coded the data line by line, then paragragh by paragraph as thematic patterns emerged.  The patterns were demonstrating personal levels of involvement with the collaboration.  The emergent themes fell into categories of frequency of interaction with others, their reason for participating, and the participants desired outcome for the collaborative.  In order to determine the personal level of involvement, each participant’s observed interaction with the other members of the partnership were categorized by descriptors: casual, moderate, and exceptional.

            Partnership members who were catagorized at the casual level of involvement demonstrated the lowest level of ownership and investment in the collaobration.  Casual

participants were mostly attending meetings, concerned with other agendas and not engaged in the overall indepth process of blending human and ficsal resources toward a common set of goals.  They were physcially present to participate and get back to the real business of their office or agency.  This collaborative effort may have been viewed as yet another meeting to endure.

            Moderately participating members had become more personally invested in the general concept of truely collaborating to the point of trying to breakdown the barriers of turf issues and fiscal restraints.  Moderate particpants demonstrated efforts on an informal as well as formal basis to help the new partnership efforts take place.  There was still a great deal of skepticism about the eventual outcome of these efforts.  Reservation and caution were characteristically constant for those who were personally committed at this level.

            Exceptional participants were committed to the process of true collaboration without reservations.  They demonstrated this personal level of involement by their openness to discuss issues and problems until they were resolved regardless of what it took to bring resolution.  Participation in meetings by exceptional participants was wholehearted and completly engaged. 

QUESTION 1:            What were the observed types of personal involvement within this collaborative partnership for at-risk youth?

            Table 8  presents the level of interaction and involvement demonstrated by Case Study One participants.

            Case Study One data, which reports the observed individual participant’s level of interaction and investment, suggests that at least three people are fairly casual about their commitment to the meetings and the events taking place.  Five of the participants have a

moderate level of interest and investment toward making this collaborative effort work.  They have demonstrated a certain level of detachment and reserve toward the amount of personal time, energy, or investment that they are willing to put forth at this time.  One participant has demonstrated an ‘exceptionally’ high level of commitment to resolving issues and/or investment to the process.

            The following examples of interview data demonstrate the various levels of interaction with respect to frequency of interaction, the participants reason for taking part in the collaboration, and/or the participant’s desired outcome for the partnership; key words or phrases are emphasized to follow the scale of interaction.

At the Casual Level:

Example 1

            Sarah and John mentioned that the most predominant need for this partnership was to unite all decision makers at one table to better resolve the service delivery needs of families and the educational and emotional needs of children.  Sarah mentioned often how difficult it is to understand the struggles that school district personnel are experiencing and yet to try and convince the individual agencies represented in the partnership of the need to put aside rules, regulations, and barriers of funding streams to meet the needs of the family. 

Example 2

            The Commissioner of Social Services and her designees often stressed their desire to help, but their restraints within current legislation of both county and state types of government.  Compliance with regulations and the adherence to non-blurable funding streams coupled together seemed to dictate the most stressful barrier issue.

Example 3

The DSS caseworkers demonstrated their dedication to the children and their families on a daily basis and throughout their involvement in the monthly meetings.  There seemed to be missing the ability to see and truly relate to the overall concept of an interagency collaboration and its complexities.  They seemed to be more focused on what effected their daily ability to provide services and seemed distracted when other issues were on the table, and did not interact at all when political, financial, or turf issues would arise.  Several times, the case workers confided to the researcher that , “I know there are turf and money issues that need to be resolved, but that’s not my problem, nor is it my concern”.  This level of detachment from the larger piece of the partnership kept their ownership at a more detached level.

At the Moderate Level

Example 1

            Sarah has provided a tremendously steady structural and organizational commitment to the formation and development of the partnership.  She has been faithful in providing the meetings with form and order and followed through with issues that evolved from the meetings.  Sarah has total responsibility for the budget which funds the activities and programs of the partnership through the Youth At-Risk Grant, from which her salary is derived.  She was very helpful and provided time and information to this researcher.  Despite this obvious level of commitment, she was one of the first people to be ready to fold the partnership because she could not ‘see’ a formal and detailed way to keep this collaborative partnership afloat.  Details and back and white plans which are orderly and concretely provided seemed to describe her comfort level of organization, therefore, the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding a question of “What now” would indeed threaten her.  At the same time, she remains deeply concerned for what service and program cuts will mean to children.

Example 2

            At each committee meeting, problems were brought to the group to be discussed. The problem solving skills of the group would elevate to synergistic level as their brainstorming sessions became fluid and productive.   At those moments, the emotions and the bonding of the partnership seemed to take on a very genuine nature.  People leaned forward into the conversation, voices were elevated, strained eye moments as people reflected within as to a better or at least more feasible way to resolve the problem.  Sometimes, the issue was too difficult and the meeting would be adjourned without having found a successful answer.  However, the participants would resolve that each would continue to think about how to solve the problem.  As the days would go by, collaboration members would contact each other as ideas would come to mind and a special meeting would often times be called to bring closure to a new suggestion on how solve the dilemma.  Some issues were resolved by one or two individuals and then reported back to the whole partnership. 

At the Exceptional Level

Example 1

            When John Anderson was asked about some of the reasons which lead him to become so actively involved in this collaborative, his response was heart rendering as he talked about his own personal background and lifestyle that lead him to the point of ‘understanding’ the struggle of these young people to receive an education.  John’s reason for participation in this collaboration was more akin to one of a missionary spirit.  Several times during interviews, he suggested that for many students entrapped in the bonds of poverty, that education was still the best way out of that bond.  John and others of his staff have stated many times that education is the one equalizer for a better lifestyle and quality of life for young people growing up in a less than desirable set of circumstances.

Example 2

              With tears in his eyes, John would reflect back to people who believed enough in young people to help them in any way possible to become successful.  He expressed a desire to work, call, discuss, write grants, or to drive buses for transportation, whatever was needed, to resolve the barriers that keep children from coming to school ready to learn.  Many times, John reminded this researcher of the reason he became an educator--to help children feel loved, to know who they are and lastly to take their rightful place in society as a contributing member.  His commitment seemed to know--no boundaries.

Example 3

              Several times, this researcher observing during a routine DSS/Educational Liaison meeting would here John say, “We must solve this! What is it going to take? or What do you need from me?”  “We can work past this--let’s just think about it again!”

            Garman’s four-tiered levels of involvement illustrate the nature of personal involvement that takes place between people engaged in collaboration.  A modified case-ordered effects matrix (Figure 1-Comparison Matrix: Involvement/Interaction) illustrates the relationships between levels of involvement and the depth of interaction demonstrated by the data.  “Non-working involement is characterized by feelings of resistance”(Garman, 1982, p. 43).  at this level of involvement particpants may demonstrate their reservations by subtle, noncomabtive language, both verbal and physical.  There are many defensive mechanisims in play during the general group dynamics of a person who is at this non-working, non-committed to the project level. 

            Individuals who have moved beyond the noncommittial stage are striving toward making an effort to become invested and are at least entertaining the idea of serious ownership in the united goal of the overall partnership.  This tier or level pof involvment is

working acceptance.  “A key assumption is that within the ritualistic interchange there is an acceptance of customary modes of operating.  The prevailing mood is that of politeness”(Garman, 1982, p. 44).  This stage has moved into lip service, low trust, but leaves the door open for possible improvement of the circumstances.

            Geunine participation is characterized by having “transcended the ritualistic tendencies to maintain face or give temporary lip service”(Garman, 1982, p.45) toward a heart-felt sense reason for attending meetings and taking part in the process.  Garman suggests that “when we work toward mutually explicit agreement(of what the partnership can achieve) we have the opportunity to experience a different type of collaboration--one of geuine participation”(p. 46).  This stage of involvment is characterized by participants who demonstrate a genuine desire to participate and to begin building a trust level between themselves and others in the collaboration.

