University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

(USC Thesis Other)

Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?

Collaboration: Is it Worth It?
The Magnolia Community Initiative From the Perspective of Initiative Partner
Participants

by

Cara L. Esposito

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

August 2015
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
The Need for Networks ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Introduction to the Magnolia Community Initiative (MCI) and Its Goals ...................... 6
What is the MCI? ....................................................................................................... 7
Location and Structure ............................................................................................... 8
Organizational Partners ............................................................................................ 11
The MCI’s Mission and Goals ................................................................................. 11
Partner Organization Participation and Leadership ................................................. 13
Resource Allocation by Partner Organizations ........................................................ 16
Meeting Challenges Through the Network .............................................................. 17
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 19
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 20
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 21
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 24
Structural Framework for Network Analysis ................................................................ 24
Network Process and Structure ..................................................................................... 28
Process ...................................................................................................................... 28
Structure ................................................................................................................... 29
Resource Dependency and Transaction Costs .............................................................. 34
Resource Dependency .............................................................................................. 35
Transaction Costs ..................................................................................................... 37
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 3: Descriptive Results and Regression Analyses ................................................. 43
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 43
The Study Design .......................................................................................................... 44
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 46
Characteristics of Survey Participants ...................................................................... 47
Organizational Costs Associated With the MCI ........................................................... 48
Dedicated Staff as MCI Liaisons ............................................................................. 49
MCI-Sponsored Activities ........................................................................................ 51
Alignment of Organizational Service Delivery ........................................................ 53
Changes Associated With Participation in MCI ........................................................... 56
Organizational Changes ........................................................................................... 56
Client Referrals ........................................................................................................ 62
Sharing Data Among Partner Organizations ............................................................ 64
Factors Associated With Change Related to Network Participation ............................ 65
Length of Time in Collaboration .............................................................................. 66
Budget Size and Composition .................................................................................. 67
Employee Characteristics ......................................................................................... 69
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
ii
Organization Characteristics and Perceived Changes in the MCI ........................... 74
Challenges Perceived in Initiative Engagement ....................................................... 80
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 81
Chapter 4: Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................ 83
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 83
The Broad Goals of the Study .................................................................................. 84
The Goals of the MCI and Network Success ........................................................... 85
Discussion of the Findings ............................................................................................ 88
Organizational Costs Associated With the MCI ...................................................... 88
Changes Associated With Participation in the MCI ................................................. 92
Factors Associated With Change Related to Network Participation ........................ 94
Type of Organization and Perceived Changes in the MCI ....................................... 99
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 102
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 103
Institutionalize the Backbone Role ........................................................................ 103
Centralize Data Collection ..................................................................................... 107
Improve Communication Between the Hub and Partner Participants .................... 108
Assist With Financial Support ................................................................................ 109
Provide Mentorship Opportunities ......................................................................... 110
Future Research .......................................................................................................... 110
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 111
References ....................................................................................................................... 113
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 118
Appendix A: MCI Partner Organizations ................................................................... 119
Appendix B: The MCI Model of Change ................................................................... 122
Appendix C: The MCI Service Referral Form ........................................................... 122
Appendix D: Online Survey ........................................................................................ 125
Appendix E: Email to MCI Network Partners ............................................................ 136
Appendix F: List of Survey Respondents ................................................................... 137
Appendix G: Questions for Interviews ....................................................................... 140
Appendix H. Participating Organizations’ Year Founded and Budget ....................... 142

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
iii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Organizational Representation: Percentage of Survey Respondents ................. 48
Figure 2. Percentage of Organizations Designating a Liaison to the MCI ........................ 50
Figure 3. Ways Organizations Chose to Participate in the MCI ....................................... 50
Figure 4. Activities in Which Respondents Participated ................................................... 52
Figure 5. Activities in Which Other Organization Members Participated ........................ 53
Figure 6. Organizational Changes ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 7. Percentage of Organizations Referring Clients to Network Partners ................. 63
Figure 8. Percentage of Organizations Linking Clients to Network Partners ................... 64
Figure 9. Percentage of Organizations Sharing Information With Partners ...................... 65
Figure 10. Length of Participation in the MCI .................................................................. 67
Figure 11. Percentage of Participants With Funding From Different Sources .................. 68
Figure 12 (a, b, c). Number of Full-Time, Part-Time, and Volunteer Employees ............ 70

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
iv

List of Tables
Table 1. Probit Estimation of MCI Liaisons (at Least One Liaison) ................................. 51
Table 2. Ratings of Organizations’ Alignment With the MCI’s Long-Term Goals .......... 54
Table 3. Ratings of Relevance of Protective Factors to Organizational Mission and
Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 55
Table 4. Benefits of Organizations’ Participation in the MCI ........................................... 59
Table 5. Likelihood of Encouraging Participation in the MCI .......................................... 60
Table 6. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Involvement in the MCI ......................... 66
Table 7. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Provision of Services ......................................................................................................... 69
Table 8. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Number of Liaisons ................................ 71
Table 9. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Total Involvement of an Organization
in the MCI (Includes Previous Partnership and Budget Size as Variables) ...................... 73
Table 10. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Referrals ............................................................................................................................. 74
Table 11. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Research ............................................................................................................................. 75
Table 12. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Quality ............................................................................................................................... 76
Table 13. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Organizational Structure .................................................................................................... 78
Table 14. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Community Meetings ........................................................................................................ 80

