Article reprinted by permission from the Program for Community Problem Solving, a division of the National Civic League.

Collaboration is in. Embedded in federal legislation, rooted in communities, supported by foundations, collaboration has become a unifying concept in efforts to improve communities. Collaborative frameworks are the glue linking sectors, programs, and initiatives in far-reaching strategies to better our neighborhoods, build stronger families, and support our children.

Yet, many speak of "failed" collaboratives. Efforts which fizzled as soon as the grant ended. Those which did not connect to the grassroots and were not able to implement on the ground. Some undone by the continuing legacy of racial and cultural conflict that pervades the politics in their community. The numbers of "failures" are growing.

Are we missing the point? Should the strong emphasis on collaboration be softened in lieu of other, potentially more promising strategies? Or, do we only need to learn how to collaborate better?

Recent work at the Program for Community Problem Solving suggests collaborative approaches continue to be the cornerstone for transformative efforts to improve communities. But systematic use of collaboration extends well beyond the interaction of the participants. It includes how systems work together, how organizations and institutions change to support collaborative endeavors, and the strength of the bonds in the community. To further a collaborative agenda, therefore, we must be attentive to reform strategies in these broader structural, procedural, and political contexts as we move forward.

Collaboration remains the cornerstone, in our minds, because the serious problems in our communities—poverty, environmental degradation, the welfare of children, and others too numerous to mention - requires the concerted and sustained efforts of multiple institutions and many citizens for real change to occur. Collaborative action is at the root of the change process.

But sometimes "the collaborative" is asked to overcome historic distrust, unify the fragmented, make dysfunctional institutions well, and deepen and broaden their efforts in a very short period of time. That may be asking too much. Collaboration can be the cornerstone for all those efforts because it can keep the community focused on a shared vision and the goal of real change—but we are learning real change takes a long time.

With collaboration as the entry point we have identified several points of strategic intervention that reduce barriers and strengthen foundations. Some of these approaches can be seen in communities now, others are ideas that build from new research and the synthesis of Program for Community Problem Solving's experience with collaborative communities.

Reinventing Planning

In 1994, with the support of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Program for Community Problem Solving examined collaborative processes in several cities. We found that some cities were inundated with planning processes, often disconnected from each other. Further, planning conducted by the local government usually produced plans that focused solely on local government's commitments, missing the shared actions that define a collaborative. We also saw exemplary efforts. Charlotte, North Carolina created a neighborhood action planning process where a multi-disciplinary team of city staff works collaboratively with neighborhood stakeholders to produce a shared agreement in eight weeks. Hampton, Virginia has a similar Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan Process. New approaches to planning share some characteristics. They link planning for people with planning for place, they produce shared commitments, and they focus on strategic actions.

Internal Restructuring and Capacity Building

As collaborative efforts move forward in communities, many agencies - public, private, and nonprofit - have found themselves unable to mount the participatory role they strive for. Representatives of these institutions may not have the necessary skills or too many representatives may be required because responsibility is spread throughout the institution or there may be just too many meetings to staff.

Some agencies are internally restructuring to respond to and support the collaborative culture emerging in their communities. Several local governments, for example, have combined departments to support a neighborhood focus. Others have trained staff in facilitation, mediation, and other process skills. Yet others have reengineered their internal procedures to better support public participation.

Program for Community Problem Solving is part of a team that has received support from the Federal Transit Administration to develop a manual for transportation planning agencies on how they might change internally to better support partnerships and public participation.

Building Community

Can you have collaboration without community? That may be the proverbial "chicken and egg" question. Recent research has suggested that "social capital"—the networks of communication and collaboration that establish norms and build trust—may be an essential foundation for sustained community-wide collaboration and strong communities. Program for Community Problem Solving held a dialogue with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation on the local government role in this equation.

Linking Collaboratives

Many communities now have multiple collaboratives. Some are publicly funded, others receive foundation support, and many have risen from the grassroots. Developing mechanisms for collaboration among the collaboratives is emerging as an important agenda for many communities. It raises questions about government, governance, and perhaps most significantly, how to nurture the synergistic possibilities embedded in the independent efforts.

In an effort to address the federal aspect of this challenge, the Program for Community Problem Solving, through its participation in a four-organization alliance called Together We Can co-sponsored a "Working Meeting on Coordinating Federal Technical Assistance" with the White House Domestic Policy Council's Partnerships for Stronger Families.

Finally, some communities have seen some benefits of "failure." A collaborative effort, which did not attain program goals or receive continuing funding and is thought to be unsuccessful can become the foundation for subsequent successful collaborative endeavors. Many unsuccessful applicants for the federally funded Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program report that the energy behind the application has carried numerous efforts forward without federal funds. Others find that previous collaboratives built relationships, established trust, and created a new way of doing business that laid essential foundations for future "success."

Experience is suggesting that those of us interested in supporting collaborative efforts in communities as the best strategy for changing lives and (re)building neighborhoods may need to broaden our agenda and redefine success and failure. We must improve the systems that support collaboration, strengthen the community's capacity for collaboration, and recognize, again, that true collaboration takes a long time.

Bill Potapchuk is Executive Director of the Program for Community Problem Solving, a division of the National Civic League. This article first appeared in the winter 1996 edition of Synergy, an annual newsletter of the Program for Community Problem Solving and is reprinted with their permission. For more information about the Program for Community Problem Solving contact them at (202) 783-2961, or 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 204, Washington, DC, 20004.