            The highest level in Garman’s tier of involvement is that of ortganiz reciprocity.  At this stage participants “work haromonisously toward achieving their own goals and the goals of the group”(Garman, 1982, p. 48).  There is a mental shift that takes place, a new paradigm or mental map for how to solve problems.  It is at this stage of the group dynamices that synergy and interdependence of talents, thoughts, and efforts take place. 

Garman refers to this stage as a time when the participants find themselves able to be honest, open and unguarded about their thoughts and feelings. 

            [They are able] to accept each other’s realness with a degree of compassion, respect, and eventually with genuine compassion.  Secondly, the group begins to function with an optimum level of dynamic tension.  The extreme anxieties due to indiviudal difference have been reduced; the level of dissonance and discord has been dissipated.  Yet the indiviudals in the group remain interesting enough to one another that they offer stimulation and challenge as well as a sense of commitment.  Part of the dynamic tension is generated by each individual’s own fascinating inner world.  They find themselves learning from each other in very different ways.....Members are said to be in sync with one another.(Garman, 1982, p. 48).

            Case Study One data demonstrates that a few participants are not quite fully committed to the process.  However, there is an overall participation rate which demonstrates that some individual efforts are consistently at a higher level of genuine participation.  It is clear that the strength in the collaborative efforts seem to lie with one or two individuals who are committed to making this process become successful.  Other members of the partnership appear to be less involved or that their efforts fluctuate as they work toward becoming more involved.

QUESTION 2:            How do the personal types of involvement to the partnership impact the stages of collaboration reached by the partnership?

            Friend and Cook (1992)  provide a conceptual model for understanding the fundamental stages of collaborative partnerships.  There are six characteristics depicting the quality of collaboration: (a) collaboration is voluntary, (b) requires parity among participates, (c) is based upon mutual goals, (d) depends upon shared responsibilities for participation and shared decision making, (e) resources are shared, (f) accountability is shared for outcomes (Figure 2 Comparison Matrix: Collaboration/Interaction ).

  .          Figure 2 demonstrates that participants in Case Study One have reached an over all stage of collaboration and involvement in making shared decisions which are moving toward working through barriers of shared resources and accountability for the intended outcomes of the collaboration.

            Ownership and unconditional investment to a collaboration emerges from a change in thinking, a new ability to be willing to let go (of turf issues, concerns about past held ‘right ways of doing things’ and the willingness to think in a different way of or about how to resolve problems).  There remain some participants within the partnership that have not reached that personal level of investment let alone real ownership in the total collaborative partnership.

Examples Taken From Interview Data

            The following interview data provides examples of the stages of collaboration in Case Study One.  The data in example one and two demonstrate involvement, investment to a certain degree but stopping short of being able to really pool resources.  Ownership does not exist to the point of being consistent or not pulling back to guardedness of territory.  The term two steps forward and one step back seemed to describe the see-saw effect taking place as the partnership faced issues.

Example 1

The researcher often asked each participant, “How would you describe your relationship to others in this partnership?” mostly during an informal manner at the conclusion of interviewing sessions.  Most participants would refer to how he or she themselves had graduated from a simple interest in the partnership and/or having a specific need to be addressed at the beginning of the partnership; but, now they were beginning to trust each other and to move toward a better, more open level of communication (after four years).

From many interviews at this junction, the researcher was confused by the mixed messages.  During personal interviews with Mr. Anderson, it was clear that he believed and was trying to actuate the above statement as he interacted with the committee.  It was also clear that during committee meetings, which the researcher attended as an observer, that there were very different types of ownership and willingness to invest upon the part of several committee members.  An example of where this impression comes from would be the mere observation of attendance and body language around the table.  Often as program reports and updates were given in monthly meetings, John Anderson would be intense, leaning forward into the conversation, totally engaged and ready to help resolve difficulties which were evolving at various school settings.  While on the other hand, around the table others would be projecting body language which was very closed and withdrawn.  Some participants would keep a watchful eye on the clock and seemed more preoccupied with the time this meeting was drawing from them versus an intent to focus on the issues that were being discussed.

Many times, participants came late, left early and seemed very reserved as they were ‘required’ to be supportive in the resolution of a problem.  The  ESC District Superintendent and the DSS Commissioner were rarely in attendance and sent various designees instead.  Case Workers seemed almost always to be stressed to the max about overly full caseloads and the redundancy of paperwork.  Both issues kept them from helping children and they were often seeking help from the committee members for how to deal with this set of circumstances.  Invariably, the DSS designee would respond that this situation was driven by the state and federal guidelines/rules and regulations that were out of their hands. This statement of fact seemed to be meant as clarification or explanation why there was nothing that could be done--paperwork is paperwork and must be completed!  It oftentimes

came across as an excuse to dismiss these concerns instead of having to deal with the hard issues which were seemingly blocking direct service to children and/or their families.

Several meetings, when tension and stress types were rising over issues, John Anderson would tactfully try to brainstorm issues and possible solutions, making such statements as, “if we just pool our ideas we can get throughout this”.  Or, “What is the bottom line, what do you need from us, and we’ll get it!”  One afternoon, John was very concerned that there were so many problems and it was clear that the conversation had come to a screeching halt, he stood up and said, “Noone leaves this table until we have helped this situation.  Now, what are we going to do?” Before long, there was a solution developed which had not been there before.  It took the forcefulness and sincerity demonstrated in John to make this happen.

  As barriers kept creating road blocks to progress, the problem solving skills of the group would elevate to a new high and the synergistic solutions would float to the top for a possibly better solution.  At those moments, the emotions and the bonding of the partnership seemed to take on a very genuine nature.  People leaned forward into the conversation, voices were elevated, strained eye moments as people reflected within as to a better or at least more feasible way to resolve the problem.  Sometimes, the issue was too difficult and the meeting would be adjourned without having found a successful answer.  However, a resolution would be stated by the participants that each should to continue thinking about how to solve the problem.  As the days would go by, collaboration members would contact each other as ideas would float to their mind and a special meeting would often times be called to bring closure to a new suggestion on how solve the dilemma.

Example 2

At the conclusion of collecting data from this region, participants in the  ESC Collaboration were invited to attend a large focus group interview session as a means to bring closure.   The end of the year evaluation statistics which had been gathered about the success rate of the collaboration to date provided good information.  The data seemed to highlight that the current the types of need for foster care placement and intervention were on a decline.  Student drop out rates were declining and attendance also was improving in the schools participating in the partnership.  These measures provided encouragement to those who are serving in the trenches of preventative programs and partnerships.

The researcher asked the group to respond to the following questions:

“Even in light of these good statistics which show that your efforts are beginning to turn the tide, knowing what you know now about how much time and energy this process takes,  Why should people become invested in this process of interagency collaboration?”

Sarah cited the fact that she is married to a school district superintendent who has provided her background information to understand the plight and isolation of the school and their personnel.  She seemed to feel that this type of collaborative effort was an excellent answer to providing services to an otherwise unserved population.  She reportedly viewed this partnership as having the possibility for saving many students and creating a more wholesome standard of living for the at-risk youth in the area.

The group then collectively provided such answers as, “What we are doing is having a positive effect upon student achievement, behavior and attitudes.  There is an increased sense of family involvement with their child’s education and general well being.  There seems to be an increased level of support and involvement on the part of the community and business.  There has also been a greater sense of leadership arise on the part of building level Superintendents, the BOCES District Superintendent, and the DSS Commissioner”.