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Need for Networks
To tackle the complex problems communities face, the most critical investment
government and service provision agencies can make is in the development and
expansion of social and organizational networks. These networks provide the most
credible opportunity for government and the third sector to manage the sheer magnitude
of interventions that are necessary to address the scope of any of society’s intractable
problems (Bowie, n.d.). To illustrate the interwoven complexities of social problems that
necessitate multiple points of intervention, Lucretia Murphy, co-chair of Raise DC and
president and CEO of See Forever Foundation, stated in an interview regarding collective
impact and community challenges,
One reason why “authentic” community participation is hard to do is that
complexity happens at the community level. As a provider, you tend to focus on
the outcomes. “I want to help you be educated.” If you listen to kids, however, the
first things she is going to say are “I’m hungry. I don’t have a place to live. A 20-
year old has impregnated me, and he was supposed to help me take care of my
baby. And now he’s not.” As the education provider you have to change course
and say, “Wait a minute. If I’m going to help you become educated, it’s important
that we connect you to people who will help you overcome your other
challenges.” (“Q&A Roundtable on Collective Impact,” 2012, p. 4)
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
2
Thus, to achieve a long-term, sustainable goal, often nonprofit organizations must try to
aggregate service delivery systems to solve complex problems that ultimately would
preclude achievement of the organization’s single, original long-term goal. Additionally,
in an effort to leverage grant dollars, demand by the philanthropic community further
propels collaborative efforts at the grassroots level. Nevertheless, there is a lack of
corresponding information that clearly identifies the transaction costs and challenges an
organization faces in its effort to appease these donors, meet client and community needs,
as well as garner government contracts by participating in collaborative efforts that may
or may not be aligned with the institutional missions or strategic goals of the
organization.
Collaborative network systems build connectivity and cooperation among
disparate organizations, thus improving those organizations’ ability to holistically serve
the many diverse needs of an individual, family, or community. This is in addition to
increasing the partnering agencies’ institutional knowledge, as well as augmenting their
social capital within the community as a result of interagency collaboration. Agencies are
able to increase their organizational scope of influence by relying on partners to assist
with services or information provision that would otherwise require the allocation of what
are often scarce resources to address in house. Simply put, a participating organization’s
reach and community impact become far more expansive via a network. Collaboration or
partnership expands organizations’ ability to deal successfully with environmental
turbulence and solve problems that no single agency can solve acting alone (Alter, 1990).
Similarly, as Pallotta (2009) articulated, “We [the nonprofit community] can achieve
tremendous economies of scale by joining forces. We don’t need hundreds of fragmented
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
3
approaches to the same problems” (p. 114). The connectivity and information sharing
facilitated by networks offer the most credible solution to solving the complex problems
society faces.
However, while it may be better for a client to receive a cafeteria plan of services
through the portal of one agency, it may not be in the best interest of the agency to serve
as the primary source of referrals. As Austin (2000) identified, in the words of Alan
Khazei, cofounder of City Year, “One of the things that inhibit partnerships between
nonprofits is the fear of splitting a limited pie” (p. 14). Referrals between single agencies
are a simple cost of doing business in the nonprofit sector; however, managing a referral
system among tens to hundreds of agencies incurs a significant cost in personnel,
research, and tracking, as well as expansive networking activities to remain abreast of
changes in organizations’ leadership, programming, and focus. This requires assuming
costs of conducting business holistically, which may be financially preclusive for small
grassroots nonprofit organizations. Most nonprofit agencies are simply unable to manage
such a complex network on constrained budgets and with limited staff. Additionally,
consistent out-referral may bring into question the core competencies and abilities of the
referring agencies, suggesting to funding organizations that investment in the actual
service provider may be a preferred route. Questions about how to manage these costs as
well as the many soft costs incurred in partnership by nonprofit agencies are the focus of
this study.
Statement of the Problem
A comprehensive, collaborative network governance model is needed to unify
efforts by a broad spectrum of agencies that include government, nonprofit, philanthropic
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
4
and for-profit organizations, and ensure that every partner somehow benefits from the
collaborative. Most important, this model must balance the costs of participation incurred
by organizations with the benefits received through collaboration. Networks will fail if
providers do not perceive that the benefits of participation in a collaboration will exceed
the costs (Einbinder, Robertson, Garcia, Vuckovic, & Patti, 2000). Often, this critical
aspect is ignored in favor of focusing solely on the outputs of a service delivery network
(Jolin, Schmitz, & Seldon, 2012). The organizational design and governance structure
must account for the impact and experience of providers in a collaboration; in addition,
participants’ organizational health and long-term viability are critical factors in the
equation of assessment of success. Dispersing service provision interventions among
many agencies within communities provides a viable opportunity to do more with less,
yet the fragmenting service provision systems often result in disparate institutional
strategies that do not address, collectively, the macro community problems. The lack of
strategic outputs is costly to participating agencies, unsuccessful in achieving long-term
goals, and ultimately deflating for mission-driven organizations.
Network evaluation studies often focus on the outputs of collective action—the
benefits gained within a community as a result of partnership. Additionally,
organizational benefits are assessed in the context of professional development,
organizational learning, smoothing environmental turbulence, and improved service
provision systems. However, partnership and participation in a network or collaborative
service provision system require incurring costs on the part of organizations. At times,
these are hard-cost, line-item fiscal expenses to maintain participation, but more often,
the costs incurred are soft costs, or invisible fees required to participate in a network.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
5
These costs include personnel time; office costs (telephone, paper, research costs); and
most critically, at times, diffusion of focus, or at worst, mission creep. These elements are
often hardest to manage for small nonprofits, many of which are stretched thin financially
and lack the personnel resources to allocate staff time to a project or initiative that does
not directly serve the organization’s clients or constituency. What is deeply problematic
in this equation is the fact that grassroots nonprofits are critical in addressing societal
change, yet are in the least financially capable position to do so. Such organizations are
on the front lines of the community, are closest to the issues and resulting needs, and
possess significant knowledge about surrounding populations. Additionally, they are
often the recognized face of the social services sector and maintain a high level of social
capital, which is critical for community acceptance of intervention strategies. Thus, as
indicated by Einbinder et al. (2000), organizations must balance the costs of participation
with anticipated gains, and benefits must outweigh costs. However, if in this balancing
determination, nonprofits are routinely precluded from participation as a result of
financial and human capital constraints, this challenge must be addressed for
communities to see improvement in service delivery systems in the face of precipitously
declining budgets.
The literature is clear with regard to the necessary actions of a centralized
backbone agency to facilitate a strong network. However, absent from the literature is a
clear understanding of the day-to-day needs of participant organizations from the
backbone agency to facilitate continued participation within each respective agency.
Additionally, understanding is lacking about the variables necessary for organizations to
participate such that the values accrued as a result of partnership outweigh the costs of
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
6
partnering. One way to examine these issues is through an in-depth analysis of an
extensive network of community agencies, such as the Magnolia Community Initiative,
where data can be collected about the participants’ perceptions regarding the values and
costs associated with participation.
Introduction to the Magnolia Community Initiative (MCI) and Its Goals
The MCI is a collaborative approach to improve the well-being of a population on
a community-level scale. The mission of the MCI is to “unite the County, City, and
Community to strengthen individual, family and neighborhood protective factors by
increasing social connectedness, community mobilization, and access to needed supports
and services” (Children’s Bureau, n.d., para 2). The vision is correspondingly “everyone
in the Magnolia Place community works together to ensure they and their neighbors live
well and prosper” (Children’s Bureau, n.d., para 1). In furtherance of the mission and
vision, the overall goal of the MCI is to create systemic change that will improve
community well-being within the 500-block catchment area that includes the districts of
West Adams, Pico Union, and the North Figueroa Corridor. The intervention model
integrates three strategies: increase “neighborhood based and/or common link social
networks,” increase “economic opportunities and development,” and increase access “to
and utilization of family desired, beneficial services, activities, resources and support”
(Bowie, 2008, p. 1). The following sections discuss what the MCI is, as well as its
location and structure, organizational partners, mission and goals, participation and
leadership, resources, and challenges.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
7
What is the MCI?
The MCI was formed as a result of a strategic plan developed 10 years ago by
Children’s Bureau, a nonprofit agency that is physically located within the heart of the
initiative area. Speaking about that time in an interview, Alex Morales, the executive
director of Children’s Bureau stated,
We were struck by the fact of the volume of children in trouble in the
neighborhoods where Children’s Bureau was trying to serve. And we were struck
by what little difference we would be able to make just as one organization with
that large volume. And then we saw the health problems that they had and the
economic problems that we had. That led us to feeling that with limited resources
and such a large volume of children in trouble, we need breakthrough thinking
about what can be done.
The academic literature agrees that one critical factor for network success is the universal
understanding among partners that no single agency is able to successfully address the
problem(s) of focus alone. Sector or organizational failure often provides the
organizational motivation to move forward with collective action, and a critical driving
factor is the recognition that new thinking, new strategies, and a new way of doing
business are necessary because prior efforts were unsuccessful (Hanleybrown, Kania, &
Kramer, 2012).
To address the need for a new operating system for partnership, Children’s
Bureau helped to create an open network system among more than 76 agencies that serve
the local community. It is a voluntary network. Together, the organizational partners
provide a wide arc of services, from banking to heath care to early childhood education,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
8
English language classes, parenting education, and more. All partners subscribe to the
overall mission and goal of the initiative, but recognize that services alone are insufficient
to address the multiple influences that shape community stressors. The core function of
the network is to create community connections among residents—not only to services,
but to each other as well, and not only in terms of change outcomes for all children in the
catchment area, but also in terms of prevention. Morales described the network as a Wiki-
like structure:
This is a voluntary network. Most networks are brought together using money
which is passed through a lead organization gluing together subcontractors and
gluing together some people who will be part of the network providing in-kind
services but not be reimbursed for. This network is more of what I would refer to
as a Wiki network. Organizations voluntarily coming together, following the
theory of change, trying to align what they’re doing, they form peer production
workgroups. Just the same way as an article in the Wiki encyclopedia, people get
together and want to write an article and they start creating that or they work
together to create a software program voluntarily that is better than Microsoft’s
software.
Location and Structure
The composition of the communities that fall within the MCI catchment area
includes 35,000 children and youth, of which 10,000 are less than 5 years of age. Sixty-
five percent of the children live in poverty, 35% are classified as obese, 40% are not
prepared when they start kindergarten, and 40% do not graduate from high school with
their class. A high rate of child abuse, as well as child neglect and spousal abuse,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
9
propagates a continuing cycle of negative outcomes for area residents and the
surrounding communities (Children’s Bureau, n.d.). The area is characterized by high
rates of involvement with the child welfare system, high rates of asthma and diabetes,
low-performing schools and low student achievement, low employment rates, and high
poverty (Bowie, n.d.).
A single building, located at 1910 Magnolia Avenue in Los Angeles, CA,
provides meeting and office space for many of the initiative partners, such as Children’s
Nature Institute, Children’s Bureau, LIFT, and St. John’s Well Child and Family Center.
A number of other partners, such as Jewish Free Loan and Korea Youth and Community
Center (KYCC), share or rotate space on a fixed schedule. The building was completed in
2008, following a capital campaign launched by Children’s Bureau, the anchor tenant in
the facility and central provider of resources for MCI network functions.
The MCI building, however, is only one of many community assets used within
the network. While the building provides a central location point for the initiative, the
overall intent of the initiative is to ensure that community clients can reach the network
and its corresponding value through multiple portals of entry. These portals can be
through community partner schools, service partners, neighborhood ambassadors, or
volunteers.
The volunteers form the “core infrastructure” and are supported by Children’s
Bureau. The director, Mr. Morales, describes the structure as follows:
The initiative needs a core infrastructure of people to go out in the community to
be messengers, representatives, if you will, trying to recruit volunteer
ambassadors. These same folks are going out in the community, taking surveys of
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
10
the community. They are conducting forums in the community so that the
community can be brought into awareness of how the community is doing. The
Children’s Bureau raises donations that help them pay for this infrastructure. But
these people are typically residents from the community who are now employed,
and there are four of them who are then going out and doing this variety of work
to help reach the community and find—bring in existing organizations into the
fold of what’s happening.
The community representatives create valuable social capital for the network and assist
with providing connection points for community members to use the resources of the
initiative.
In addition, centralized hub actions within the MCI are supported by Children’s
Bureau. Lila Guirguis is the director of the network and assists with continuous learning
among partners, collects and disseminates information, manages the group site, and helps
track agreed-upon metrics for evaluation. However, she does not provide a service
directly to the community or actively recruit volunteers from within the community, nor
does she raise money to support participation by network organizations. Organizational
and participant partners create those connections and facilitate those relationships on their
own.
Children’s Bureau invests approximately one million dollars per year to fund the
MCI-designated personnel, in addition to the hard costs of business, such as telephones,
Internet, rent, and supplies. Organizational partners do not pay for any services,
development opportunities, or costs to participate in the initiative.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
11
Organizational Partners
The MCI unites the efforts of more than 76 city and community agencies to
achieve the collectively agreed upon metrics that evidence sustainable community
change. Unlike standard service provision networks that only address efficient delivery of
specified services, the MCI moves a step beyond in that it endeavors to pro-actively
strengthen individual, family and neighborhood protective factors. Protective factors
have been identified as “buffers to help individuals find resources/strategies to function
effectively, even under stress” (Bowie, n.d., p. 10). These factors, which have been linked
to childhood well-being and a correlated reduction of child abuse and neglect, include
parental resilience, social connections, knowledge of parenting and child development,
concrete support in time of need and children’s social and emotional competence” (p.
10). The increase of these protective factors is achieved by developing social
connectedness, improving community mobilization, and facilitating access to needed
services through communication among the participating agencies.
The organizations that form the MCI partnership comprise agencies with budgets
in excess of $26 billion (CEO Office for Los Angeles County) and others with less than
$30,000 (Pico Union Neighborhood Council). This vast disparity of operational budgets
illustrates one of the challenges in forming collaborations such as the MCI and ensuring
that all agencies, irrespective of size, have a voice in the partnership. (See Appendix A
for a complete list of partner organizations.)
The MCI’s Mission and Goals
The MCI ultimately identified four key goal areas, all of which serve to buttress
the five protective factors. They include nurturing parents, school readiness, economic
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
12
stability, and health and well-being. The working philosophy of the MCI is represented
by the It Takes a Community (ITC) model, which stresses the importance of emotional
intelligence, empathy, reflective listening, and attending to the human element of change
(Bowie, n.d., p. 9). The MCI’s model of change is illustrated in Appendix B.
Government, nonprofit, and for-profit agencies use a universal intake form to process
clients, irrespective of the original portal through which they entered the network (see
Appendix C for a copy of the service referral form). Thus, clients are evaluated based
upon the service delivery options of all the MCI partners, which ensures that clients are
offered the full breadth of available services, often in addition to the initial reason for
their arrival at the MCI. The long-term focus of all the provided services and referrals
align with the overarching goal of the initiative to enhance the well-being of children and
families in the targeted community of the MCI.
Each network partner agency or individual partner contributes to the vision and