Observations throughout this study on the part of the researcher and information gathered informally at an individual interview level do not completely substantiate the later statements about the increase of leadership on behalf of the building level Superintendents, the BOCES District Superintendent, and the DSS Commissioner.  Observation and impressions were quite the opposite.  Statistically data which suggests a decline in student drop outs and a decline in the need for foster care placement and PINS students is indeed accurate.  But the glue which seems to have held this process of collaboration together seemed to be centered around a few people and their commitment to the tasks at hand on a daily basis with unwavering energy.  Building level Superintendents in the four schools, the DSS Commissioner and the BOCES District Superintendent were rarely in attendance at meetings which resolved hard issues and kept the collaborative effort going.

There also seems to be a distinct need for more extensive programs to meet the varied needs of students and their families in this region.  While the tone from those present for this focus session seemed to be “We are working hard together and look what we are able to accomplish”, there is another message received as an outside observer.  Yes, several members of the partnership are working very hard and earnestly toward the planned efforts of this partnership, but there is a general lack of involvement at the school building level through the administration and many members of the teaching staff.  This may be due in large measure to lack of communication and information to the ‘rank and file’ of each building and agency.

An additional observation would be the sense of genuine ownership at a personal level was lacking except for John.  There was a nagging sense that Sarah’s true commitment was more of ‘this is my job, I want this to work--job security and that it is a good think to do’.  At the building level the strongest sense of commitment was observed through the daily interactions of the DSS case workers.  It was obvious that they are very overworked, highly stressed and uncomfortable with the way they are received by the school district personnel.  There seemed to be an additional bind about the paperwork pressures placed upon them which had to be met before a child ‘even in crisis’ could be helped and the family visited.  They expressed many times what a bind this placed them in and how it was hampering the success of the program. 

Even though this concern was mentioned at almost every meeting, nothing but lipservice was genuinely offered to resolve the problem.  No one was willing to give.  And the case workers were sent in silence back to the same deadened situation every day.

The real evaluation of this case study came unexpectedly.  As the research was drawing to closure, the researcher was aware that funding for the Department of Social Services and other helping agencies was legislated to be decreased and that the format for receiving funds would also be moving into block grants.  Follow-up calls and brief visits to random members of the partnership informed the researcher that the partnership just would not be able to bear these restrictions.  It seemed that a decision was eminent that there would be the partnership would be dissolved or that at the very least severe cuts in services would take place.  These ‘pending decisions’ seemed to be about to take place without the total partnership even getting together to discuss a possible means for dealing with this financial crisis.

The last phase of this research was a very large focus group meeting which incorporated many of the interagency partnerships in the Southern Tier Region, of which the participants in Case Study One and Case Study Two were in attendance.  The participants from Case Study One voiced their concerns about continuation of their partnership in this forum and they were met with many different reactions from people across the region.  Most participants in other partnerships had met and discussed the concerns and had made fairly definitive plans of how to keep providing their services/programs and be creative about seeking other grants, pulling in other funding sources which were not quite so limited, seeking resources from local clubs, organizations, and foundations inorder to keep things going. 

Participants in Case Study One, with one exception, seemed to shake their heads at the mere possibility that any of those plans would work and that it just may be best to not get any further into this commitment of time, money, and human resources.  An observation of body language and overall informal tone sent the message that it was time to pull out, it just couldn’t be done, the state and federal government are mandating too much.  One comment was made which was quite descriptive, “We have to protect what ‘we’ (their own agency/school) are doing, we can’t get more thinly stretched”. 

Summary of Case Study One

            Participants in Case Study One have demonstrated an organizational commitment to collaboration at step four according to the Friend and Cook model.  Their overall level of participation and personal commitment suggests that as a collaborative they are making shared decisions and are moving toward working through the barriers of how to share resources and still be accountable for group or individual outcomes.  However, there

investment seems to be more detached and reserved.  Friend and Cook’s higher stages of collaboration require a genuine commitment on a personal level to own the outcomes of the partnership.  Two examples summarize the findings from Case Study One:

Accountability for Partnership Outcomes: Example 1

The one exception, John Anderson, addressed the group early in the meeting as a ‘keynote’ to set the stage for the questions and interaction.  John decided to relate to the audience a historical overview of why, how, and what interagency collaborations were really all about.  He then acknowledged the hard issues that everyone was about to face and urged a synergist approach to finding solutions not a solution as to how just to keep it (the partnerships) together and to grow forward toward each other. 

As people listened and appeared to be reflective, in his concluding statement, John lit a candle and placed it on the head table.  “Each of us are able, if we want to, to light a candle and be the light in our own corner of the world.  Think of the strength and enlightenment which can take place if each of us around this room light and maintain the light in each of our corners of the world; the darkness which surrounds many children will be dispelled by your effort.  I challenge you to light a candle and to be steadfast in the effort to illuminate the world for children”.

The most compelling question within the interview was made in the from of a summary statement by John Anderson; “When considering whether or not to participate in a collaboration, ask yourself three questions before you plunge into this type of partnership--Do you care?  Do you want to make a difference?  Do you care who gets the credit?  If your answer is yes, yes, and NO--Then you will have no other choice but to become invested, involved and encouraged by interagency collaborations--together WE CAN!”

Non-working Acceptance: Example 2

During the last routine monthly meeting with Case Study One participants, when discussing these financial turn of events, the researcher asked what now?  “In the light of these budgetary cuts and perhaps a weakening of the legislative commitment to interagency collaboration, what impact if any will these circumstances bring to bear upon your interagency collaboration?”  The response was that they had already let the DSS Case Workers know that they need to find other jobs next year and that formal notice had been given.  There would be no way to survive these cuts.  They weren’t quite sure what kinds of cuts and impact this would have on the various programs, but that the partnership would possible be dissolved.  “We just can’t afford this kind of weight! We have to protect our own individual agency (district, organization)”.

            While one partnership member has clearly reached the stage of true collaobration with a strong sense of sharing resources, responsiblity and accountability, most the partnership has not evolved through those stages. 

Presentation of Case Study Two

            Case Study Two depicts an interagency collaboration which began with two determined leaders concerned about the increased need for services in their county.  The Sterling Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Sterling County Department of Social Services Educational Partnership has been in existence for four years and incorporates services to 13 school districts (a country wide effort).

Partnership membership and organization

            The Sterling County Partnership was developed between the thirteen local school districts throughout Sterling County and the Department of Social Services.  This collaboration has become a vehicle to combine the personnel and fiscal resources of the schools and community while providing students with access to holistic support services

            The composition of the partnership consists primarily of chief administrators of both the Sterling County School system and the government and includes the following people:  From the Sterling County Department of Social Services represented are the Commissioner and the Director of Services and designees; the Sterling County Board of Cooperative Educational Services represented by the District Superintendent and designees along with a Sterling County Administrator.  Sterling County Schools are represented by the School Districts Superintendents and designees.  While the Sterling County Family Court is represented by a Family Court Judge and Sterling County Probation Department is represented by the Probation Director.

Roles and Relationships within the Partnership

            The roles are similar to those found in Case Study One due to the very nature of the job or responsibility titles (See Table 9).  Clarification early in the formation of the partnership helped to establish a vehicle for focus later when issues dictated a decision maker to take hold of the solution and bring it to closure.  This partnership was characterized by resolving issues at each meeting, the monthly meeting were an open forum to hear reports of a general nature and to resolve problems.

Measurable Goals

            The participants of this collaboration then forged ahead and met as often as necessary to resolve issues as they appeared.  Routine meetings were held monthly in order to provide consistency but additional meetings were called as the need arose, especially initially.  The understanding was that if partnership members could get there at all that was great, if not they would be brought up todate as soon as possible; thereby, keeping everyone in the loop, diminishing the opportunity for irritation that not everyone

was at ever meeting, but that they would be if they could.  This seemed very unique and quite important all thought minor in the scheme of things.

            When Dr. Mitchell was questioned about that by the researcher his response was, “That just naturally evolved from the beginning.  We are all so busy, so committed to what we are doing in our own agencies that our daily schedules are packed.  Nonetheless, this collaborative effort is truly significant to each of us, but the reality of our jobs force our time and schedules in many directions that are not totally controlled by each of us. Therefore, early on there was an almost unstated sense of responsibility to this effort but a healthy open attitude toward each other as we had to miss some of the meetings.  You know, I guess the best example of that was the manner in which people were greeted and caught up when they had had missed previous meetings.  The genuine nature of rapport and body language reflected that yes, they had been missed, here is what we’ve done so far, what do you think?”  As time progressed the following program components lead to specific goals and desired results (Table 10).

Partnership Story

The Beginning

            At the beginning of this collaboration, two men decided that their organizations could no longer hold back the tide of problems facing the families of that county.  They needed help.  Both men agreed that continuing to work in isolation things were not going to improve.  Once the two largest organizations, the Department of Social Services and the BOCES formed the initial partnership, they invited others within the county who were in the slightest bit interested in working together.  Before long, within the first year, the

partnership included all of the service providers in the region and the school district personnel.  This depth of participation seemed to provide a strong foundation for stemming the tide of problems/obstacles to such a partnership in the future months and years.

            Dr. William Mitchell and Mr. Michael Lincoln met and discussed the common difficulties they were experiencing with their own service populations.  School districts within the Sterling area were experiencing a staggeringly high rate of students withdrawing from school who eventually dropped out, an increasing number of teen students becoming pregnant and consequently dropping out of school.  At the same time the Department of Social Services were experiencing increased numbers of children in need of foster care placement, an increase in PINS(Persons In Need of Supervision) numbers, increases in the number students being declared as juvenile delinquents (JD) classification from the county court system and in some cases an increase in the need for resident placement of students.  Circumstances were becoming extremely expensive in terms of services required to house and rehabilitate out-of-control children and dysfunctional families.  Dr. Mitchell and Commissioner Lincoln agreed that between the two of them there must surely be a way to resolve these issues.

            During their initial informal discussions, it was clear that both the school districts and the Department of Social Services had been trying to ‘throw solutions’ toward an ever increasing set of problems.  Quickly they realized that if these circumstances were going to turn around, there would have to be a halt to their past practices of providing mere   Band-Aid approaches to resolve these issues ; and that, working together they must strive

to determine the heart of the problems.  From this basis of discovering the core of the problems, they must work backwards toward solutions to resolve the ‘heart’ of the reason for the increased needs in intervention programs.  Their focus should be one of how to prevent and correct the circumstances that bring children and families to this kind of impasse.

            Early in the interview process with Dr. Mitchell, he explained that once he and Commissioner Lincoln decided to analysis the problems students were having by searching out cause, their task as agencies was completely different.  “When you begin with the end in mind of helping children to come to school ready to learn--with less negative baggage--you work backward through the case of a child in trouble and evaluate what and where the unrest and anger are coming from.”  Students who reach high school age and drop out of school or get into trouble in school and or with the court system there is a fundamental cause or causes that need to be uncovered.  Neither the school district nor the DSS system, nor the court system had been successful--alone.  Together they would have a chance at getting to the beginning of the causes and work toward a more healthy ‘end in mind’ for students and their families.

            The general consensus reached by both men was that between them and the agencies that they represent, there was a great deal of authority, power, and political connections.  It seemed quite obvious that an alliance between them and their respective agencies could facilitate the successful acquisition of grants, school district, and legislative support to unite their efforts for the common good of those they were serving.

            Aside from the logical approach to this two man pursuit, it is common knowledge among those interviewed that both Bill and Terry are very child-centered and caring educators for the cause of children.  Several people reported that Dr. Mitchell and Commissioner Lincoln meet formally and informally at least forty times before they were able to call the first organizational meeting of the large group together.  These two men decided that something had to be done to stop this trend of losing kids and at the same time find a way to break the bonds of welfare and foster care placement of children. 

            The two men held a number of face-to-face meetings to discuss how they could increase interagency cooperation in a county with 13,000 students in 12 school districts.  To this end, they went to the community for support, eventually involving school administrators and the Sterling County legislature, which provided the seed money to develop the programs needed.  The present-day smooth working relationship was not always the norm.  The relationship at the time of the early Lincoln-Mitchell meetings was, at times, rocky, with misunderstandings on both sides.

            Commissioner Lincoln was quoted in a local bulletin newspaper (Dimensions, 1991) as saying that this interagency collaboration would work because we have no other choices left, District Superintendent Mitchell and myself have decided to work together to solve the problems of this county wherever they are, in the school, community or home.  “We did it (make the agreement) on faith and a handshake” was Commissioner Lincoln’s response when asked during an interview about how they began such a successful venture.

            In 1991 an agreement between the Sterling County Schools and the County Department of Social Services created a DSS/ Committee to combined the resources of the schools and the community into programs which would provide services to youth at-risk students and their families.

            A DSS/Educational committee was created to be the policy-making body of the service components. The DSS/ Committee develops policy and oversees four component programs from within this interagency collaboration:  School Intervention Partnership, Youth at-risk, School Without Walls, and the PINS Diversion.  An educational committee was created to guide this collaboration.

.           Selection to become part of this Committee is automatic as it relates to the titled leadership roles within the organizations mentioned above, other designated membership is appointed by two-thirds vote of the Committee membership.  Officers of the Committee are the two Co-chairpersons and a Secretary.  The Sterling County Department of Social Services Commissioner serves as one Co-chairperson and the Sterling County District Superintendent serves as the other Co-chairperson.  The Secretary is appointed by the two Co-chairpersons.

Barriers and Benefits Experienced

            This partnership cited the following issues as barriers to this type of partnership;

            1.         Getting beyond the “friendly” superficial level of conversation and involvement at the meetings.

            2.         Finding ways to work around funding stream regulations in order to pool their limited resources and therefore maximizing what they could accomplish.

            3.         Finding ways that could be agreed upon to bridge the rules and regulations issues among the school based and department level personnel.

            4.         Finding time to pull all of this together and to consistently keep the momentum going.

            5.         How to get the community of parents and tax payers on board with what power this type of collaboration could have for the children in that community.

            In 1996, this partnership has seen an incredible commitment to the various programs discussed earlier, many benefits have been accomplished.  Regularly scheduled Educational meetings have been used to keep interested parties and the partnership informed of progress and stressful areas as time evolves.  Program concerns and needs are handled by the collaboration at these meetings or sub-committees are formed to deal with complex issues and brought back to the full partnership for final resolution.  These monthly meetings have grown from about an hour in length to almost four because of the extent of programs which have evolved from this collaboration of decision makers.

Program reports are now given briefly with a more in-depth reporting given on a rotation basis.  The meetings are heavily attended by those who are of the partnership but by interested community and neighboring community members.

            While many of the reports and comments at meetings reflected the obvious successes of this partnership in program areas which had reaped important monetary gains, not all benefits were fiscal.  For example, in testimony before the New York Senate Education Committee and the Senate Committee on Social Services last December, Commissioner Lincoln testified regarding some benefits the partnership cannot place a cash value on.  “For example, the program provides the ability to follow the at-risk youngster with 12 months of services, a case worker available for home contacts at all times”.

            In the 1993-94 school year, 10 of the 12 school districts in Sterling County had either full-time or part-time caseworkers from the Department of School Services.  The County reports that these school-based programs helped to bring about a 26% reduction in foster care cases during 1993 and also led to a 50% reduction in school generated PINS petitions.