mission of the MCI by using its own resources to align its organizational activities with
the overall mission adopted by the initiative. This alignment is possible because the
intervention model addresses macro community goals, and is thus very broad. In addition
to increased access to services, the scope of available services provided by the more than
76 agencies allows for many possible points of entry and intervention within the network
for individuals and families.
The MCI’s mission and strategies have been established and adopted by network
participants through cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. This collaboration is
facilitated by centralized personnel (e.g., Lila Guirguis, director of the network) who are
funded by Children’s Bureau. Participation and ground-level collaboration are further
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
13
encouraged via subsets of organic partnerships developed to accomplish specific project
initiatives. Often, these initiatives are organizationally driven and not prescribed by any
initiative governance structure. Communication between providers is facilitated via a
monthly Move the Dot meeting and brown bag meetings, in addition to other face-to-face
meetings, and a general MCI website used to distribute notices, effectuate
communication among the partners, and alert partners to newly available services or
programs. Inclusion in the network is contingent upon the sharing of organizational data
regarding areas such as service provision, clientele, and outcome measurements. The data
have been stored since the inception of the initiative, and will ultimately allow for the
assessment of broad metrics of community health from diverse collection points of
intervention.
Partner Organization Participation and Leadership
Currently, participation in the MCI is entirely by self-selection: organizations
apply to become partners. Organization participation is based on an interest in learning
and contributing in ways that are reflective of both individual as well as collective
organizational goals. A number of key factors make the MCI unique within the network
literature. These include (a) communities of practice or learning groups within the
initiative that are developed based on the interest of the group and are not defined solely
by needs demonstrated by the community; (b) leadership is not formal or prescriptive; (c)
no designated funding source, lead agency, or third party entity funnels money to partner
organizations to compensate for participation; and (d) no explicit extrinsic rewards are
tied to participation in the MCI for community members or organizations.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
14
These factors illustrate the unique model of MCI, and its governance structure
runs counter to the results demonstrated in case studies and the academic literature,
especially with regard to the lack of coordinated funding and efforts to compensate
partners for active participation. The MCI mirrors many of the best practices echoed by
the scholarship: the partners share a common agenda or overarching focus; continuous
communication occurs among all the partners via technology, as well as face-to-face
meetings; activities by all providers are mutually reinforcing; and all partners share data
about specific intervention strategies. The MCI deviates, however, in two critical
manners. First, the MCI does not serve a formal control or hierarchical function; thus, no
lead agency fundraises on behalf of partners, and therefore there is no compensation for
participation within the network. All partners are responsible for garnering sufficient
funds and allocating sufficient human resources to participate in the initiative. Second,
while Milward and Provan (2006) cited the importance of high network integration for
effectiveness centralized through a powerful core agency, in many respects, the
operations of the MCI resemble more of a complex adaptive system, which Roberts
(2000) described as one that “developed its own rules of behavior, reflected on its
behavior, and self-directed its interactions based on what it was learning” (p. 15).
The MCI is neither conscriptive nor proscriptive. This is evident in the
communities of practice, or learning groups, that develop among network partners based
on group or organization interest, and thus is not dependent on or defined by the needs of
the community. Hence, although improved service delivery within the community often
prompts organizations to enter the network, one of the intrinsic benefits received is the
ability to determine the process and scope of an organization’s own learning, and
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
15
information exchange and professional development on the part of each organization
through organic partnerships. Dhanaraj and Parkhe (2006) cited knowledge mobility,
innovation appropriateness, and network stability as critical factors for a successful
network. The communication structure of the collaboration through the MCI allows for
seamless sharing of information among network partners via technology and face-to-face
meetings. Innovation is encouraged, shared, and implemented via the learning
communities.
Examples of information sharing in collective participation include the
Community of Practice, Move the Dot, and brown bag meetings. Communities of
Practice are meetings intended to support, in the words of one interviewee, “individuals
in supervisory roles to learn about, test, and share strategies for supporting the human
element of change, with an emphasis on care that is consistent with brain science, trauma
and empathy.” The interviewees stated that Move the Dot meetings provide “coaching
support” to “enable partners to design, test and prototype innovations that make optimal
use of existing resources in moving MCI design concepts from theory to practice.”
Finally, facilitated brown bag discussions are informal gatherings that “enable staff who
interact directly with clients to share their experiences and reactions to changes in
practice, and to discuss ways of making it easier.” These and many other opportunities
allow organizational partners to share and learn best practices and enhance their own skill
set in service delivery. These opportunities also demonstrate some of the ways in which
the network continues to renew the value proposition for partner organizations, as well as
participant partners who represent their organizations within the network.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
16
Additionally, stability of the MCI’s partners is not a critical factor in the
successful functioning of the network, as sanctions for non-performance or withdrawals
from the network do not exist. Network borders are intentionally porous, thereby
encouraging seamless transition in and out of the network. This provides opportunities
for organizations to participate freely and opportunities for exit, should prevailing
organizational needs require withdrawal. Withdrawal does not preclude an organization
indefinitely from further partnership in the network. This ensures that an organization’s
participation is wholly voluntary and in the best interests of that organization. To force
participation otherwise results in poor network performance on the part of a stressed
agency.
Resource Allocation by Partner Organizations
The organizations that participate in the MCI share many of the same resource
needs. These include but are not limited to clients, convenient and accessible
programming space for organizations and community members, dollars for operations,
volunteers, legitimacy, trust, social capital, marketing of services, advocacy, allocation of
risk or uncertainty, continuing education and professional development, data collection
and aggregation, and client service referrals beyond organizational capacity. MCI
provides the opportunity for partnering organizations to share the burden or costs
associated with the procurement of these resources. Clients are shared among
organizations through use of the single intake form, wherein initial assessment of a client
or client family ensures referrals and access to the full spectrum of services provided by
network partners through a warm hand-off process. As is often the case, clients are
economically challenged, immigrant, non-English speakers and uncertain of the expanse
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
17
of services that are available either through the government or the nonprofit sector. The
MCI network ensures that the community uses the services of the lesser-known or newer
organizations, and referral from within the network provides immediate organizational
legitimacy for the client. Furthermore, the building that forms the hub of the MCI is a
shared space that ensures easy access for community members, as well as program
administrators and volunteers—all of whom share information, time, and data with
partner organizations.
Meeting Challenges Through the Network
Because the MCI area comprises a large number of immigrant communities, it is
subject to continuous change and variability of needs. Policy changes to immigrant status,
health care, and welfare programs prove to be significant issues for organizations serving
communities affected by these programs. Coordinated action and focus through the
overall goals of the network increase organizational capacity to address these challenges,
both on behalf of clients and on the part of the organization. Continuous communication
and face-to-face meetings and training sessions provide valuable feedback, information,
and learning opportunities for partnering organizations, free of charge. Smaller agencies
with little or no budget for professional development benefit from the opportunity to
learn and implement best practices and successful techniques for addressing new changes
in regulatory and service delivery policies from larger organizations that may be involved
in the policy discussions to orient legislators. Larger organizations equally benefit from
smaller, grassroots nonprofits, in that they are continuously apprised, in real time, of on-
the-ground implications of legislative policy changes, in addition to critical issues of need
at the forefront of the communities they serve, as they fluctuate and change frequently.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
18
To engage community members in their homes and neighborhoods, the network
uses community ambassadors. They support individuals by
connecting them to social support and civic groups. They are communicating
about the community interests and community groups to all of the Network
partners by blogging and posting what they are learning…. these leaders are
introduced to one another, asked to talk about how they might share and learn
from one another, and offered an opportunity to share and learn from one another
(Bowie, n.d. p. 15).
The MCI provides an opportunity for partnering organizations to manage environmental
turbulence with community engagement; consistent, comprehensive information in real
time; and a deep understanding of community issues with the assistance of on-the-ground
community members engaged in the MCI. This allows organizations to distribute the
burden of risk throughout the network, rather than impose the burden of managing all
aspects of serving a diverse clientele on only one organization.
Often, policy decisions, such as the Affordable Care Act, result in profound
organizational impact, and smaller organizations suffer the consequence of small or no
budgets for training, advocacy, or professional development in areas that are critical for
meeting client needs. The face-to-face meetings, issue-driven professional development
sessions, and the online group-site system provide valuable insight and education to
smaller organizations unable to access such information alone. Additionally, issues that
adversely affect MCI community members, and that are confronted on a daily basis by
the front-line, grassroots organizations and neighborhood ambassadors, can be effectively
advocated to larger, more politically active or connected organizations within the
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
19
network; thus, legislators can be apprised of on-the-ground implementation challenges
that would otherwise go unheard because the smaller agencies lack the political
connections to advocate on a significant level.
The network affords a fertile environment for innovative efforts. The community
provides a valuable setting for innovation, but the network is crucial in disseminating the
feedback information to partners for further experimentation and implementation. The
MCI provides partnering organizations with the information; a vehicle for real-time data
dissemination; and small community microcosms of opportunity for the testing of
innovative programs, strategies, and investments. Successful efforts can be taken quickly
to scale by sharing information and best practices throughout the network. Furthermore,
because the network is explicitly labeled a learning community, the sharing of missteps is
encouraged to foster learning among partners and community members. The acronym
PDSA (for Plan, Do, Study, Act) is used frequently to encourage rapid implementation of
even the smallest possible change in an effort to preclude innovation stagnation in
anticipation of the perfect moment. The consistent and rapid innovation model provides
ample learning materials for partner organizations. The exchange of this information
reduces the cost of implementation for other providers, who are able to use the
information, personalize it, and put it into practice within their own organization.
Purpose of the Study
Although research has suggested the existence of identifiable factors particular to
successful networks or collaborative partnerships, the MCI is in many respects a unique
entity. No single, universally accepted list of requirements defines a network; however,
this study considered two of the most generally accepted critical factors for successful
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
20
network models and examined how the MCI aligns with current research, or alternatively,
whether the initiative deviates from current research and presents an opportunity for
study and replication. The two factors to help analyze this were (a) network process and
structure and (b) transaction costs and resource dependency.
This study sought to understand the costs involved in partnership among a broad
sampling of organizations. These included governmental, academic, nonprofit, and for-
profit agencies, as well as individual community ambassadors of the MCI. Furthermore,
the intent of this study was to evaluate the collaborative experience of the network
provider participant(s) who participate on behalf of their organization, and to isolate and
identify the factors necessary from their perspective for effective and beneficial network
participation. This included perceived intrinsic or extrinsic value for both the provider
participant(s) and the organization, as observed from the organizational as well as
personal lens, in relation to the internal transaction costs incurred to participate.
Research Questions
This study addressed four research questions.
1. What are the true organizational costs associated with participation in the MCI?
2. Do agencies that participate in the MCI perceive any changes related to their
participation in the network?
3. What factors are associated with changes in the MCI related to participation in
the network?
4. Are perceived changes in the MCI related to participation universal to all
participants or specific to organizations with particular characteristics?
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
21
Definition of Terms
The terms used to describe interorganizational service delivery relationships or
networks are numerous, and current literature does not provide a generally accepted
definition with prescribed or clearly defined elements or characteristics. Terms such as
collaboratives (Mandell, 1999); interorganizational innovations (Mandell & Steelman,
2003); networks (Milward & Provan, 2006); collaborative networks (Agranoff, 2006);
joint ventures and alliances (Barringer & Harrison, 2000); and collective impact strategy
are all used as macro definitions to describe the complex relationships that drive
collaborative networks such as MCI. Often, only a small element of a particular design or
process of governance or network architecture is used to distinguish one type of network
from a collaborative or joint venture structure. Initiatives such as MCI frequently possess
many of these elements, and as a result, multiple terms or descriptions may be used to
describe them. Although significant literature exists that has studied the many distinctive
elements of network theory and network analysis, for the purposes of this study, the two
aforementioned critical elements of network analysis are reviewed with regard to the
MCI. For clarity, the term network is used throughout this paper when referring to the
relationship framework of the MCI. Finally, the term partner participant identifies the
individuals who participate within the network on behalf of their respective MCI partner
organization, or the organizations that have engaged in the network as providers.
Summary
The goal of this study was to identify the values of participation for organizational
partners through the lens of balancing those perceived values with any incurred costs for
participation. Although the academic research identifies factors for successful networked
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
22
systems (e.g., essentials such as a champion, paid staff, organizational learning, trust, and
continuous communication), there is a dearth of literature that views collaborative or
networked efforts strictly from the viewpoint of partner participants, with the intent to
understand their personal as well as their organizational investment in an initiative such
as the MCI. For the MCI, or any networked initiative, to sustain and thrive, it must
present a consistently “renewing value opportunity” in order to engage partners over long
periods of time, and must take into account potentially wide fluctuations of
organizational needs during the organization’s life cycle of engagement (Austin, 2000).
This study seeks in chapter 2 to understand collaborative networks from an
academic perspective. Many of the variables and factors discussed in the literature
formed the basis of the online survey questionnaire disseminated to all partner
organizations. The results of the online survey are addressed in chapter 3. Finally, chapter
4 examines the impact of particular variables on organizational and partner participant
engagement. The final chapter discusses the implication of these findings as well as
identifies other potential areas for future study.
The results of this study indicate that the positive attributes derived from
participation in a service delivery network are directly correlated to the scope of inputs a
participant invests in the collaboration. This finding is of value as efforts to demonstrate
significant community benefit as a result of the MCI have, as of yet, been inconclusive.
Research has suggested that organizational capacity for collaborative participation is
driven by organizational size, resource dependency (what percentage of the budget is
allocated to support participation in the collaboration), and prior collaborative experience
(Graddy & Chen, 2006). If such is the case, inherent challenges will remain for smaller
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
23
organizations that lack both the resources and the personnel to robustly participate in
activities not directly correlated to their service provision contracts or organizational
mission.
The findings suggest that effective participation in the collaboration is reserved
for organizations with resources to engage in efforts not strictly aligned with service
delivery. As a consequence, significant efforts must be made by both government and the
philanthropic sector to bolster the organizational capacity of smaller organizational
participants to ensure the most comprehensive and effective models of service provision
systems to address the complex problems faced by communities today. Initiatives such as
MCI endeavor to unify service provision systems to create a safety net of multiple
resources for stakeholders; thus participation by grassroots, front-line agencies is critical
to a broad understanding of the needs of a community. Infusion of funds via capacity-
building grants, and infrastructure grants, along with governance systems that
accommodate for size and resource disparities must, as a result, become required
investments prior to network creation and design to ensure the most comprehensive,
bottom-up, intervention strategy to solve the complex problems faced by today’s
communities.