Analysis of Case Study Two Data

            This section reports the analysis of the qualitative data presented in case study two.  The data collection and this analysis are guided by the research questions and the theory behind understanding the types of involvement at a personal level (Garman, 1982) which in turn impacts the stages of collaboration (Friend and Cook, 1992) reached as a partnership.

Analysis of Case Study Two Data

QUESTION 1:            What were the observed types of commitment to this collaborative partnership for at-risk youth?

            Table 11 (p. )presents the level of interaction and involvement demonstrated by Case Two participants. The findings presented in Table 11 suggests that two of the participants in Case Study two are sill involved at a casual level of investment while five other participants are at least moderately committed to ownership in the partnership.  Four participants have an exceptionally high level of ownership to the collaborative process.

Examples of Interview Data

At the Casual Level

Example 1

School district faculty and Youth Intervention Team members reported during interviews that their main interest in this type partnership was to reduce the drop out rates of students, or providing a better transition from the elementary years through middle school inorder to promote better school success in high school.  Still other members (DSS Caseworkers, BOCES DS) felt a need for a better bureaucratic vehicle to reach hurting families and therefore provide a better way of life for the children within those families.

Example 2

School district personnel were frustrated with students coming to school with a variety of serious emotional and social problems that neither child or teacher were prepared to handle.  How could learning take place before these fundamental needs were met. 

                                          There were many people at this decision making table because they were concerned about the new budget year and cuts to services. David Morris expressed concern often about how to better stretch their dollars, was there a way to look at what services each of “us” are providing and find a better match to deliver services to families which would result in nonduplication strategies.  Various agencies were hurting for better outreach methods which would provide more direct ways to have better access to students in the schools and in the home.?  Mr. Morris described this partnership as a way to create programs and provide services to the

            community that individual partners were unable to provide, but together many       things would be possible.

At the Moderate Level:

Example 1

  Mr. Laurens and Mrs. Johnson explained that some people were in the partnership to help because of a burning compassion for students and a personal desire to leave a legacy that made a difference for saving young people.  Some were at the table to brainstorm new and different ways to break the poverty cycle and give a youngster a boost into a successful life instead of taking the wrong turn at that ‘fork in the road’ of their lives.  Some people were there because they were assigned to this task by their superior, some were there because they were curious and thought maybe this would be a way to move forward with some of their grants or special projects.  Each of them expressed a genuine concern about how and if this partnership could or would ever “really effect change at the school district level. They could see real potential but wondered how successful it would be if the ownership for the collaboration didn’t grow beyond the leadership of the committee and into the leadership of the schools.  Both people seemed invested in the partnership but skeptical of the district’s ability to buy into the process.  Each wondered where this would leave them?

Example 2

            Dr. Miller, School District Superintendent was quoted as saying, “Public and private agencies working together is the wave of the future.  Collaboration at all types is the new order for the provision of services” (Dimensions, 1991)

At the Exceptional Level:

Example 1

William Mitchell and Commissioner Lincoln are the united strength behind this collaboration.  It was conceived in their hearts out of watching the dire needs of children in their community become overwhelming.  They have expressed how desperate they felt trying to make a difference and help at-risk youth from their own agency or school setting, and how nothing was able to ‘get around the issues and even begin to change the plight of these children’ before they formed this collaboration.  Commissioner Lincoln stated that you make significant changes “one person at a time”.  Dr. Mitchell demonstrated how a deep personal commitment to making change comes about by not letting the word, ‘can’t’ enter your vocabulary.  He has worked tirelessly to organize, encourage, empower, and stimulate energy within a county with a great deal of inner city problems.

  There is an overall tone or sentiment in the community of Sterling, among BOCES personnel throughout the region, and school district personnel that the combination of love and dedication demonstrated consistently by both Lincoln and Lincoln could not be denied.  They are contagious and their spirit of proactiveness and positive manner keeps this partnership ongoing and even growing in the light of difficult times.

Example 2

  In the formative stages of this partnership it is reported that Commissioner Lincoln was often heard saying , “I believe in the old adage; it does take the whole village to raise a child”.  Dr. Mitchell seemed to reinforce that view as he said,” The school is the core of the community if this partnership can become the vehicle for placing single entry services to at-risk youth and their families then we must make this work”.

Example 3

            When Commissioner Lincoln was asked why he thought this model has been successful, he said that it is all about people helping people--one person at a time. During a Senate Committee Hearing, Commissioner Lincoln made this statement, “We require our people to confer with parents in the parents home......We want to encourage the families to participate more in school activities.  We see the school as a community center five years from now...”  As the hearing continued, Commissioner Lincoln said that the caseworker at the school building level is the link between the school, the community, and the Department of Social Services.  “You make the greatest impact on a family when you’re sitting in mom’s kitchen table, drinking mom’s coffee, talking about mom’s kids”(Senate Committee Report, 1993).

            Garman’s conceptual framework provides the structure of analysis of the personal types of involvement for each participant.  A modified case-ordered effects matrix (Figure 3 Comparison Matrix: Involvement/Interaction, p.   ) provides a comparison between the personal levels of investment and the depth of interaction as demonstrated by the examples in the text.

            Data from Case Study Two presents (Figure 3) a majority of the partnership demonstrating fairly consistently high level of personal ownership which is tied directly to how they do business for children.  Their model of program development appears to be fairly comprehensive and the observable nature of the group dynamics is reflective of genuine reciprocity.  This partnership has demonstrated their ability to move from working in isolation to serve at-risk youth and dysfunctional families toward their current level of trust and mutual support of effort in a collaborative partnership bond

QUESTION 2:            How do these personal types of commitment to the partnership impact the stages of collaboration reached by the partnership?

            Participants in Case Study Two have demonstrated an organizational commitment to collaboration at step six according to the Friend and Cook model (Figure 4 Comparison Matrix: Collaboration/Interaction).  Their overall level of participation and personal commitment suggest that as a collaborative, they are already working through barriers of shared resources and assuming shared accountability for outcomes of the partnership.

            Data collected during interviews provided many examples that the partnership in Case Study Two began their collaborative effort at this level of cooperation.  Consequently, this partnership has only deepened with respect to commitment as time has passed.

Examples taken from interview data

Example 1

            In 1995, this partnership has seen an incredible commitment to the various programs discussed earlier, many benefits have been accomplished.  Regularly scheduled Educational Liaison Committee meetings have been used to keep interested parties and the partnership informed of progress and stressful areas as time evolves.  Program concerns and needs are handled by the collaboration at these meetings or sub-committees are formed to deal with complex issues and brought back to the full partnership for final resolution.  These monthly meetings have grown from about an hour in length to almost four because of the extent of programs which have evolved from this collaboration of decision makers.  Program reports are now given briefly with a more in-depth reporting given on a rotation basis.  The meetings are heavily attended by those who are of the partnership but by interested community and neighboring community members.

            In the 1993-94 school year, 10 of the 12 school districts in Sterling County had either full-time or part-time caseworkers from the Department of School Services.  The County reports that these school-based programs helped to bring about a 26% reduction in foster care cases during 1993 and also led to a 50% reduction in school generated PINS petitions.

            While many of the reports and comments at meetings reflected the obvious successes of this partnership in program areas which had reaped important monetary gains, not all benefits were fiscal.  For example, in testimony before the New York Senate Education Committee and the Senate Committee on Social Services last December, Commissioner Lincoln testified regarding some benefits the partnership cannot place a cash value on.  “For example, the program provides the ability to follow the at-risk youngster with 12 months of services, a case worker available for home contacts at all times”.

            When Commissioner Lincoln was asked why he thought this model has been successful, he said that it is all about people helping people--one person at a time.