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
24

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Cross-sector collaborations have been presented as a viable solution to address the
significant challenges faced by communities in resolving the continuously growing need
and demand for high-quality services that must be met with limited resources (Alter,
1990). The organizational design of networks must account for participant experience,
capacity, and size, in addition to organizational health in order to ensure the long-term
capacity and viability of a network that is not transaction or time defined. This literature
review covers the structural framework for network analysis, which includes initial
conditions for network formation and the resulting structural design, and network process
and structure, and resource dependency and transaction costs.
Structural Framework for Network Analysis
Roberts (2000) stated, “It is my firm conviction that people have to fail into
collaboration. Experience with authoritative and competitive strategies and personal
knowledge of their disadvantages are great teachers” (p. 12). Bryson, Crosby, and Stone
(2006) agreed, citing sector failure as one of the initial conditions that lead to cross-sector
collaborations. Hence, at the point of conception of a network collaboration, a
fundamental impetus exists to construct things differently than the traditional model of
clearly delineated hierarchies or bureaucracies. This motivation often results in
governance structures that merge both old and new practices of operations and
governance (Agranoff, 2006).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
25
Agranoff (2006) distinguished networks from bureaucracies as “non hierarchical,
[with] players at the table being largely equal as organizational representatives, most
actions are discussed and decided by consensus, resources are multi-sourced, and there
are relatively few sanctions for withdrawal” (p. 58). However, despite their differences,
networks, according to Agranoff, require “some form of organization, operating rules,
routines” in addition to missions, visions, goals, and dedicated objectives for intervention
(p. 58). Elements of traditional hierarchical bureaucratic structures provide clear
accountability, reduce transaction costs expended in monitoring principal agent concerns,
and have a vertical integration of tasks that allows for easy measurement of outcomes.
The essentials of transparency, accountability, and outcome measurement become
critical when government agencies contract with outside organizations to provide
traditional government services. Salamon (2000) described centralized control provided
by traditional models of hierarchically organized agencies as “vital to the preservation of
democratic accountability.” (p. 1634). Indeed, Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) argued,
The costs of bureaucracy—a preference for procedure over purpose or seeking the
lowest common denominator—may emerge in a different light, when they are
viewed as part of the price paid for predictability of agreement over time among
diverse participants (p. 133).
This illustrates the paradoxical world in which networks exist, and the need to somehow
balance these two diametrically opposed paradigms. Thus, a challenge for study beyond
the scope of this dissertation is to determine which historically bureaucratic elements are
absolutely critical to the successful functioning of a network, and which elements prove
stifling to innovation and expansion of network relationship dynamics.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
26
The literature generally agrees upon one critical factor to network collaboration: a
universal understanding among participants that no single agency partner is able to
successfully address the problem of focus alone. This understanding provides the
organizational motivation to move toward collective action, thus prompting the allocation
of both financial and human capital resources to engage in a joint effort. This impetus of
collective individual failure has similarly been defined as a “sense of urgency for change”
that is coupled with sufficient financial resources to support a partnership and “a
champion” who drives the effort (Hanleybrown et al., 2012).
The factors associated with a lack of individual organizational success at
achieving a specific goal or intervention strategy remains a critical driving factor for
change because it forces an inquiry into the prior methods of intervention, with the intent
to improve upon them by change. A positive result of creative destruction is the level of
open-mindedness toward change and experimentation that is necessitated by a
recognition of the failure of historical norms of response and behavior. Often, this
collective sector failure is the catalyst for improvement that results in the inception of
collective action related to particular issues that are too complex to be effectively
addressed individually. The most significant change in progress in organizational
behavior is the willingness to abandon the organizational silos that are divided by
programmatic area or community need, and instead endeavor to meet community needs
with a collective response.
The motivation to self-organize, or create a system of participative collaboration,
is not a novel concept, but has been described as a distinct characteristic of the American
psyche. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America (1835/2000) traveled
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
27
throughout the United States in 1831 and coined the phrase “self-interest rightly
understood.” He sought to describe a particular American trait to voluntarily form
associations with others to further the interests of the community, thereby serving their
own interests as a result. Only when a community effort fails, Salamon (1995) argued,
does government action become necessary. If the government proves equally
unsuccessful in solving the problem, a public value failure results. A public value failure
is described as occurring “when neither the market nor the public sector provides goods
and services required to achieve core public values” (Bozeman, 2002, p. 150). Bryson et
al. (2006) argued that such systemic failure could be addressed three ways: accept and
live with the problem, half-heartedly attempt to fix the problem but live with the
ineffective results, or “mobilize collective action to fashion a cross-sector solution that
holds the promise of creating public value” (p. 46).
It is interesting to note that, historically, efforts to solve social ills were
collaborative. It is only in the last century that intervention efforts became so
jurisdictionally specific that both government and the nonprofit sectors could operate in
silo-like environments wherein all efforts to solve a problem were addressed in house.
Referral to other organizations was a rare occurrence, especially within government
bureaucracies, and collaboration among the sectors was almost nonexistent. The current
movement toward the looser structural framework of a network provides a platform on
which to build the necessary components to aggregate individual efforts into a collective
force to achieve what no sector, government, nonprofit, or for-profit can achieve alone.
The MCI is an incarnation of Bryson and Crosby’s (2005) third way of marshalling
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
28
“collective action to fashion a cross-sector solution that holds the promise of creating
public value” (p. 16).
Existing literature provides differing frameworks with which to analyze and
understand cross-sector collaborations. Ansell and Gash (2008); Bryson et al. (2006); and
Bourgon (2011) each provided structural frameworks within which they evaluated and
discussed critical components of existing networks or cross-sector collaboratives. Bryson
et al., in particular, provided a framework that most closely aligns with the MCI model,
and as such, was used as a context for analysis and understanding in this study. The
elements for analysis were (a) network structure and design and (b) transactions costs and
resource dependency. Bryson et al. presented the chosen institutional design related to
each of these elements as key drivers for cross-sector collaborative success. This study
evaluated each of the aforementioned components delineated by Bryson et al., with the
support of other scholars, and compared each element with the structure, management,
and operations of the MCI.
Network Process and Structure
Literature concerned with the description and analysis of networks can be
categorized as focused on network processes or focused on network structures.
Process
Much of the existing literature focuses on the necessary process components
required to ensure a successful cross-sector collaborative. Bryson et al. (2006) cited six
factors: forging initial agreements, building leadership, building legitimacy, building
trust, managing conflict, and planning (pp. 46–48). Agranoff (2006) also mentioned the
critical need for a champion as well as paid staff to manage the network process. Alter
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
29
(1990) and multiple other authors refer to the essential need for a collective goal(s) to
motivate the partnerships and sustain the collaborative during times of conflict. Gazley
and Brudney (2007) incorporated “mutually determined solution [pursuing] objectives”
into their definition of collaboration (p. 390), thus illustrating the basic requirement of
collective agreement of the issue to be addressed, as well as the intervention and agenda
to address it.
Bryson et al. (2006) cited the need to build leadership, legitimacy, and trust as key
process components. Many authors have articulated the vital role a champion plays in
propelling a cross-sector collaborative forward. However, in addition to the critical value
of the passage of time, legitimacy and trust are deeply affected by external forces that are
regulated by the network design itself. Transparency, accountability, and a forum for
democratic participation all affect the level of trust maintained by members of a cross-
sector collaborative. Additionally, the governance structure can create an opportunity for
the development of successful leadership, or it can hinder its growth. Networks must
strive to be non-hierarchical and non-bureaucratic. The role of a single leader (i.e., to
make and execute decisions, influence processes, and remain accountable for failure) is in
contrast with the flat governance structure of a network.
Structure
Often the underlying motivations for collaboration or partnering via a network
directly affect the governance structure that is implemented to manage the web of
relationships around the catalyzing issue. Some identified motivations for collaboration
include resource dependency, social exchange, legitimization, efficiency, strategic
collaboration and corporate social performance (Austin, 2000). Each motivation creates
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
30
particular needs and requirements for the overarching governance and administrative
systems necessary to bring together multiple stakeholders “in common forums with
public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making” (Ansell & Gash, 2008,
p. 543). Bryson et al. (2006) described this synergetic development in their collaborative
network framework analysis by denoting that initial conditions, formal and informal
processes for creating the cross-sector collaboration, and the structure and governance of
the collaborative are intertwined and interdependent. Each motivation or building block
influences the ultimate results of the other in the design and governance structure of the
cross-sector collaboration.
Failure is often cited as a catalyst for collaboration, and yet while failure provides
a platform for innovation, such innovation must be guided by a governance system that
ensures that the critical elements of network relations are met. Failure often result with a
subsequent desire to do things differently and governance structures are included.
Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) argued that innovation is often stifled in hierarchies, as
opposed to networks, “because a host of horizontal constraints tend to restrict the
interaction necessary to develop good ideas, and vertical barriers prevent the developed
ideas from bubbling up to decision” (p. 30). Thus, hierarchical elements must be
tempered in favor of characteristics that allow for an unconstrained flow of ideas and
communication. Yet network governance must still remain sufficiently centralized to
ensure some accountability and transparency, especially when public funds are dispersed
via third party contracts.
Bryson et al. (2006) argued that the antecedents of collaborative formation (i.e.,
sector failure) must be coupled with a brokering organization or powerful sponsor, a
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
31
collective agreement of the problem parameters or definition, and the degree of
“structural embeddedness” or prior existing relationships that can be leveraged in support
of the collaboration in order to improve the likelihood of a successful cross-sector
collaboration. Thus, the resulting structure may be a centralized communication through
an infrastructure hub and a centralized agency that provides a backbone of financial and
internal support to partnering agencies. This structure allows for accountability and
centralized dispersion of communication and data, as well as a single vehicle seeking
financial support that is used to maintain the costs of convening and managing a network.
Ansell and Gash (2008) described collaborative governance as “a type of
governance in which public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways,
using particular processes, to establish laws and rules for the provision of public good”
(p. 545). The more differentiated and complex a network system is, the more
“cooperative working arrangements are needed” to ensure success (Alter, 1990, p. 498).
The challenge for network architects is to craft a structure that provides the flexibility and
open, horizontal linkages that encourage innovation, while at the same time incorporating
some elements of traditional bureaucracies to reduce conflict; promote self-governing
participation of partners, irrespective of size and financial strength; and ensure overall
accountability, transparency of action, and decision making, as well as promote a viable
democratic forum for public interaction with the network. Often, the presence of a
backbone agency serves many of these required functions, but its lack of hierarchical
control promotes self-governance and innovation.
A strong backbone organization was cited in numerous examples of successful
network partnerships (Arganoff, 2006; Bryson & Crosby, 2005; Hanleybrown et al.,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
32
2012; Herranz, 2008; Jolin et al., 2012). It is a framework organization that serves the
critical function of “providing overall strategic direction, facilitating dialogue between
partners, managing data collection and analysis, handling communications, coordinating
community outreach, and mobilizing funding” (Hanleybrown et al., 2012. para 49).
Additionally, a backbone agency provides numerous opportunities for partnering
organizations because one organization is responsible for providing the overall
infrastructure to manage the network. Smaller, less wealthy partners, either in funds or
human capital, are neither precluded from the partnership by sheer expense, nor are they
saddled with unmanageable responsibilities (to the detriment of the network as a whole)
as a cost of participating in the network. Complex and diverse data from participating
agencies are funneled into a single location, and communication and learning strategies
based upon that data are disseminated to network partners in real time via technology. A
backbone organization can aggregate and analyze the many forms of data available from
partners and weave a single, overarching plan or mission, which guides and validates the
efforts of many organizations within a network. Communities benefit from a holistic
service delivery system that provides services for all their needs rather than one that is
piecemeal, often redundant, and through which it is often difficult to obtain needed
services.
Complex problems require the input of diverse interests to achieve the broadest
possible solutions; however, “reducing the numbers of stakeholders decreases the
complexity of the problem solving process” (Roberts, 2000, p. 4). This illustrates the
inherent tension in network structures: to solve complex problems, diverse stakeholder
participation is required to wrestle with the multi-layered, systemic challenges. A more
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
33
expansive network with a wider population of partners allows for broad-based inclusion
of the perspectives of many, and is a critical factor in solving complex problems that do
not have a single origin. Solutions require casting the widest net of possible intervention
strategies, and many partners provide more opportunities for successful efforts. However,
too many participants can result in an unwieldy structure that stifles robust participation,
achievement of consensus, and accountability and transparency in action. The democratic
process can be cumbersome, and with many partners at the table, it is a slow and
extremely difficult process to arrive at a consensus of a single, unifying theme (e.g.,
poverty, immigration, health, or education) to drive all resulting efforts. Cliques of
providers have been identified by Ansell and Gash (2008) as posing a challenge in a
collaborative network structure. The inclusion of all voices—not just the loudest, the few
wealthiest, or the largest—is critical to facilitating and augmenting the level of trust
between partners to encourage off-line joint efforts among them, as well as systematized
sharing of information. A meaningful exchange of resources, in addition to joint decision
making, is critical for resulting positive benefits to be accrued within a collaborative, and
trust is the oil that lubricates all of those functions (Graddy & Chen, 2006). A decrease in
trust or information sharing among organizations as a result of internal network cliques
can stall long-term initiatives and discourage voluntary participation or efforts to embrace
new partners via existing partner referrals.
Numerous authors have cited possible structural solutions to the challenge of
integrating the many voices of networked service provision partnerships. Selsky and
Parker (2005) advocated the public-private partnerships must have legal and contractual
frameworks to be successful. Milward and Provan (2002) indicated that “network
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
34
effectiveness is highest when the network is integrated, but only when integration is
centralized through a powerful core agency” (p. 31). Jolin et al. (2012) cited five
requirements for successful partnerships, all of which dramatically affect the resulting
network structure and point to a more unified voice rather than many: a common agenda,
shared measurement system, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication
and a backbone organization. Contrary to Selsky and Parker, Jolin et al. advocated for
unity achieved through a common purpose and trust, not via bylaws and formalized rules.
These elements again illustrate the challenges in creating a highly nimble, multifaceted
network structure with the corresponding governance mechanisms that promote the
necessary transparency, accountability, and certainty—all of which are hallmarks of a
top-down bureaucratic system of control.
Resource Dependency and Transaction Costs
Much of the literature cites the inability to create systemic change or achieve an
organizational mission or goal as a significant catalyst to propel agencies into
collaboration. Whether the failure results from an inability to improve a particular issue
or area of focus, or the significant challenge of serving an increasingly diverse population
with needs that are impossible to capture with the services of one organization,
collaboration provides an opportunity to explore challenges from a different framework.
Guo and Acar (2005) cited resource dependency and the ability to reduce uncertainty and
transaction costs as important factors for consideration in collaboration. The authors cited
eight types of collaboration: information sharing, referral of clients, sharing of office
spaces, joint programming, multiple-system operators, parent subsidiary, joint ventures,
and mergers. The study also identified the most common collaborative organizations as
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
35
older and larger, with diverse revenue streams (including significant government
funding), with extensive board linkages, and not in the areas of education or social
services. Although the MCI engages in many of the identified types of collaboration cited
by Guo and Acar, the network contains organizations that more often than not fall outside
the characteristics of the common collaborative organization in that they are small; are
often grassroots; have limited budgets, few staff, and very narrow funding streams; and
provide both educational and social services. Yet, even so, both large and small
organizations benefit from the collaboration and often complement each other’s core
functions and competencies.
While collaboration provides extensive intrinsic and extrinsic benefits to
partnering organizations, these benefits come at a cost. Einbinder et al. (2000) clearly
indicated the need to balance these costs: benefits are expected to outweigh costs. The
focus of the survey portions of this study evaluated the self-perceived benefits of
collaboration, in conjunction with internal soft costs, when assessing the value of
participation for MCI partners. Furthermore, because many of the organizations within
MCI fall outside Guo and Acar’s (2005) common collaborative organizations, a question
for study was how these organizations managed both resource dependency and the
transaction costs associated with collaboration.
Resource Dependency
As the financial support for the social services sector continues to dwindle,
competition for dollars, clients, information and employees increases. The network
structure of MCI provides partner organizations with an opportunity to diversify and
disperse resource dependency among a wide breath of trusted partners. Gazley and
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
36
Brudney (2007) stated that, in collaborations, nonprofits place a priority on securing
funding for support and governments place priority on securing expertise. The valuable
resource of information is easily exchanged within the network as a cost for partnering:
all partners benefit equally from the free dissemination of information. Further, the
sharing of information and best practices among partners assists with reducing risk and
transaction costs. Clients are shared through the referral process and linkage process and
program development happens in conjunction between partners in furtherance of the
overall goals of the initiative.
While the MCI does not provide a single funding source to compensate for
participation, nor does the network assist in garnering funding to subsidize network
activities, participation within the network may bring previously unknown nonprofit
organizations into the landscape of the philanthropic community and augment their
opportunity for funding. Further, the network provides the opportunity to collaborate on
a multi-provider program that would have been foreclosed to the agency if it were acting
alone.
However, obtaining those funding dollars to participate in the network may be
difficult even for nonprofits with ample development budgets. Participation in a network
and the cost associated therewith often fall into “general operations” because the resulting
activities do not translate directly to service provision or the community outreach of the
organization. Network participation may be categorized as a form of professional
development or an opportunity to augment organizational infrastructure and management,
but it is not a direct service that many funders prefer to underwrite. Thus, fundraising
may prove particularly challenging for partner organizations to tap in a manner that
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
37
demonstrates the long-term value of network participation to a community of funders that
often has narrow time horizons for reporting on grant success.
Transaction Costs
Transaction costs are incurred by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit,
operating in a market. Coase (1937) described the breadth of transaction costs as: search
and information costs, negotiation and bargaining costs, and finally enforcement costs.
Dahlman (1979) further articulated these costs as follows:
In order for an exchange between two parties to be set up it is necessary that the
two search each other out, which is costly in terms of time and resources. If the
search is successful and the parties make contact they must inform each other of
the exchange opportunity that may be present, and the conveying of such
information will again require resources. If there are several economic agents on
either side of the potential bargain to be struck, some costs of decision-making
will be incurred before the terms of trade can be decided on. Often such agreeable
terms can only be determined after costly bargaining between the parties
involved. After the trade has been decided on, there will the costs of policing and
monitoring the other party to see that his obligations are carried out as determined
by the terms of the contract, and of the enforcing agreement reached (pp. 147–
148).
All transaction costs, according to Dahlman, have the common trait that represents
“resource losses due to lack of information” (p. 148).
Information asymmetry is costly in the for-profit market, and corporations expend
resources to equalize their bargaining position in a transaction by purchasing information.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
38
Nonprofits are equally penalized for lack of information; however, funding streams for
nonprofits make expenditures for information acquisition extremely difficult—funders
rarely subsidize such costs. Thus, nonprofits are forced to operate at a distinct
disadvantage when, again citing Dahlman (1979), they seek the existence and location of
trading opportunities or the quality and characteristics of those opportunities available for
trade, determine the desire of economic agents to participate in trading with certain
parameters of cost and conditions, delineate mutually agreeable terms, and finally harbor
a lack of knowledge as to whether the party(ies) will fulfill his or her (their) portion of
the agreement.
Imperfect information in transacting business is costly to nonprofits, and
organizations must use mechanisms to reduce costs or augment limited budgets. These
mechanisms include accepting grants or funding that later result in significant operating
deficits when the funds are unexpectedly terminated, relying on free but unsubstantiated
information from constituents or funders, incomplete environmental scans, and pro bono
services. Networked service delivery systems provide another model for reducing the
transaction costs of contracting for nonprofits, while at the same time incurring soft costs
of participation that must balance or weigh in favor of partnership. These costs are
particularly challenging for small nonprofits, with staffs that are already stretched very
thin, to manage with the depth and consistency that are necessary to gain the benefits in
partnership.
A network system of service providers affords integration of institutional as well
as holistic personnel knowledge for the benefit of all network partners. Consistent
interactions—whether face to face, via the Internet, or by phone—provide opportunities
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
39
for organizations to share knowledge and benefit from a larger pool of information than
each organization may possess on its own. Search costs are significantly reduced as
network partners provide referrals to partner organizations within the network that serve
corresponding needs. Additionally, the length of interactions between collaborative
partners further reduces transactions costs as the emergence of trust between partners
lessens the research and vetting costs for partnering organizations before referring clients
or creating joint partnerships. Continuous and iterated interactions between organizations
within the network reduce the infrastructure costs involved in creating, managing, and
enforcing the terms of partnerships, shared programs, and clientele, as well information
sharing. Partners who engage in inappropriate behavior or unethical conduct can be
quickly exposed within the network and beyond; thus, self-regulation and policing serve
to reduce the need for a single policing organization to manage costs of enforcement
because such costs would be distributed throughout the network.
The trust and social capital that increase between organizations and reduce the
uncertainty among partners also reduce environmental turbulence: organizations can look
to trusted partners for assistance in addressing unexpected community and organizational
needs. Larger organizations can capitalize on knowledge that is available on the ground
to grassroots organizations that interface daily with the community or alternatively with
participating members of the community. Smaller organizations similarly benefit from
the research and advocacy capacity of larger organizations. Legislative, regulatory, and
legal changes often result in significant organization impact that smaller organizations
cannot easily metabolize with smaller operating budgets.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
40
Although a network of partners provides many opportunities to reduce
organizational transaction costs and diversify and disperse resource dependency, it
nonetheless requires significant financial and human capital expenditures to ensure robust
participation on the part of the organization to benefit from the relationships and intrinsic
value created by the collaboration. Fosler (2002) described collaboration as requiring “a
higher degree of mutual planning and management among peers; the conscious alignment
of goals, strategies, agendas, resources and activities; an equitable commitment of
investment and capacities; and the sharing of risks, liabilities and benefits” (p. 19). Each
of these factors requires both personnel as well as money to implement effectively. Jolin
et al. (2012) cited the need for a dedicated staff person to drive the collaborative because
partnerships flourish with continuous communication, frequent interaction between
members, and a high degree of information sharing.
Nonprofit partners in the MCI must allocate resources within their organizational
budget to participate in the initiative. The MCI does not fundraise on behalf of partners,
nor does it provide any fiscal incentives for participation. Austin (2000) described the
single greatest challenge for collaborations as the pervasive fear among nonprofits of
“splitting a limited pie” (p. 14). A culture of scarcity of resources has created a reticence
among nonprofit providers toward sharing clients, information, resources, board
members, donors, and programming. Collaborations must necessarily demonstrate that
the value of participation outweighs any costs, both hard and soft, and often intrinsic
values and benefits of collaboration are ignored in favor of simply measuring the increase
or improvements of organizational outputs. Guo and Acar (2005) described the most
common organizational partners in a collaborative as older and larger, with significant
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
41
operational budgets and lengthy histories in communities. Furthermore, they are able to
rely on consistent government funding, with additional resources to provide funding for
activities that fall outside government grant parameters. Board linkages are critical for the
health of an organization because the board is an organization’s fundraising vehicle (Guo
& Acar, 2005). Strong boards with dense community linkages provide formidable
support for collaboratives and partnerships because board members can act as champions
within a community and among partner providers, and assist with raising funds to support
such engagement strategies.
The challenges inherent in participation in network collaboratives often fall
disproportionately upon smaller, younger, more grassroots organizations that would
benefit greatly from tapping into the resources of a network, but lack the resources (both
in personnel and budget) to deeply engage. This illustrates a paradox for both providers
and funders: how to best allocate valuable and scarce resources to fulfill an
organization’s mission and serve the community. Is it better to remain alone and
concentrate on a clearly defined area of focus, putting all resources into that goal, or is it
better to tap into a larger framework, with a broader mission that encourages organization
learning and development, which comes at a cost to core activities? A lack of grassroots
organizations in a network is a glaring deficiency, and larger organizations, as a result, do
not benefit from on-the-ground information that will help to address community needs.
However, funding is an ever-present challenge for smaller organizations; thus, the values
of participation in a network must be clearly defined and articulated for partners.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
42
Summary
The literature is clear with regard to the many needs inherent in successful
network partnerships. These include networks centralized around a lead organization
(Bryson & Crosby, 2005); a common agenda, shared measurement systems, and
continuous communication (Hanleybrown et al., 2012); a dedicated staff person to drive
the initiative (Jolin et al., 2012); a backbone organization that is responsible for overall
strategic direction, facilitating dialog, managing data, handling communication, and
coordinating outreach, as well as mobilizing funding (Hanleybrown et al., 2012); and
consistently renewing value propositions (Austin, 2000). The challenge in the field is to
understand which if any of the many factors cited is absolutely critical for partnering
agencies to fully and robustly participate in a networked initiative. Furthermore, if any
characteristics or factors are necessary for partnership, do they by default preclude a
significant portion of the sector that is younger, less fiscally wealthy, and small in terms
of personnel? This study sought to understand these questions through the lens of the
participant organizations and the partner participants who act on their organizations’
behalf in the MCI.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
43