Example 2

The general tone of striving for better communication seemed to encourage more meetings and discussions at an informal level so that when regularly scheduled meetings arose, many difficult issues had been resolved between Mitchell, Lincoln, and those closely involved in that particular situation.

According to information received in a focus group interview with the Sterling County Collaboration participants during one of their monthly meetings, they are working together so effectively because of their dedication to meet regularly and resolve all problems as they occurred. 

Besides a very unique sense of ownership and spirit of unity which arose early from this collaboration, as reported by various council members during a large focus group meeting.  When asked, What common needs have developed from within this collaboration? The responses were indicative of their ability to work collaboratively:

1.         Year round connection to families and at-risk youth could best be served by ‘the whole village’ approach to this need.  This collaboration is dedicated to resolving problems that children are having by figuring out what the core issue is not versus applying a solution to the current symptom.  For many years this has been the practice of both school and the DSS agency, with very shallow results.  This method of dealing with problems has resulted in an expensive Band-Aid that always gives way.  There is a need to be more systemic about answering the question of , “What is wrong here?  What is the real cause of this behavior or circumstance”.

2.         An intense need to find a means to get past funding stream barriers and turf issues around rules and regulations.  This need was met initially with the attitude that we are not going to let this stand in the way, these are issues, there is a need to work around them--how are we going to do it?

Example 3

When this researcher asked Bill Mitchell how these new restrictions and decreases in funding might impact the Sterling collaboration, his response was unique.  “Oh, not very much, we’ll have to really discuss where and how, but we will.  There will be strain and a different approach perhaps, maybe the schools and the BOCES will have to dig a little deeper if the DSS people take too much of a hit from the state, but that’s it”.

As we left our meeting, he encouraged the work of this study because more interagency collaborations are needed.  “If real help is going to be provided to families, we have to work together, we can’t make it alone, especially if money and regulations get tougher.”

Cross Case Study Analysis

QUESTION 1:            What were the observed types of commitment to this collaborative partnership for at-risk youth?

            Each partnership tells a story of how concerned people from school districts, agencies, and communities have formed an interagency collaboration.  Both partnerships created a number of intervention and prevention programs/services for at-risk youth and their families.  Each partnership evolved from a deep sense of isolation and frustration in their efforts to provide comprehensive services to at-risk youth and their families. 

            Participants at the Casual level of frequency interaction demonstrated a working-acceptance level of personal commitment to the collaboration efforts.  As participants evolved to the Moderate level of frequency they demonstrated a greater sense of genuine participation in the collaborative process, possibly moving toward the level of reciprocity (e.g. mutual exchange of total investment).  Participants who were rated as Exceptional in their frequency of  interaction demonstrated with consistency the highest level of personal commitment, that of reciprocity.  Figure 5 and Figure 6 present the cross-case analysis in the development of participants at the personal level. 

            Partnership members in Case Study one are represented at each level of involvement with the majority of the members participating at the working acceptance level, but evolving toward the genuine participation level of involvement with one participant at the reciprocity level of involvement, seemingly from the very beginning of the collaboration. Case Study two members also have participation at all levels of involvement but with the majority demonstrating involvement at the genuine participation and reciprocity levels.  The trust and capacity building efforts of Case Study two are evident in their individual personal levels of investment as reflected in the partnerships overall efforts. 

QUESTION 2:            How do these personal types of commitment to the partnership impact the stages of collaboration reached by the partnership?

            One of the most significant differences between the case study populations was the absence of commitment at the leadership level.  In Case Study One, John Anderson basically envisioned, created, and developed the partnership from his authority role as a building superintendent.  His role was not as politically grounded or as expansive as that found in the leadership within Case Study Two.  There was a strong advocacy for the partnership at the County Family court level in the Second Case Study versus the non involvement in Case Study One.  These leadership roles helped to support one another and to add strength to the over all foundation of the partnership.  In Case Study Two, it was clear that over the years of working together, the Commissioner and the District

Superintendent (the leadership) had formed a close knit bond of networking together.  This seemed to serve them well as hard issues came their way. 

            The second major difference was the ability to network with multiple agencies. Networking of major stakeholders in the community came early in the Case Study Two partnership.  With this networking came a strength of personal ownership and investment that perhaps helped to form the basis of their highly relaxed types of communication. The participants in Case Study Two have bonded together as one unit, almost as though it happened at the very first meeting.  The genuine accountability for the outcome of their partnership is owned by every person.

            A third difference was found in the way decisions were made.  Participants in Case Study One worked to resolve short and long term problems using a coordination of effort model versus a unified ‘we’ model.  They resolved issues individually as separate entities at the table of decision making versus a synchronization of one effort.  Case Study Two participants worked as one unit of decision making, resource sharing community.  No one person had to hold a meeting together in order to resolve issues.  The membership as a “whole” felt the responsibility to resolve issues and make plans, versus the pattern demonstrated in Case Study One, when many times, one person or two would take full ownership of ‘forcing’ the group to resolve issues and to bring closure as a unit.

            Benefits were experienced in both partnerships. There were programs developed to serve that population of at-risk youth and their families.  However, while there were two major programs developed in Case Study One, there were four rather extensive programs within Case Study Two which tied them to many community agencies and resources.  The

depth and breath of services provided in Case Study Two seems to have increased the numbers of families served and encouraged more memberships (participants) to join the partnership.  Case Study Two developed a more comprehensive service delivery model for at-risk youth which comes closer to providing more in benefits and positive results in the long term of things.  Case Study Two has exhibited a very proactive posture in the region which seems to be contagious.

            The most significant differences between these two case studies was their overall level of dedication to making the collaboration work.  From the beginning of the collaboration, the leadership and participants in the Case Study Two were more willing to move toward a higher level of investment and ownership.  While there were significant personal levels of commitment in each collaboration, it is clear that in Case Study Two most of the participants became caught up in the contagiousness of investment from that one or two catalytic/charismatic person.  While in Case Study One, the strength in that collaboration resided in only a few participants and largely resided with one person.

            An example of the each partnerships collaborative level is reflective in how they have each handled the block grant announcement about future funding.  The participants in Case Study One reported a serious concern over how the partnership would survive.  Much of their concern stemmed around the shortages in budgets and their subsequent doubts for how to continue to be a partners at this table with shrinking resources.

            On the other hand, the partnership in Case Study Two decided (from the very time of announcement) that if block grants come to this State, it will be an even more significant reason for them to bond more tightly together.  They have reported that there

will be no decreases in services and business will take place as usual; but they may have to be more flexible and creative as they continue to pool resources, access additional grant monies, and lobby the State to relax regulations.  Participants explained that “their unified effort is stronger than what could be accomplished alone, therefore, it does not make sense to pull apart”.

            Partnerships can be started by one or two people, but at an early stage of development there must be a transfer of investment and ownership to the larger collaboration.  The major difference between these two case studies is that point of investment, transfer of ownership.  The partnership in case study one and two were created by the compassion and vision of one or two key people.  Early in the formative stages of the first year in Case Study Two, the transfer of passion for this collaborative became simultaneously owned by all of the partnership.  In Case Study One, the ownership and genuine investment remains with primarily one person.