Chapter 3: Descriptive Results and Regression Analyses

Introduction
The literature cites many organizational characteristics or variables that are
intrinsic to successful collaboration or network participation; they also dramatically affect
the size of the resulting network. These characteristics include a champion and paid staff
(Agranoff, 2006; Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Jolin et al., 2012); being centralized around a
lead organization (Bryson & Crosby, 2005; Herranz, 2008); and an administrative
structure that moves from governance to action (Thomson, Perry, & Miller, 2009), also
described as a hub firm (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006); organizational size and age (Gulati,
1998); possessing diverse revenue streams, and being a recipient of government funding
(Gulati, 1998; Guo & Acar, 2005); consistent face-to-face dialogue, trust building, and
the development of commitment and shared understanding (Ansell & Gash, 2008); the
overall community’s scope of required services; and the ethnic homogeneity of that
population (Graddy & Chen, 2006). Although the list of characteristics necessary for
successful collaboration or network participation referred to in the literature is not
exhaustive, it provided the basis for many of the questions in the online survey prepared
and disseminated for this study, and subsequent in-person interview questions. The
survey and interview questions were formulated in an attempt to understand the effect of
the above-referenced characteristics on the operations of partner organizations in the
network as a whole, as well as each organization’s specific role within it.
The data presented in this chapter address the four research questions that formed
the basis for this study: (a) What are the true organizational costs associated with
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
44
participation in the MCI? (b) Do agencies that participate in the MCI perceive any
changes related to their participation in the network? (c) What factors are associated with
the perceived changes in the MCI related to participation in the network? (d) Are
perceived changes in the MCI related to participation universal to all participants or
specific to organizations with particular characteristics? This chapter presents both the
responses to the online survey and the interviews.
The Study Design
The analysis of the MCI organizations, through their representative staff, was
done via an online survey. The survey began with questions about the organizational
characteristics consistent with the variables identified from the literature: prior experience
in collaboration, length of time in the partnership, budget size and composition, and
funding and employment attributes. The survey then considered the extent, or lack
thereof, of mission and service alignment between organizations and the overall
initiative; how organizations chose to partner in the initiative via specific organizational
actions; the issues surrounding operational alignment; and the level of engagement of the
individual partner participants and the perceived value, if any, on a personal level.
An initial pilot of the survey was sent to five preselected partner participant
respondents for feedback on clarity, length of time for completion, and ease of
comprehension. Following the pilot survey, the complete survey was introduced to the
Magnolia Community of Partners in October 2013. (See Appendix D for a complete copy
of the online survey.)
The results of the online survey provided the basis for the subsequent half-hour
interviews of 10 partner participants. The purpose of the interviews were twofold: (a) to
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
45
provide greater understanding of the survey responses and (b) to probe more deeply into
any perceived values an organization’s representative recognized in participating in the
initiative, and determine if those perceived values balanced or offset the total perceived
cost an organization expended in participating.
MCI partner participants are organizational representatives acting within the
initiative, on behalf of their organization. All MCI partner participants were invited via
email to participate in the online study on behalf of their organization (see Appendix E
for a copy of the email and Appendix A for a list of all MCI partner organizations).
Because the Magnolia community of organizations is very diverse with respect to size,
some organizations (e.g., the Department of Mental Health) have eight partner
participants and others have only one. Thus, some organizations had more than one
employee respond on behalf of their organization. The surveys were personally
anonymous, but respondents identified their organizations; the number of respondents for
each organization is listed in Appendix F.
At the conclusion of the 4-week survey response time, 126 representatives out of
350 who received the survey email solicitation had begun the survey, 97 had completed
it, and 29 had not finished. A total of 71 organizations were included through staff
representation in the responses received, out of the total number of 78 organizations that
were part of the group site. All responses were captured, irrespective of whether
respondents completed the survey.
In order to better understand the survey responses and to probe more deeply into
any perceived values an organization’s representative recognized in participating in the
initiative, we decided to follow-up the survey with a select set of interviews. Based on the
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
46
response to the extensiveness of participating in the network, representatives of the top
five participating organizations were interviewed, as were representatives of the five
lowest-scoring agencies (see question 21 in Appendix D). A score of 0 was identified as
the lowest score, and representatives of five of the six lowest-scoring organizations were
interviewed. The highest score was 10 or 11, and representatives of three of the eight
highest-scoring organizations were interviewed. Two representatives from the next
highest level of participation, with a score of 8 or 9, were interviewed, yielding a total of
five interviewees in the top participant category. Because multiple respondents answered
the survey from a single organization, some organizations were listed more than once in
the top or bottom positions. One organization scored both in the highest category as well
as in the lowest, and one of the two respondents from the organization was interviewed in
an effort to understand the disparity.
The interview questions were the same for each interview; however, interviewees
often deviated from the questions to make additional comments related to their
perceptions of the MCI. (For a copy of the interview questions, see Appendix G.) All
interviews were recorded and transcribed, and lasted approximately 30 minutes each. The
interview questions were derived both from the literature and from responses to the
survey.
Data Analysis
To evaluate the online survey responses and to test for relationships between key
independent and dependent variables, several multivariate models were estimated, using
the appropriate estimation techniques: ordinary least squares regression models, probit
regression models, and ordered logit regression models. Ordinary least squares regression
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
47
models were used when the dependent variable was a continuous level variable, such as
the number of MCI liaisons in an organization or the total involvement level of the
respondent or his or her organization. In cases where the dependent variable of interest
was an ordinal variable with categories of increasing or decreasing value (e.g., the
selected category for workgroup participation), an ordered logit model was used to
estimate the probability of a respondent moving from one category to the next, based on
key explanatory factors. Finally, when the dependent variable was a dichotomous (yes or
no) variable (e.g., whether the respondent reported having a designated MCI liaison, or
reported a change in organizational structure or in internal operations), a probit regression
model was used to estimate the probability of the respondent falling into the yes category
for any of these variables of interest. In all multivariate models, key explanatory factors
and controls were included. The results shown in each table include the pseudo r
2
value,
which shows the percentage of variance in the dependent variable explained by the
model; the chi-square statistic (where applicable); and the sample size. In addition to the
multivariate models estimated, qualitative descriptions and expanded explanations of
selected survey questions were obtained via narrative data collected during 10 subsequent
interviews. Interviewees were selected based upon online survey responses to question 21
(see Appendix D for a copy of question 21).
Characteristics of Survey Participants
Respondent organizational types were varied: 65% of survey respondents
represented nonprofit organizations, while the remaining respondents included religious,
academic, and public agency organizations (Figure 1). (For a complete list of respondents
and the number of responses per organization, refer to Appendix F.) The composition of
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
48
survey respondents is relevant to this study because the focus was to understand the scope
of the intrinsic challenges faced by nonprofit organizations in assuming the costs of
participation in partnerships. These costs may be prohibitive and therefore dissuade a
crucial segment of the service delivery population from engaging in wide-scale service
delivery networks. Therefore, a robust nonprofit representation in this study is important
for understanding the scope of the problem, if one exists. Additional data related to the
organizations’ total operating budget and year of incorporation were collected from
Guidestar.org and corresponding 990 forms.
Figure 1. Organizational Representation: Percentage of Survey Respondents

Organizational Costs Associated With the MCI
To address research question 1 (What are the organizational costs associated with
the MCI?), data from the survey responses were analyzed to identify areas in which
partner organizations incurred a cost, whether direct or indirect, to participate in the
initiative. These costs included (a) assigning dedicated staff as MCI liaisons; (b) creating
or participating in MCI-sponsored activities; and (c) aligning organizational
programming with the MCI’s overarching goals, mission, and service-delivery strategies.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
49
A probit regression model was used to determine the factors that significantly relate to
the likelihood of an organization having at least one liaison.
Dedicated Staff as MCI Liaisons
Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated their organization designated a
specific person(s) to represent their organization’s interest in the network (Figure 2). To
provide adequate staff time for the partnership, 47% of respondents indicated that staff
time was reallocated, and 18% cited reallocation of actual financial resources to
participate in the network (Figure 3). Because participants could provide more than one
answer, totals in Figure 3 sum to greater than 100%. Subsequent open-ended responses
illustrated additional ways organizations sought to participate: “provided space for
meetings”; “integrated services”; “worked with board and executive leadership to achieve
full organizational buy-in, shifted our approach and visioning to include MCI collective
strategies”; and “realigned mission priorities.” One interviewee described the value of
having a designated liaison:
If more funds meant more personnel, then yes, I would love to have a staff
person—if it wasn’t me, even another staff person who had enough time on their
plate where they could go and invest more deeply and in an ongoing basis. And
this could be like a professional development experience for them, and it could
help us do some of that hard work of building the relationship.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
50
Figure 2. Percentage of Organizations Designating a Liaison to the MCI

Figure 3. Ways Organizations Chose to Participate in the MCI

A probit regression suggested that budget and the length of time an organization
participated in the MCI are the factors significantly related to the likelihood that an
organization would have at least one liaison (Table 1). First, as the budget increases, so
does the likelihood that the organization has at least one designated liaison. Second, as
the length of time an organization has participated in the MCI increases, so does the
likelihood that the organization has at least one liaison.

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
51
Table 1. Probit Estimation of MCI Liaisons (at Least One Liaison)

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -7.338 2.783 -2.64 0.008
Budget (log) 0.606 0.237 2.56 0.011
Employees (full time) -0.244 0.263 -.093 0.354
Employees (part time) -0.239 0.402 -.060 0.551
Volunteers .062 0.189 0.33 0.744
Time in MCI 0.435 0.260 1.67 0.094
Involvement -0.075 0.089 -0.85 0.395
Pseudo R
2
= 0.3123
Log Likelihood = -22.555
Chi-square (sig) = 0.0027 (0.0010)
n = 70

MCI-Sponsored Activities
The survey assessed the extent to which respondents engaged in or expended time
or resources to participate in network-sponsored activities that provided opportunities for
learning, sharing, or improving organizational service models. One question asked about
individual respondent’s behavior, and a second question asked about other members of
the respondent’s organization. Individually, 73% of respondents attended meetings, and
more than 50% participated in workgroups or attended workshops. Eighty-three percent
were group-site members and received weekly blasts regarding MCI news, and 48%
personally work on activities with other network partners outside meetings (Figure 4).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
52

Figure 4. Activities in Which Respondents Participated

Sixty-six percent of the survey respondents indicated that other members of their
organizations attended meetings, and more than 50% indicated that others participated in
workgroups and workshops. Forty-five percent of respondents said that other members of
their organizations worked on activities with network partners outside meetings, and 67%
of the respondents said other members of their organizations were group-site members
(Figure 5).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
53

Figure 5. Activities in Which Other Organization Members Participated

Alignment of Organizational Service Delivery
The overarching goal of the network is to encourage partners to address all
aspects of their clients’ needs via referrals or linkages, and at the same time, incorporate
the long-term goals within day-to-day organizational programming. To understand the
alignment between organizational mission and core practices and the long-term goals of
the MCI, a question was posed on the survey using a Likert-type 1 to 5 scale to assess the
robustness of alignment. Ratings of alignment were highest with respect to improving the
health and emotional well-being of families (4.48) and lowest with respect to improving
the economic stability of families (3.98) (Table 2). Overall, most respondents gave the
highest rating (5) to describe the alignment of their organization’s goals with the MCI.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
54

Table 2. Ratings of Organizations’ Alignment With the MCI’s Long-Term Goals

On the 5-point scale below, choose the number that best indicates how closely your
organization’s goals and objectives are aligned with MCI’s long-term goals of:

1 (not
aligned)
2 3 4 5
(perfectly
aligned)
Average Total
n
Improving the
ability of families
to provide safe
and nurturing care
for their children
4
4%
6
5%
10
9%
21
18%
73
64%
4.34 114
Improving the
health and
emotional well-
being of families
4
3%
3
3%
8
7%
19
17%
81
70%
4.48 115
Improving the
ability of children
ages 0–5 to
succeed in
elementary school
13
11%
6
5%
14
12%
14
12%
67
59%
4.02 114
Improving the
economic
stability of
families
8
7%
11
10%
14
12%
23
20%
58
51%
3.98 114
Creating and
improving care
pathways and
linkages for
families
4
4%
12
11%
9
8%
19
17%
70
61%
4.29 114
Total 33 38 55 96 349 4.21

The challenges associated with the alignment of goals were articulated by a
partner organization executive, who stated the following during one of the follow-up
interviews:
In the same moment, something that can be really good can also be really
difficult, because we’re having to then spend time and effort. And we have to first
get our environmental educators who have degrees in biology and master
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
55
gardening, but not necessarily psychology, get them to think about delivering
environmental education through this social-service lens. So then you have to
create willingness on your staff …. But it’s been a hard thing to sell sometimes. I
mean, over and over and over again, it’s hard. Just when I think I get them on the
same page and we’re all going forward, they bottom out again.
An additional question measured the alignment between organizational objectives
and the MCI’s protective factors: parental resilience, social connectedness, knowledge of
parenting and child development, concrete support in times of need, and nurturing and
attachment. Of the five protective factors, social connections was the factor rated most
highly relevant to the objective of the respondents’ organizations, and nurturing and
attachment was rated least relevant (4.33 and 4.11, respectively) (Table 3).
Table 3. Ratings of Relevance of Protective Factors to Organizational Mission and
Objectives

Please rate the relevance of each protective factor to the mission and objectives of your
organization:

1 (not at
all
relevant)
2 3 4 5
(highly
relevant)
Average Total
n
Parental resilience 6
5%
5
4%
9
8%
24
21%
70
61%
4.29 114
Social connections 2
2%
5
4%
14
12%
26
23%
68
59%
4.33 115
Knowledge of
parenting and child
development
8
7%
6
5%
11
10%
19
17%
70
61%
4.20 114
Concrete support in
times of need
4
4%
8
7%
10
9%
25
22%
67
59%
4.25 114
Nurturing and
attachment
9
8%
8
7%
10
9%
20
18%
66
58%
4.11 113
Total 29 32 54 114 341 4.24

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
56
While many partners had missions aligned to one or more of the MCI’s areas of
focus, few encompassed all five of the protective factors or had institutionally adopted all
of MCI’s five long-term goals. As the executive quoted earlier indicated during his
interview, the challenge often was not simply adopting a new focus, but rather
encouraging staff to adopt new practices that were unfamiliar or not within their core
competencies in order to comply with the overall initiative goals of a holistic service
delivery system.
Changes Associated With Participation in MCI
To address research question 2 (Do agencies that participate in the MCI perceive
any changes related to their participation in the network?), partner participants identified
a number of areas in which they personally perceived a change or a described gain as a
result of partnering in MCI, or that the staff in their organization perceived. These
included organizational changes related to increased professional development
opportunities, quality improvement, research and evaluation, opportunities for
collaboration, organizational performance, and degree of trust among initiative partners.
Results related to client referrals and warm-handoffs, and to sharing among partners are
also included in this section because these factors were identified in the descriptive data
as perceived changes as a result of partnership in the MCI.
Organizational Changes
Notable changes were reported across multiple areas as a result of participation in
the MCI. According to partner participant respondents, participation in the MCI had a
direct effect upon both organizational outputs and internal structures of operation. Forty-
eight percent of respondents said professional development opportunities were influenced
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
57
or changed positively by participation in the network, while 46% cited quality
improvement, and 38% cited changes in research and evaluation (Figure 6).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
58

Figure 6. Organizational Changes

A 3-point Likert-type scale was used to evaluate perceived organizational changes
incurred by partnering in the MCI. Many of the responses illustrated the values accrued
to partner participants on behalf of their organizations: 86% of respondents agreed that
participation in the network increased opportunities for collaboration, 60% agreed that it
improved organizational performance, 78% agreed that the MCI provided a wider service
net for clients, and 77% agreed that participation in the MCI created trust between
partnering organizations (Table 4).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
59

Table 4. Benefits of Organizations’ Participation in the MCI

The survey questions also sought to determine if the change partners perceived by
participating in the network was worth the cost, and if so, whether respondents would
recommend joining the network to their peers. Using a 5-point Likert scale, 69% of
respondents said they were highly likely (level 5) to encourage participation (Table 5)
and only 1% (1 respondent) indicated they were highly unlikely to encourage
participation (level 1). Overall, the value respondents felt they gained by participation in
the network merited encouraging other peer organizations to join.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
60
Table 5. Likelihood of Encouraging Participation in the MCI

Additionally, an open-ended question asked respondents to state in one sentence
why they recommend the MCI to peers. Although the responses addressed a wide range
of perceived changes, the sharing of resources and information and data was cited
frequently as a significant value to participants. Responses included the following:
• “Because it provides resources for employee’s growth and reinforces our work
for the community.”
• “Unique opportunity for research, learning, and improving organization
performance/outcomes for their clients.”
The following responses to open-ended survey questions illustrate the personal value
organizational participants felt they gained through partnership:
• “My personal experience with MCI is what keeps me coming to work every
day and moves me to remain in LA and keep working towards improved
systems, despite often very tangible resistance.”
• “I enjoy the professional development opportunities.”
• “MCI has given me the tools to be able to communicate better with other
agencies and to learn how to better work with other community members by
learning how to value, listen and respect each of their stories. It is a different
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
61
way of working with community and allows more connections to happen. I
feel this is a learning process for everyone within the initiative.”
Additional changes that were consistently voiced as gained by individual participants
included fellowship; a greater understanding of impact; feeling part of a greater mission;
support; professional development opportunities; and the personal value gained from
better serving clients by offering a broader, more holistic range of services than those
offered by individual organizations.
Open-ended responses further illustrate the value participants perceived as
partners engaging on behalf of their organization within the network. Survey questions
prompting for both challenges and values yielded consistently positive responses, which
illustrates the value participants saw from engaging in the MCI:
• “Exposure to new partnerships, services, and opportunities for our families
and students.”
• “We have gained resources and new ways to communicate.”
• “Our organization has gained a lot from our participation. We have adopted
the Strengthening Families framework to guide our practice, learn from the
implementation of others, are knowledgeable about many more community
resources, and have established strong partnerships with some organizations to
mutually serve clients.”
• “We received resources for our clients.”
• “A better communication with others.”
• “I think participating as a network partner has really allowed our agency to
shift the way we approach our work.”
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
62
• “Increased community impact.”
• “Participating in MCI is a rewarding experience; working collaboratively with
passionate, innovative professionals has influenced how I lead in my role and
my perspective on being of service.”
Client Referrals
The number of referrals—both referrals issued and referrals received from other
network partners—can serve as a simple measure of network participation by partner
organizations. A referral can result when an organization meets with a community
member and recognizes that the individual has needs the intake organization cannot
effectively address, or that in addition to services the intake organization can provide,
other services are necessary to stabilize or properly aid the client. Rather than simply tell
a client, “We can’t help you with that, you have to go elsewhere,” the organization can
refer the client to a specific organization, often within the network. This increases the
probability that the client will obtain the necessary service, rather than give up because of
a lack of information or a lack of understanding about the service provision system. The
referral system within the network alleviates many of the search costs for organizations,
as well as for the clients whom they serve, but it also requires an additional step beyond
simply rejecting a client as unserviceable. One survey respondent stated, “Outside of
Magnolia Place, I do not see warm handoffs or connections with the other agencies at
times.” Respondents were asked a binary (yes or no) question about whether they referred
clients to other network partner organizations. Eighty-seven percent of respondents
answered in the affirmative (Figure 7).
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
63
Figure 7. Percentage of Organizations Referring Clients to Network Partners

A subsequent question asked specifically if respondents linked clients to other
network partner organizations, a term that refers to a warm handoff. A warm handoff is
different than a simple referral in that it requires that the referring agency or
representative actually connect with the partner organization and personally refer the
client to the agency, thus necessitating an additional step for the referring agency, but
increasing the likelihood a client will follow through with the referral. Eighty-nine
percent of respondents answered in the affirmative (Figure 8). It is interesting to note that
slightly more partners engaged in the more time-consuming warm handoff than simple
referral. One respondent stated,
I appreciate the warm handoff, and taking clients for quality and not quantity
service…. I enjoy learning about other agencies and providing families with an
over all help, not just one-sided assistance. They can get a lot of needs met here in
one location.

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
64
Figure 8. Percentage of Organizations Linking Clients to Network Partners

Sharing Data Among Partner Organizations
An additional, critical aspect of participation in the MCI is the requirement that
partners share data with other network partners to identify effective or ineffective
programs, best practices, and shifting community needs, and to increase expertise.
Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents said they did share information within the
partnership (Figure 9). The subsequent question (i.e., “Please describe in one sentence
how your organization shares information with partner organizations”) resulted in
responses that included “via email,” “through meetings,” “the group site,” “passing out
fliers,” and “in person.”
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
65
Figure 9. Percentage of Organizations Sharing Information With Partners

Factors Associated With Change Related to Network Participation
In response to research question 3 (What factors are associated with changes in
the MCI related to participation in the network?), the factors identified in the descriptive
survey were (a) length of time spent in collaboration, (b) budget size and composition,
and (c) employee and volunteer characteristics. Regression analyses based upon the
survey data found that the following factors were statistically related to an organization’s
ability to participate in MCI: (a) length of time spent in collaboration; (b) having a
dedicated MCI liaison (i.e., having staff and budget resources to support it); and (c) an
increase of funding for the initiative (i.e., having a budget flexible enough to allow for it).
In addition, being a nonprofit had an unexpected negative correlation with involvement in
MCI (Table 6). This section presents data related to each of these factors associated with
realizing a change as a result of collaboration for MCI partners.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
66
Table 6. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Involvement in the MCI

Beta Std error t Sig level
Constant 5.853 3.544 1.65 0.107
Budget (total) -0.265 0.261 -1.02 0.316
Employees (full time) 0.268 0.296 0.90 0.371
Volunteers 0.016 0.276 0.06 0.955
Liaison 0.799 0.947 0.84 0.404
Time in the MCI 0.728 0.355 2.05 0.047
Allocate funds
(increased funding
specifically for the
MCI)
1.792 0.722 2.48 0.018
Nonprofit -2.803 0.938 -2.99 0.005
R
2
= 0.3922
F(sig) = 3.41 (0.0065)
n = 45

Length of Time in Collaboration
Approximately one-third (34%) of respondents indicated MCI network
participation between 1 and 3 years. Almost one-quarter (24%) cited network
participation for more than 5 years (Figure 10). The finding that 51% of respondents have
participated in the network for more than 3 years indicates the partnership’s continuing
value over time.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
67
Figure 10. Length of Participation in the MCI

Budget Size and Composition
Respondents’ reported budgets illustrate the disparity of financial power between
partners. See Appendix H for participating organizations’ years of founding and total
budgets. To understand the makeup of a partner organization’s budget, additional survey
questions inquired about both the organization’s funding sources and whether those
sources had any effect upon the organization’s ability to participate in the network. The
composition of MCI partner organizations’ revenue streams is illustrated in Figure 11.
Eighty-seven percent of respondent organizations indicated funding via individual,
corporate, and/or foundation giving, and 53% cited fee for service. “Other, please
specify” was an open-ended question, and responses included special events, donations,
and fundraisers.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
68
Figure 11. Percentage of Participants With Funding From Different Sources

A probit regression analysis indicated that an increase in funds allocated to
services related directly to the MCI was associated with an increased likelihood of the
survey respondent reporting a change in the organization’s provision of services (Table
7). One interviewee discussed the changes in service provision and the viewpoint from
which organizations evaluate the effectiveness of their work as a result of the MCI:
I’ve noticed that it makes it more difficult at the beginning because you’re asking
folks to think differently in some ways. So, if I’m a teacher in a classroom, I’ve
been trained to teach, do my lessons plan, and do what I need. So now, along the
way we come and say, “Gee, have you thought about the whole concept of ITC
and what does that look like and how would that look like in your classroom?
Have you thought about reading in the classroom… and not only just the reading
part of it, but now how do we document it? How do we document something that
the state is already asking you? You need to use these tools for these kids. Period.
But then can… you add more to that?”
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
69

Table 7. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in Provision
of Services

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -1.015 0.834 -1.22 0.223
Allocate funds 0.732 0.416 1.76 0.079
Involvement 0.010 0.098 0.10 0.922
Liaison -0.140 0.433 -0.32 0.746
Time in the
MCI
0.038 0.184 0.21 0.835
Nonprofit 0.137 0.415 0.33 0.741
Partner before 0.077 0.482 0.16 0.872
Pseudo R
2
= 0.0660
Chi-square (sig) = 4.28 (0.6386)
n = 51

Employee Characteristics
Survey respondents were asked the number of full- and part-time employees
within their organizations, and those who were representatives of national organizations
were directed to refer only to local Los Angeles operations. Additionally, a subsequent
question regarding volunteer numbers was asked to gauge potential participation capacity
on behalf of organizations that may not have significant numbers of, or any, contractually
employed staff.
The results illustrate the diversity of staffing among organizational partners
(Figures 12a, 12b, 12c). Despite some outliers in the data (e.g., Department of Mental
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
70
Health, the Chief Executive’s Office of Los Angeles County, and University of Southern
California), the largest groups of respondents said their organizations had either one to 10
employees or more than 100 (30% and 31%, respectively). In addition, 48% of
respondents indicated their organization maintained between one and 10 part-time staff
members.
Figure 12 (a, b, c). Number of Full-Time, Part-Time, and Volunteer Employees

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
71

An ordinary least squares regression analysis revealed two factors that were
significantly related to the total number of MCI liaisons an organization maintained
(Table 8). These were the total the number of part time and the number of volunteers in
the organization.
Table 8. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Number of Liaisons

Beta Std error t Sig level
Constant -0.168 1.598 -0.11 0.916
Budget(ln) -.0048 .1138 -0.04 0.966
Employees (full time) 0.209 0.147 1.42 0.162
Employees (part time) 0.420 0.238 1.76 0.085
Volunteers 0.204 0.114 1.79 0.080
R
2
= 0.3030
F(sig) = 4.78
n = 49

The regression analysis illustrated that as the number of part-time employees in
the organization increased, the total number of liaisons they had also increased. The mean
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
72
number of liaisons among all organizations was 2.46, with a standard deviation of 2.043.
The middle 50% of the data ranged from 1 to 3 liaisons, with an interquartile range (IQR)
of 2. The three organizations that reported either 8 or 10 liaisons were considered outliers
and were thus dropped from the analysis. Furthermore, as the number of volunteers in the
organization increased, the total number of liaisons they had also increased. Table 8
suggests that the more part-time or volunteer help an organization has available, the more
staff the organization is able to devote to acting as an MCI liaison. Specifically, adding
just five part-time employees was associated with an additional two people serving as
liaisons, and adding five volunteers was associated with one additional liaison.
A regression analysis suggests that three variables are positively related to the
total involvement of both the survey respondents and their respective organization within
the MCI (Table 9). The first is the length of time the organization had participated in
MCI, the second is whether they had partnered before, and the third is the amount of
funding allocated to participate in the MCI.
A second regression (Table 10) illustrates that having a liaison to the MCI (as
opposed to not having one) was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting a
change in referrals. One executive stated,
I think it’s really good at opening your eyes to other people in the field, because I
think we all tend to create these silos where we’re all doing our own thing and it’s
so, so helpful to be forced out of the box to be made aware of other organizations
and what they’re doing and how we could all crossover.
Another interviewee discussed the value inherent in the relationships created through
partnership in the MCI and the importance of fostering deeper trust among partners:
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
73
Also, I’ve been able to reach out to the staff and say, “Hey, we’ve got some
families that really need some mental healthcare, and they need some kind of
resource development and support network development. Can I refer them over to
you?” And one lady’s really good about just letting me text her, and she’ll shoot
me back: “Yes, I have an appointment this afternoon available. Tell them to come
in.”
Table 9. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Total Involvement of an Organization in
the MCI (Includes Previous Partnership and Budget Size as Variables)

Beta Std error t Sig level
Constant 5.610 4.040 1.39 0.172
Liaison -1.228 1.142 -1.08 0.288
Employees (full time) 0.307 0.363 0.85 0.403
Time in the MCI 0.734 0.423 1.74 0.090
Partner before 2.73 1.106 2.47 0.017
Allocate funds 6.668 0.968 6.89 0.000
Budget (increased
funding for the MCI)
-0.190 0.286 -0.66 0.510
Nonprofit -1.613 1.236 -1.30 0.199
Pseudo R
2
= 0.5976
F(sig) = 20.58 (0.0010)
n = 52

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
74
Table 10. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in Referrals

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -1.150 0.859 -1.34 0.181
Allocate funds -0.105 0.450 -0.23 0.815
Involvement 0.090 0.111 0.81 0.417
Liaison 0.730 0.432 1.69 0.091
Time in the MCI 0.210 0.199 1.05 0.293
Nonprofit -0.026 0.467 -0.05 0.956
Partner before 0.342 0.497 0.69 0.491
Pseudo R
2
= 0.1390
Chi-square (sig) = 8.33 (0.2149)
n = 51

Organization Characteristics and Perceived Changes in the MCI
In addressing research question 4 (Are perceived changes in the MCI related to
participation universal to all participants or specific to organizations with particular
characteristics?), the following four regressions indicated that being a nonprofit, as
opposed to being an organization that did not identify as a nonprofit, was associated with
an increased likelihood of reporting a change in research, a change in quality
improvement, a change in organizational structure, a change in internal operations, or a
change in community meetings. A number of additional regressions were run using all
the collected responses from question 25 on the survey, which inquired about
organizational change, and question 33, which inquired about organizational
improvement as a result of participating in the MCI.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
75
The first probit regression to address the fourth research question of this study
indicated that being a nonprofit was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting a
change in research (Table 11). Although “change in research” is vague terminology
because the change can be either positive or negative, the intent of the study was to
determine the impact of the partnership on organizational operations and partner
participants. Thus, change in research indicated that the partnership in some manner
caused a change in the area of research. Additional questions regarding the value of that
change were reserved for the 30-minute in-person interviews that occurred after the
online survey.
Table 11. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in Research

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -0.777 0.837 -0.93 0.354
Allocate funds -0.209 0.417 -0.50 0.616
Involvement 0.101 0.096 1.04 0.297
Liaison -0.202 0.421 -0.48 0.632
Time in the MCI -0.025 0.189 -0.13 0.896
Nonprofit 0.968 0.434 2.23 0.026
Partner before -0.364 0.480 -0.76 0.449
Pseudo R
2
= 0.0873
Chi-square (sig) = 5.96 (0.427)
n = 51

The second probit regression indicated that being a nonprofit organization was
associated with an increased likelihood of reporting a change in quality improvement
(Table 12). The MCI has collectively identified drivers of change that are variables
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
76
measuring the capacity within the network to improve outcomes. Research and
evaluation and quality improvement are terms used by network partners to refer to data
and improvement practices used to align efforts toward a shared outcome.
It is interesting to note that having a designated liaison to the MCI was associated
with a decreased likelihood of reporting a change in quality improvement. This result is
contrary to the interview data, which indicated that the initiative required significant
internal capacity and culture change within the partnering organization, and the role
necessitated strong effort and allocation of time to achieve.
Table 12. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in Quality

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -0.528 0.831 -0.64 0.525
Allocate funds -0.190 0.415 -0.46 0.646
Involvement 0.114 0.104 1.10 0.273
Liaison -0.949 0.504 -1.88 0.060
Time in the MCI 0.062 0.197 0.31 0.754
Nonprofit 1.290 0.448 2.88 0.004
Partner before -0.220 0.486 -0.45 0.650
Pseudo R
2
= 0.1730
Chi-square (sig) = 12.20 (0.0576)
n = 51

A third regression indicated that being a nonprofit was associated with an
increased likelihood of reporting a change in organizational structure (Table 13). This
change in organizational structure was illustrated by one interviewee:
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
77
Yes, it’s more that because we’re involved so deeply in the conversation of the
initiative of the approach, we’ve been able to apply that to our work in
environmental education. Not necessarily that we thought before… we had to be
psychologists, not that; it’s that now we know as an organization that we’re best
suited with our focus being zero to eight, for example. So, our board used to go
back and forth: maybe we should start serving—we go up to 3rd grade, right?—
maybe we should start administering programs for 4th grade. Now, we know,
because we have this sort of work, this body of work with MCI, to say, “You
know what? It’s okay for us to carve out this niche and to be really good at birth
to 3rd grade.” So, it’s helped us define where our expertise is as an environmental
education organization.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
78

Table 13. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Organizational Structure