Summary

            Chapter IV presented data from two case study sites which examined the personal levels of the partnership participants and the stages of collaboration to which the partnership evolved.  Each case study is described by a brief synopsis of the partnership’s

composition in membership, goals, and the individual stories of their beginnings as a collaborative. The majority of the chapter deals with an analysis of the case study findings.   Data is analyzed through the theoretical lens of Garman’s research as it pertains to personal levels of interaction within educational agencies.  The final analysis lens was to take the findings of the personal investment attained by individual participants and examine the stages of collaboration as obtained by the overall partnership.  Friend and Cook’s research provide that final conceptual framework of analysis by deductively observing the various stages of collaboration.  Both case studies, especially Case Study Two, demonstrate that interagency partnerships can promote a better comprehensive delivery system of services.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

            Chapter V presents a brief summary of the research study components, the purpose for the study, the questions which guided the research strategies and methodology.  The theoretical framework which grounded the study and structured the analysis of data findings precede a discussion of the findings.  The chapter next introduces conclusions drawn from the case study findings.  The conclusions are organized by the research questions.  Chapter V concludes with recommendations for future research and for practitioners interested in beginning a collaboration.

Summary

            Americans of the nineties are faced with societal issues which negatively impact the probability that students of today will be able to learn, to graduate from high school and to become productive citizens in a democratic society.  Gough (1994) and Lacey (1988) describe the plight of today’s family as being devastated by the harshness of today’s society and the complexities which exit today that were not present in past generations. School districts, agencies, and organizations throughout the community have been attempting individually to deal with the growing needs of at-risk youth and their families.  But the isolation of each group is failing to meet the level of need within this increasing population.  A collaborative effort is needed to provide more comprehensive support and services to accommodate this growing need. 

            Today’s champions for children are searching for models of working together, however, there is difficulty in forming a partnership which will be able to move beyond lip service and a mere coordination of activities to a real networking of people.  Throughout several regions in New York State (as well as other states) the model of interagency collaboration has developed from the grassroots efforts of service providers and school districts.  The general concept of interagency collaboration seems to be the most successful model because it brings together all major stakeholders into one partnership.  This partnership attempts to identify students in jeopardy and to resolve the negative issues which surround at-risk youth and their families.  The stakeholders (members of the partnership) work collaboratively to resolve issues and find solutions to the varied needs of at-risk youth. 

            Through the research findings of Garman (1982) it has become clear that individuals involved in educational alliances (or partnerships) enter into those group dynamics with a personal level of interest and level of personal investment. The extent to which people are personally interested, concerned, and committed to making a partnership or set of events work, relates directly to the eventual success and overall effectiveness of the collaborative partnership.  Friend and Cook’s (1992) research provides an analytical framework to examine the dynamics or relationship between personal levels of involvement and the stages of collaboration that evolve through the partnership’s collective efforts.

            This research has developed a purposive comparative of two case studies (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 22) which have illustrated the amount of personal commitment and organizational collaboration which takes place at different developmental stages of the collaborative process.  Many partnerships remain at the lower levels of personal involvement and thus so does the eventual partnership effort.  As partnerships are able to move beyond superficial discussion and ‘meeting’ together toward a sincere exchange of desire to solve problems---inter-agency--collaboration takes place.  There is an  interpersonal-intercommunication maturity that takes the place of institutions, organizations, and families standing alone, independently in isolation.  The partnership moves toward working interdependently and there is a synergy of effort toward the desired results of the partnership.

            The research methodology and data collection utilized in this study has been qualitative in nature in order to provide data which was not only descriptive of the partnerships currently in place but also collected in an unobtrusive manner.  Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that “human relationships and societies have peculiarities that make a realist approach to understanding them more complex-but not impossible” (p. 4).  Quantitative research lends itself to concrete empirical data which can be managed and measured.  Qualitative research provides a vechicle to observe a state of interaction that is currently in the process and that is dealing with description of feelings, emotions, values, and personal reasoning within a group setting.  Within the pages of this research, ideas

have been brought to light which may benefit others who are interested in the development of an interagency collaboration.

Conclusions

            What makes such a partnership of ‘strangers’ work?  Within both partnerships the researcher observed and was informed about the journey that each have experienced to date. 

Question One

            What were the participants observed personal levels of commitment to a collaborative partnership for at-risk youth?  There have been various times and situations in which individual participants appeared to be strongly invested and take a leadership role while the next time, the very same people seemed to retreat and withdraw back into a more territorial stance on certain issues.  This ebb and flow of personal and organizational investment is all apart of the natural process of transitioning into the new ‘feel’ of a collaboration.  Partnership members will not necessarily begin to react consistently until they personally have resolved their own mental image of what this partnership is all about, that it is ‘the’ way to solve the serious problems at hand, and that it really is safe to risk this new kind of sharing-with strangers.  Collaboration at its highest level breaks the mold of ‘how we’ve always done things’ and that very fact moves people who are accountable for a great deal into an uneasy or threatening comfort zone.

            There are conceptual indicators to suggest that the level of personal commitment to a task such as being a participant within an interagency collaboration lends itself to predict the level of success eventually reached by the organization (Garman, 1982).

Within each partnership, there are people who are the human linkages within each collaboration which have provided leadership out of their genuine personal commitment to build trust and to provide a sense of community.  These individuals have proven to be the catalyst within their collaborative partnership.  A description and analysis of those human linkages provides insight for the successful development of future collaborative partnerships on behalf of at-risk youth and their families.

            The first thing that seems to take place early on is a real shift in their mental imagery of how to get things done.  There is a real challenge and sometimes a sense of ‘loosing control’ that initially comes from the very act of working with people who come from a totally different frame of reference.  A new mental map is required.

Paradigm shift

            Terranova’s research study in 1993 examined the governance structures of collaborative interagency partnerships as a descriptive analysis of the collaboration process itself. Findings in this research discuss the group dynamics that take place within an interagency partnership and that there is a need for a ‘paradigm shift’ in the way those who are participating in this partnership think about ‘doing business’. 

            In conceptualizing the problem differently, in fostering increased articulation about           the issues, in beginning to alter the standard beliefs, values, and techniques that characterize comprehensive delivery services to children and families, members of      major public and private entities in the community are convening to plan and             implement an integrated service system for children in the community.  They are    experiencing what Thomas Kuhn has termed a ‘paradigm shift’.

            As Thomas Kuhn (Galloway and Mahayni, 1977) suggests major changes take place within communities when “a community rejection of time-honored theory or

approaches in favor of other alternatives” takes place.  “They are experiencing what Thomas Kuhn calls a paradigm shift” (Terranova, 1993, p. 110).

            Dr. Stephen R. Covey suggests that the word “Paradigm means model, pattern or set of ideas that describes some aspect of the world.  We think in terms of paradigms.  Our mind constructs models or ideas about the world and uses these to make sense of things.  Our decisions are judgments and predictions given to us by our paradigms.  The more closely our paradigms match reality, the better our decisions” (Stephen R. Covey, “The Power of Paradigms”, Seven Habits Trainer Manual, 1991).

            The concept of interagency collaboration is in practice the mental shifting of how people view issues and more importantly how this mental shifting directly impacts their interaction with each other.  As observed through this research, decision makers who came together at one table to discuss individual and common concerns for at-risk youth and their families began this process of dialogue with an initial mental map which changed as the group dynamics of the partnership evolved or matured.

Question Two

            How do these personal levels of commitment impact the stages of collaboration within the interagency partnerships?  The very term collaboration as a means to “convey how the activity is occurring, that is, the nature of the interpersonal relationship occurring during the collaboration” ( Friend and Cook, 1992) suggests the need for a multi-level of interaction.  As individual participants within a collaboration deepen their personal commitment to the strength of this type of working together, the collaboration as a partnership matures and becomes one unified voice which synergizes efforts from all of the

players at the table instead of a few or a single voice.  Therefore, the “best way to do something differently is to ‘think’ something different, to change paradigms” (Covey, 1991) about the issue at hand in order to discover an alternative solution or direction.  This must first take place at the personal level before it can extend to the partnership level.