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -0.568 0.824 -0.69 0.491
Allocate funds -0.227 0.429 -0.53 0.596
Involvement 0.134 0.103 1.31 0.191
Liaison -0.476 0.427 -1.12 0.265
Time in the MCI -0.031 0.191 -0.16 0.873
Nonprofit 0.803 0.444 1.81 0.070
Partner before -0.584 0.470 -1.24 0.214
Pseudo R
2
= 0.0956
Chi-square (sig) = 6.20 (0.4006)
n = 51

The fourth and final regression revealed that being a nonprofit organization was
associated with the survey respondent reporting an increased likelihood of a change in
community meetings (Table 14). This variable indicates a change in the structure or
engagement/participation of organizations or partner participants in community meetings.
This correlation is a logical result of engaging in the MCI, through which any
organization is able to engage with the surrounding community via partner organizations,
MCI- and partner-sponsored community meetings and events, programming in the MCI
building, or interacting with community ambassadors through meetings and events. This
regression is the fourth occurrence that being a nonprofit organization results in the
survey respondent indicating an improvement or change as a result of participation in the
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
79
MCI (i.e., reporting a change in research, reporting a change in quality improvement,
reporting a change in structure, and reporting a change in community meetings).
However, regression 4 in this study’s section entitled “How Organizations Participate in
the MCI” indicated that, compared with all other organization types within the network,
being a nonprofit organization was correlated with a decrease in involvement.
Nevertheless, as shown by the analyses reported in this section, nonprofits often benefit
from participation in the MCI more than do other participating organization types. This
paradox demonstrates the challenges faced by nonprofit organizations in their effort to
better serve their communities through partnership, while at the same time ensuring
sufficient organizational capacity to serve their own organizational mission and goals.
One interviewee stated,
Of course, but I feel like it adds to, in some way, and contributes to what we’re
doing, so it’s an exchange. It’s with anything else, if I’m taking 30 minutes to
meet and do this, it means that there’s something else that’s blowing up that I’ll
eventually get to.
This study illustrated that often the exchange that nonprofits must broker in their attempt
to expand their organizational capacity by engaging in a partnership such as the MCI is
precluded by the simple fact that they do not have the resources, either dollars or staff, to
do so.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
80

Table 14. Probit Regression Estimation of Likelihood of Reporting a Change in
Community Meetings

Beta Std error z Sig level
Constant -.639 0.821 -0.78 0.436
Allocate funds -0.100 0.396 -0.25 0.801
Involvement 0.026 0.095 0.27 0.783
Liaison 0.355 0.422 0.84 0.401
Time in the MCI -0.077 0.182 -0.42 0.671
Nonprofit 0.780 0.411 1.90 0.057
Partner before 0.090 0.459 0.20 0.845
Pseudo R
2
= 0.0672
Chi-square (sig) = 4.75 (0.5766)
n = 51

Challenges Perceived in Initiative Engagement
At the conclusion of both the online survey as well as the interviews, respondents
were given the opportunity to express any challenges they perceived in participation.
Their responses illustrate the overarching difficulty of allocating sufficient time to the
initiative, which further demonstrates the corresponding need for continued personal
gains (in addition to organizational benefits) to ensure iterated participation and efforts on
the part of the MCI participants:
• “It takes a significant amount of time, energy, and intention for thoughtful
participation (personally and organizationally), which is not prescribed by
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
81
MCI itself, and the complexity can be overwhelming and might not be a good
fit if you are not able/willing/ready to commit.”
• “Time consuming.”
• “It might distract you from your own mission.”
• “The meetings can be a bit daunting. It can feel as if you have to take on
additional tasks outside of your regular scope of work to participate. It can be
difficult to figure out where you fit in the picture.”
As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, partner participants act as network
representatives on behalf of their organization, while maintaining the daily
responsibilities that comprise their actual job. The demand for high-quality service
delivery, while faced with limited resources, often drives organizations into the network
in the first place. Yet the actions of participating personnel become the critical change
catalysts in their organizations in terms of implementing new concepts, models, and
service delivery methods, and disseminating information received as a part of a
networked community. The consistent challenge of not enough time illustrates one of the
difficulties partners face in engaging in consistent and long-term partnerships. Time is a
soft cost necessary for participation.
Summary
Information about the intrinsic value gained by both the partner participants and
the organizations they represent is important to describe and understand—not only for the
participants’ benefit, but for external stakeholders, as well. Members of boards, outside
funders, and organizations considering entering networked initiative systems such as the
MCI could benefit from understanding the more nuanced values gained by participation,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
82
rather than focusing strictly on community outputs, which are difficult to isolate and have
long time horizons. In addition, the costs to partners identified in this chapter are
important to assess and incorporate in any organization’s evaluation of entering or
remaining in the partnership.
Although the overall response of partner participants was very positive regarding
the value they perceived in partnering in the MCI, one universal criticism was the lack of
time available for consistent, active participation in the network, coupled with what many
perceived as the need for significant effort and intentionality required to achieve value.
This can be considered a concern for all potential partners and organizations considering
engaging in a community initiative. As governments and nonprofits endeavor to provide
high-level services, with smaller budgets and fewer staff, collaborative-impact initiatives
afford a viable opportunity to successfully achieve these goals.
Yet, often the values sought in partnership are not the same as those that are
ultimately gained. Simply entering a partnership with the sole focus of augmenting or
improving service delivery will arguably not sustain long-term investment by an
organization or its participating staff. As this study demonstrated, the benefits extend far
beyond service delivery mechanisms. Although improvement in the background
operations behind service delivery, as a result of participation, can be difficult to measure
in nonprofits, a significant intrinsic benefit to participation nonetheless remains even
beyond other the scope of other types of organizations. These benefits must be
championed, in addition to improved service delivery, to encourage the continued growth
of networked initiatives such as the MCI.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
83