            In Case Study Two, each key player came to the collaborative table with the desire to see this work.  Some because they knew their backs were against the wall and this partnership approach was probably the last chance to find answers and help.  When you enter a relationship determined to make it work because you need the support of others present, there is a greater sense of urgency, and consequently, later a greater desire to strive toward genuine reciprocity from their participation in the partnership.

            It is consistently true that the key players in Case Study One came to the table with this openness and determination while others may have come to the table with a variety of reasons which served to directly impact their willingness to change their mental map.  In order for a person to experience a mental shift there has to be a reason or set of circumstances which cause that paradigm shift.  They must see, feel, or sense the need to work together or they will not really ‘give up’ to the sense of total community.  They seem to remain ‘a stranger’ at a table of ‘strangers’.  Case Study One participants did not experience this mental shift at a personal level and it eventually weakened the overall efforts of the partnership as outside stressors began to impact them.

            Some partnerships organize to solve ‘an issue’ and once the product is created they are satisfied.  Some partnerships come together and actually form a new social system within their sphere of influence and grow new products; while creating innovative products because of the synergy that takes place when an organization is able to reach the

stage of reciprocity in a collaboration.  Moving toward what Peck (1994) called ‘a community of thinking’, the collaboration has served as a vehicle for brainstorming many viable solutions to issues which before, working in isolation seemed impossible to solve.  Now working with a genuine exchange of talents difficult issues are able to be overcome. The question to be faced becomes, how are we going to....not whether we are going to!  There is a great deal of strength in the synergistic power that emerges when the organizational dynamics of a collaboration are grounded on the premise that, together we can stand, but alone we cannot make it.  Partnership members communicating at this level are true stakeholders in the quest to build a new social system and they will find ways to ignore or diminish the bureaucratic system restraints of the past.  This level of participation leads to a collaborative partnership that can in deed and word make a difference in the lives of every family in their community.

            One of the secrets to making an interagency partnership work is finding the leadership catalyst who comes forth from within a setting and nurtures this complex partnership of individuals toward a unit of effort.  All programs and initiatives really become successful to the extent that the level of personal commitment exists and is then demonstrated by those invested persons.

            Within each partnership there evolves at least one person or pair of individuals who becomes the catalyst or ‘heart’ of the that particular system.  It has been demonstrated that this person(s) seems to be driven by a compelling desire to see this kind of collaboration evolve into genuine collaboration.  Each person seemed to be searching for the better answer, the best way to pull together to save the child of today for tomorrow’s future.  It is interesting that in each of these key people, their personal commitment to the partnership was what held the entire collaborative effort together in times of stress and roadblocks.  Their total investment and sense of urgency, combined with a high level of compassion for children was the glue that enabled them to organize

and foster a group of people from such diverse personal and organizational frames of mind and practice toward a level of genuine participation and aspiring toward organic reciprocity.

The Tapestry of Collaboration

            The closely woven threads of human linkages form the tapestry of collaborations.  Each thread represents a person who comes to this point in time from their own personal experiences, their love for children, and their observations of children fighting daily struggles to stay in school or merely to survive.  Each person has a very unique sense of passion to make a difference for children; each person owns a sincere dedication to how important learning and education are for the students they serve. This tapestry of people from all walks of life and professions are driven by a compassion that is greater than themselves and creates the vision for struggling against all odds, to keep the faith for children and to light a candle for a wholesome way of life in their own corner of the universe.

            Once people of this caliber and personal commitment come together they strive to help young people and their families in their struggle for success.  They work and move in a synchronized pattern.  The individual threads of the tapestry are colorful, courageous and purposeful, but the unity of the tapestry as a whole is beautiful, awesome, spontaneous, and tells a story.  This tapestry creates a bond and consequently provides a strength to make a difference that individually could not be achieved, but together they have been and will continue to be successful.  A missionary spirit seems to be found within the key persons who offer the leadership of the collaborations.

            It would therefore seem that the true litmus test for whether or not an interagency partnership has reached the stage of genuine collaboration would be how they answer this question; Do you care who gets the credit? If the answer is  no- ‘just so the needs of children and their families are met’; in all likelihood, this partnership has reached the stage of genuine collaboration.  In considering whether or not to begin the process of interagency collaboration in your community setting, ask yourself first, Why do I want to become involved?  How much am I willing to work toward a common good?  Do you care who gets the credit?

Recommendations for Practitioners

Recommendation One

            Bureaucratic structures are currently creating obstacles and barriers to the pooling of resources-both human and fiscal.  There is much ‘lip service’ about collaboration being the survival mode of the future, while at the same time, the reality message from leadership levels of state and federal agencies is still restrictive and forbidden in terms of flexibility and openness to a different way to resolve the deliver of comprehensive services to at-risk youth and their families.  The main concern seems to stem from the ‘worry’ over accountability to the public for issues surrounding confidentiality, fiscal expenditures, supervision, evaluation, and responsibility for staff as well as a low tolerance environment for ambiguity of circumstances.

            This researcher recommends that the key leadership at the state and federal levels of government practice the Friend and Cook characteristics of collaboration by moving

from deciding to voluntarily relax the bureaucratic restraints toward fostering a shared sense of vision, goals, and direction of service delivery as a team.  Agencies will therefore demonstrate the synergy that can be created when  the state and federal restrictions are lessened and when resources of human, fiscal, and informational sources are shared.  Accountability at all levels will become assured throughout partnerships when there are participants who own the process of delivery. 

            Ownership of outcomes and resources establishes an environment of responsibility and quality control unlike any other type of interaction.  When people own the process, quality happens, accountability is assured.  If the outcome is someone else’s so is the accountability and therefore, the quality of what takes place.

Recommendation Two

            It has been clearly stated through the research of Friend and Cook (1992) that true collaboration takes place when the participants of an organization have a high level of personal commitment and involvement (Garman, 1982).  Personal commitment early in the formation of the partnership is critical to the success of collaborative partnerships, therefore, before launching a partnership, there should be considerable effort given to the leadership component of the partnership.  Who will assume the initial role within the partnership and how will ownership be transferred to the whole?  Terranova’s research findings (1993) stressed how crucial it is for adults within a collaborative partnership to develop strong “relationship-building skills” (p. 118).  Leadership within a partnership requires strong process skills which will facilitate clear communication.  The ability to

promote “team-building training to other members” (Terranova, 1993,  p. 118) would serve to move the partnership to more productive outcomes.  It takes a great deal of skill and communication to lead a group of “strangers” to a bond of collaboration.

            A recommendation by the researcher would be that once leadership within a partnership is known, that there be time and resources allotted for training of the membership in the areas of processing skills for group dynamics, training in facilitating meetings toward establishing common vision, mission, and goals as a partnership ( Fullan, 1991).  Training invested early in the formation of the collaborative would provide later dividends in stability and direction.

Recommendation Three

            A recommendation by the researcher would be that the initial leadership of a partnership be found in a person or persons who are politically, administratively, and fiscally positioned in the community as a power base.  Simultaneously and just as significant, this person(s) should have a passion about this type of collaborative effort.  They must believe that this process is the one real way to deliver comprehensive services for at-risk youth.  They must also be dedicated to this process of collaboration to the point of doing whatever it takes-literally-to launch this process until and beyond the point of passing the torch of leadership into the totality of the collaboration.

Recommendation Four

            A fourth recommendation is that there be regional inservice and training seminars for individuals or groups who are interested in getting started with an interagency collaboration.  These seminars should provide information from the stage of the “how-to” get started phase to why it is significant to evolve as a participant and as a partnership

through the personal levels of investment and consequently throughout the partnership stages of collaboration.  Teams of individuals from successful collaborations should serve as a panel and presenters for these seminars.  An important extension of these sessions would be the formation of interagency networks which activel