Chapter 4: Discussion and Conclusions
Introduction
Community challenges, or so-called wicked problems (Roberts, 2000), are
increasing in complexity, vastness, and diversity, and no agency alone can create the
widespread systemic change that is the only hope for potential solutions. Understanding a
partner organization’s role in participation in a network, and the resulting costs
organizations must assume to participate, is an important subject for study because the
function and scope of networks in all systems continue to grow and expand. As described
by Wei-Skillern, Silver, and Heitz (2013), “Networks hold the potential for generating
impact at a scale exponentially greater than the sum of their individual parts” (p. 24);
thus, understanding how networks operate on the participant organization level is critical
to ensuring that networks are viable long-term, and are successful both for the partnering
organizations as well as for their community(ies) of focus. Recognizing and championing
the immediate or short-term value of participation for organizations are key to
encouraging initial engagement and enduring buy-in when the measurement of outputs
may be infrequent or absent for years after an intervention begins. To encourage
continued investment on the part of participant organizations, the value opportunities for
participating organizations must continually renew and not become stagnant or redundant
(Austin, 2000).
Unfortunately, the measurement of network success is often the defined metric of
social change established by the initiative, but such a metric has very long-term horizons
and is difficult to clearly attribute to either the efforts of a single organization that is part
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
84
of the initiative or to the initiative itself. Recognizing this challenge, coupled with the
need to evaluate the health and success of networks, Provan and Milward (2001) stated,
“For organizations considering becoming part of a network, the relevant question is, how
can network involvement benefit my agency?” (p. 420). Value in partnership much be
demonstrated; thus, this study sought to qualify the values as well as the costs that result
from partnership within the MCI, on the organizational level.
The Broad Goals of the Study
The research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the true organizational costs associated with participation in the
MCI?
2. Do agencies that participate in the MCI perceive any changes related to their
participation in the network?
3. What factors are associated with perceived changes in the MCI related to
participation in the network?
4. Are perceived changes in the MCI related to participation universal to all
participants or specific to organizations with particular characteristics?
The lens of focus in this study was on the staff-driven inputs (both personal and
on behalf of the partnering organization), and not on the overall community outputs of
the partnering organizations. Information from partners was sought via an online survey,
and the results of those surveys identified 10 organizations—five that were high
participators in the network and five that were low—to interview to further understand
and qualify some of the data obtained via the online survey.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
85
The Goals of the MCI and Network Success
The MCI is a collaboration among agencies that differs from most task-based
community-based networks, which are based on time-defined issues. The MCI’s mission
and vision is to:
[have] 35,000 children living in the neighborhoods within a 5-square mile/500
blocks of the Magnolia Catchment Area break all records of success in their
education and their health, and the quality of nurturing care and the economic
stability they receive from their families and community (Bowie, n.d., p. 2).
Not only is this vision indefinite, but it also lacks clearly defined measures of success.
While 65% of the community live in poverty, 35% are overweight, 40% enter
kindergarten unprepared, 70% are not proficient in reading by the 3rd grade, and 40% fail
to graduate, the question of true success, to a degree, is elusive and defined individually
by each organizational participant. In addition, the MCI model has several key structural
elements that include:
• Communities of practice or learning groups are developed based on the interest of
the group and are not defined solely by needs demonstrated by the community
thus personal, staff driven engagement in MCI is an embedded resource.
• Leadership is not formal or prescriptive; thus, there are no sanctions for
noncompliance, and network borders for entry and exit are porous. Organizations
are able to exit the initiative if the influence of partnership is no longer of value or
other factors preclude continued engagement.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
86
• No lead agency or third party entity is funneling money to organizations to
compensate for the costs of participation; therefore the true costs of participation
can be assessed.
• No explicit extrinsic rewards are given to community members or organizations,
therefore the value proposition for remaining in the network must be clear and
continuously renewing to ensure enduring buy in or the network will ultimately
fail.
Wei-Skillern et al. (2013) cited four principles of engagement for successful
network implementation:
1. Advance the mission of the network, not the organization;
2. Trust and shared values are more important than formal control mechanisms
such as contracts or accountability systems;
3. Organizations work alongside their peers as equals and willingly take a
backseat when their partners are in a better position to lead;
4. Partnering organizations are one part of a larger web of activity directed
toward a cause, not as the hub of the action. (p. 2).
The MCI in many ways subscribes to these four best practices, especially the model of
participating in a web of activities, rather than focusing on a centralized hub for direction
or command and control. Furthermore, Wei-Skillern et al. focused on the intrinsic value
of trust among partner agencies and the value that collaboration provides in reducing
redundancy and enabling “participants to deliver greater mission impact more efficiently
and effectively without a dramatic expansion of internal organizational capacity and
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
87
resources” (p. 5). This focus provided a basis for a number of this study’s online and in-
person survey questions.
A number of questions posed in the survey sought to quantify the magnitude of
influence network service delivery collaborations have upon the participating
organizations. Although warm handoffs and data sharing among partners within the
network provide value in reducing research and transaction costs for partners, this study
sought to determine if other values or changes accrued from participation extended
beyond simply the service delivery component of the organization’s structure. The MCI
provides many opportunities for brown bag sharing lunches, professional development
activities, and professional networking, but all require time during business hours and
therefore can prove difficult to justify during challenging economic times. The true cost
of partnership becomes an important area to consider when viewed in light of the
increasing importance of network service delivery systems in addressing our most
complex challenges.
In addition to cost, the incentive to participate in the MCI is an equally important
variable for network evaluators to consider. Any expenditures for projects, consultants,
strategic values assessements, and multi-year plans are stringently evaluated by
organization managment for measurable value to the organization to determine if they
merit diverting mission-related spending to infrastructure or governance costs. Often,
values gained in collaboration are not easily quantified. Yet while these values incur to
the organization itself or to the participating staff members, they ultimately reach the
community through better practices, less redundancy, more robust data assessments, and
improved interagency service delivery. Therefore, this study sought to understand both
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
88
sides of the equation of practice: the cost of participation and the perceived value in
doing so, in order to understand if in fact collaboration is worth the investment.
Discussion of the Findings
The following are the findings made pursuant to this study, based on the survey
and interview data, as well as reflections on the relevant literature.
Organizational Costs Associated With the MCI
Numerous organizational costs were expended in order for organizations to
participate in MCI. The most significant costs were associated with designating or
reallocating staff to participate in the initiative on behalf of partner organizations,
participating in MCI designated activities, and the need to align partner organizations’
operations, programs, and resources to support the global efforts of the initiative.
Dedicated staff as MCI liaisons. Face-to-face interactions (Ansell & Gash,
2008); the alignment of strategy, mission, and values (Austin, 2000); and continuous
coordination of activities or outputs (Alter, 1990) have all been identified as important to
the success of a network partnership. Each of these elements requires the physical
involvement of a representative from each partnering organization, which incurs time,
focus, and effort that is arguably not part of a partner organization’s core mission. In fact,
no surveyed organization indicated that MCI participation was the sole mission-driven
focus of its organization. Furthermore, continuous, consistent representation by one or
more (i.e., if an agency allocated more than one) representatives is preferable to frequent
changes in partner representatives. This presents an additional challenge for nonprofits
staffed primarily by volunteers. Volunteer staffs are continuously shifting; thus,
consistency in representation becomes difficult, if not impossible. According to the
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
89
literature, joint efforts, initiatives, and projects are routinely derailed by repeated turnover
of staff members, and trust can only be cultivated and preserved with consistent
representation (Van Slyke, 2007). Van Slyke identified trust as a product of repeated
exchanges of success and timely compliance. Increased trust, in turn, results in the
reduction of transaction costs and of search costs, and improves joint programming and
facilitates data and information sharing.
Seventy-five percent of survey respondents indicated that their organizations
designate a staff or volunteer representative to serve as a liaison to MCI. This illustrates
not only the value that organizations placed upon participation in the network, but also
the importance of consistent representation and the availability of a designated
employee(s) to manage the information sharing and ongoing participation within the
MCI. The existence of a designated MCI representative on behalf of a specific partner
organization is of considerable value in terms of consistency, frequency, and efficiency of
representation within a network. However, it incurs a staffing cost that many smaller
organizations may not be able to assume.
Participation in MCI designated activities. Participation by staff representatives
on behalf of their organization in MCI related activities is directly related to the
availability of staff. Seventy-three percent of individual respondents attended MCI
meetings on behalf of their organization, 50% participated in work groups or attending
workshops and 48% personally worked on activities with other network providers outside
meetings. While these opportunities consistently renew the value proposition articulated
by Austin (2000) they nonetheless impose costs on partner organizations in terms of staff
time, resources, focus, and community engagement. Engagement in meetings,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
90
workgroups, workshops, data collection and sharing, and other activities all require the
presence of staff members to participate. Additionally, continuity of representation is an
important factor in the augmentation of trust and reliance among partner organizations,
therefore, the presence of a designated staff liaison to the network is of critical
importance.
Although participation may at times be a line-item cost, it is more often a soft
cost, in that organizations use or reallocate existing personnel to represent them within
the network, essentially diverting personnel from direct, mission-related community
investment to a more macro or holistic approach to community engagement through the
network by participating in diverse MCI activities. Participation in this way may prove
problematic for nonprofits and organizations already stretched to resource capacity when
they try to justify a more holistic approach to governing boards or funders, who generally
seek direct, rapid measurement of success. It is at this inflection point that the allocation
of government or philanthropic funding may be of significant value in light of such
concerns. The certainty of a consistent revenue stream may encourage more innovative
and longer-term strategic approaches, which network performance requires.
Alignment of organizational service delivery. Lack of alignment with the
initiative is costly for nonprofits when organizational efforts are split between competing
foci. True alignment allows organizations to leverage their efforts and resources with the
greater initiative, thus broadening impact and scope and reducing the costs of doing
business. As Wei-Skillern et al. (2013) stated:
Leadership, money, talent—have dramatically more impact when leveraged
across organizations, fields and sectors. This approach saves each organization
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
91
from trying to do everything on its own, generates powerful synergies and
promotes the mutual allocation of resources toward where they can make the most
impact (p. 21).
Alignment also reduces partners’ investment of staff time that partners must
expend to align their activities and resources toward the mission and strategies of the
initiative. The long-term goals of the initiative are improving the ability of families to
provide safe and nurturing care for their children, improving the health and well-being of
families, improving the ability of children ages zero to five to succeed in elementary
school, improving the economic stability of families, and creating and improving care
pathways and linkages for families. While these long-term goals are expansive and
encompass the outputs of many service delivery agencies, often specific agencies address
only one or two within their core mission-related functions. Organizational partners must
focus on what it would take to change outcomes for all children in the catchment area,
rather than just for those families they serve as clients (Elroy, 2014, para 4). The online
survey results suggest that the few organizations that did not give high ratings potentially
incur a significant human capital and financial resource cost in endeavoring to align their
organizational focus with the long-term goals of the MCI
Lack of institutional alignment presents a further challenge to members of the
boards of nonprofit organizational partners, many of whom do not participate in the
network themselves. They have difficulty appreciating the need or value of realigning
their internal core mission or focus with MCI’s theories of change, when viewed in light
of the organizational costs. Such efforts are time consuming, distract staff from core
mission focus, and require expending precious funds on non-core activities. Thus,
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
92
educating the boards, justifying costs, demonstrating the value in realigning practices,
and altering core focus strategies are all byproducts of initiative engagement that the
partner participants must address; moreover, each requires staff time and funds to
implement.
Changes Associated With Participation in the MCI
Gulati (1995) discussed prior participation in networks as an important variable
for consideration because trust can be developed by experience in prior alliances. This
factor is one, among others, that was evaluated in this study to examine the benefits of
participation accrued in light of organizational or personal values. A narrowed lens in this
evaluation was an assessment of the ability of smaller nonprofits to participate in
networks at a level that correlated with value gained in doing so—more specifically, how
much investment in the network was required before resulting values were perceived or
gained, either organizationally or personally by the partner participant.
This survey identified the many values recognized by partner participants as
gained as a result of the initiative both by participating staff as well as the organizations
themselves. These included increased warm hand-offs for clientele, improved service
referrals as partner participants are aware of the expanse of available services in the MCI,
less redundancy in services, numerous professional development opportunities, an
increase in community and external relationships, increased trust among peers and
agencies, a change in the area of research and data collection, a change in quality
improvement practices used to align organizational efforts towards a shared outcome, a
change in the manner of service provision and internal operations. Finally, the
respondents reported increased satisfaction working in the third sector as a result of MCI
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
93
was an unexpected benefit numerous respondents identified as a value perceived as a
result of partnership.
Organizational changes. Respondents reported notable changes across multiple
areas as a result of participation in MCI. Professional development opportunities were
cited in addition to changes in quality improvement and changes in research and
evaluation. Respondents also agreed that participation in the network increased
opportunity for collaboration, it improved organizational performance, created trust
between partnering organizations and provided participant providers a wider service net
for their clients. These changes as a result of collaboration illustrate the important
outcomes that ultimately, through improved operations and professional development
opportunities, have an impact on the surrounding community of service.
Client referrals. Partnering organizations within the MCI use services and
information found within the network for the benefit of their clients as well as their own
organizations. Service redundancy or ineffective efforts because of confounding or
complex needs cost precious resources, and the search costs partner representatives must
expend to connect clients to necessary or complementary services are greatly reduced by
capitalizing upon the connection made in the network. The ability to connect clients with
a vast range of services was cited by many respondents in open-ended questions as of
great value. Statements such as “I would recommend partnership because of the wide
range of services that you have at your disposal to refer to parents” and “the most
valuable for me is the increased ability to develop professional partnerships with other
agencies for the benefit of families in the community” illustrate the value partner
participants perceived in simply being able to serve their clients more effectively.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
94
Data sharing among partner organizations. Barringer and Harrison (2000)
described how forming partnerships to capitalize on opportunities for organizational
learning provides one of the most common catalysts for creating interorganizational
relationships. Sharing information was repeatedly cited in the open-ended question
section of the online study as one of the main ways partner organizations and
representatives benefit from the MCI. While the information sharing supported one of the
MCI’s goals of creating a learning network, it also provided the critical benefit of
educating partner organizations about the services and opportunitites available within the
network. One respondent stated, “It is very important for us to have information about the
organizations collaborating in this effort because we familiarize ourselves with them.”
Thus, while information sharing provided the overarching value of tracking the health
and well-being of the catchment community, it served the additional goal of educating
partner organizations about the services and benefits available for organizational learning
as well as for the benefit of their clients.
Factors Associated With Change Related to Network Participation
Numerous factors were associated with partner participants’ reported changes
related to participation in MCI. These factors included an organization’s length of time in
collaboration, an organization’s budget size and composition, and an organization’s
employment characteristics.
Length of time in collaboration. Increased time in the network was associated
with increased involvement in the MCI. More time spent in the network provides partner
organizations with valuable benefits, such as increased trust among agencies, the sharing
of information, professional development opportunities, and an increase of connections
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
95
among providers within the network. The length of time in which an organization
participates in the network provides an opportunity to form organic partnerships, expand
and deepen its relationships, and orient itself within the partnership. Workgroups are an
extension of these relationships that emerge over time. Additionally, a staff person is
necessary to fully engage in workgroups, meetings, or strategic initiative planning
activities. Organizations with smaller budgets, smaller or shoestring staffs, and large
internal responsibilities are precluded from strong involvement in the network, and these
characteristics
Time in the partnership may validate to that organization the values of
participation: increased trust among agencies; sharing of information and best practices;
professional development activities; and fostering of relationships among organization
representatives, which improves employees’ well-being and their own sense of support
and accomplishment. All these elements present a clear picture to longer-participating
organizations that the expenditure for a designated liaison to participate in the network is
outweighed by the benefits; thus, more time in the initiative results in organizations
having at least one designated liaison.
The length of time an organization has partnered may provide a clearer
understanding of the immediate and long-term benefits of the partnership, resulting in a
level of organizational patience based on historical experience in partnerships.
Additionally, trust among long-partnering agencies and others is heightened, and
adoption and alignment of core organizational functions with the goals of the MCI may
have already occurred over time. These elements may encourage continued participation,
as does previous experience in partnership. An organization that has experience in
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
96
previous partnerships is thus aware of the challenges inherent in collaborations, and is
equally aware that benefits do accrue, but over time, and with investment. Hence,
previous partnership provides an organization with the historical framework with which
to approach the MCI, and challenges are absorbed more readily because they are
anticipated from prior experience and are not fatal to continued participation.
Budget size and composition. The academic literature is clear in citing the need
for consistent revenue streams, such as government funding, to ensure network success.
Government funding has been identified as an important variable in an organization’s
ability to partner (Graddy & Chen, 2006; Gulati, 1995, 1998; Guo & Acar, 2005). A
logical conclusion for this preference is that government funding is often highly
consistent (even in years of budget crises), and time horizons for government grants are
often much longer than are those for most other grants. This provides organizations with
some modicum of breathing room during annual budget assessments, which provides a
financial allowance for participation in external engagement strategies beyond the core
mission in a way that insecure budgets would not. Fees-for-service are another valuable
income stream, but the amounts organizations charge vary and are highly dependent on
the surrounding community and its corresponding needs. Philanthropic dollars can
provide much-needed financial cushions of protection; however, most philanthropic
donors allocate grants to specific programs. Only a rare donor will provide unrestricted
general operating support that may be used to participate in a network, and that action
may or may not fall squarely within the organization’s service provision system.
Therefore, budget composition is an important factor in determining the flexibility a
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
97
partner organization has in allocating funding or resources to network activities that do
not fall strictly within the boundaries of its mission-driven or core service investments.
The factors that consistently emerged in this study as important elements to
participate in the initiative are earmarked budget allocation to participate in the initiative
to pay staff costs for a designated MCI liaison, the availability of staff to participate, and
prior experience in partnerships. Each requires the expenditure of resources, whether it be
financial resources in order to participate, or staff time. The need for such resources may
effectively preclude grassroots, front-line nonprofit agencies from being deeply involved
in the initiative because resources are too constrained in providing core and mission
driven services and this may present a fatal flaw to any intervention strategy. Smaller
nonprofits are critical community partners, often representing the needs of the community
with whom they interface on a daily basis. Lack of participation by nonprofits in any
initiative effectively mutes an entire segment of the third sector that must remain at the
collective community table. In addition, anecdotal information consistently referenced
the need for time: time to orient within the network, time to understand the initiative itself
and most important, sufficient time to both participate in the network and at the same
time, complete day to day assigned organizational operations. Lack of sufficient time to
participate in the network was cited most frequently as a significant challenge for
engaged participation.
Allocated funding to support programs or activities related to the MCI was
associated with increased involvement with the MCI. Allocated or increased funding to
support programs or activities was a need consistently voiced by interviewees for this
study. All partners surveyed and interviewed recognized that costs are associated with
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
98
participation. Although many interviewees recognized a clear value to the organization as
well as to the participant representative (i.e., an organization staff member who
represents the organization in the network on its behalf), they reported it was often
difficult to allocate very constrained resources for an activity that was not directly related
to service delivery or an organization’s core mission. Thus, the expectation that partners
can simply find a way, or find the time, is incorrect and problematic. Consistent
investment is necessary, as is a “continuously renewing value proposition,” and the MCI
does not have a lead agency or third party entity specifically funneling money to
organizations to compensate for the costs of participation (Austin, 2000). This factor is an
important issue for consideration for long-term viability of the network, as well as
diversity of partners. If only highly staffed or large-budget nonprofit agencies, large
universities, or for profit institutions are able to participate in the MCI, the initiative
cannot successfully address the macro problems of the community, which requires
holistic investment from all sectors to solve.
Employee characteristics. Strong budgets or consistent income streams affect
the number of employees an organization is able to employ, as well as the number of
volunteers a nonprofit can manage and supervise. Volunteers require training,
coordination, space, and management, all of which require human capital. Again, due to
the often-cited need for a champion and paid staff to ensure the success of a network
(Agranoff, 2006; Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Jolin et al., 2012), small organizations with
few staff and nonprofits that may have no staff are potentially at a distinct disadvantage
when partnering. Such organizations lose the benefit of a dedicated representative and the
value gained by consistent and long-term representation. Therefore, the number of full-
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
99
time, part-time, and volunteer employees is a function of an organization’s overall budget
and a variable for measure when assessing an organization’s capacity to participate in a
network. It is reasonable to assume that organizations with large staffs have more
employees available to represent them within the network than do organizations with
small staffs.
Jolin et al. (2012) stated that a dedicated staff person is necessary to drive a
collaborative on behalf of organizations. If this is, in fact, a requirement for engaged and
valuable participation, then significant barriers to entry exist for small nonprofits with
low operating budgets because they cannot afford to dedicate a staff person to the
initiative. This is an Achilles heel of a network because the success of any community or
network service delivery system initiative is heavily reliant on the ground-level social
capital and community trust maintained by grassroots nonprofit organizations.
Type of Organization and Perceived Changes in the MCI
Nonprofits often benefit from participation more than do other participating
organization types. Nonprofit organizations, as opposed to another organization type,
were associated with an increased likelihood in reporting a change in research, a change
in quality improvement, a change in organizational structure, a change in internal
operations and a change in community meetings. However, compared with all other
organization types within the network, being a nonprofit was correlated with a decrease
in involvement in MCI. This paradox demonstrates the challenges faced by nonprofit
organizations in their effort to better serve their communities through partnership, while
at the same time ensuring sufficient organizational capacity to serve their own
organizational mission and goals.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
100
This result is problematic for the initiative. Nonprofit organizations are a critical
support system within both the catchment community and the network itself. Their
presence provides value with on-the-ground social capital among the community
residents, as well as relationships and connections among MCI partners. Nonprofits gain
significant value within collaboratives: search costs are reduced; environmental
turbulence is smoothed by widely distributing risk; personal and organization knowledge
is increased; and participant nonprofits can focus on core missions and strengths and
engage in referrals, rather than attempts to internally serve all their client’s needs.
However, nonprofits exist in a continuous cycle of starvation, and reallocating
valuable funds to participate in a non-mission related activity is preclusive. Furthermore,
most funders prefer to directly support programming costs. Participation in the MCI is
not a direct programming cost, unless a program is tailored around participation; thus,
funding must come from general operations, which are one of the hardest areas for which
to raise money. Thus, nonprofits must choose to allocate their resources to maintaining
programs and operations; external investments, even if beneficial, are not possible. In
collaborations such as the MCI, where much of the information sharing occurs face to
face, in meetings, at brown bag events, and at lectures and professional development
opportunities, having available personnel is an essential element for effective partnership
and collaboration. The number of available staff to contribute on behalf of an
organization is likely correlated with the number of staff available at any given time.
Organizations with very small budgets, or with very small staffs, are at a distinct
disadvantage when endeavoring to participate in a partnership at a significant level.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
101
The costs to engage in the MCI can be challenging for nonprofits to redirect from
core grant or mission-related activities. External support restricted to MCI engagement
could be of significant value, well beyond the dollar value of a grant, because it would
provide the assistance an organization needs to participate fully in the network, but also
because it would alleviate the discomfort an organization feels when core mission funds
are redirected to non-core mission activities. This is an area wherein philanthropy can
provide a significant value with grant investments to support networking activities.
Ansell and Gash (2008) cited imbalances of power and resource between
networked organizations as a critical variable that influences the success or failure of
collaboration. A significant disproportion in terms of assets or organizational size among
partners is a challenge that smaller organizations must address in order to be perceived as
viable, and recognized partners in a large collective service delivery system. In addition,
disparity in organizational type and focus results in different objectives for participation:
Gazley and Brudney (2007) cited the desire of government organizations to seek local
expertise in addressing community problems as a catalyst for collaboration (which
illustrates the need for front-line nonprofit organizations), whereas nonprofits seek
funding. Thus, organizations with different sizes, structures, and resource levels enter
partnerships for different reasons. A resulting challenge is to ensure that network
outcomes are of equal value to different types or sizes of organizations so that the
population of organizational partners will not weigh more heavily toward one type or size
of organization than toward another.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
102
Limitations of the Study
This study sought to understand both individual- and organizational-level costs
and value in partnership; thus, the survey was disseminated to all staff members who
participated in MCI. However, although employees made representations regarding their
organizations, their impressions could not be imputed to the organizations. For this
reason, the data were interpreted through the lens of the partner participants and not the
participating organizations. Additional efforts would be needed to assess pre- and post-
collaboration of organizational structures to determine with more certainty the impact of
collaboration on the organizations themselves.
Furthermore, the survey distributed to the MCI participants had a total of 40
questions, most of which were binary to ensure better participation and survey
completion. Because respondents could abandon the survey and not complete it,
extremely challenging questions that would potentially require referencing materials, data
or inquiring of other co-employees where not used in favor of simplicity and ease of
response. This strategy was intended to avoid a worst-case scenario in which a survey
respondent decided that other organizational representatives had more or better answers,
and therefore that responded failed to complete the survey. Thus, for example, question
#23 asked “Does your organization allocate funding to support programs or activities
related to MCI?” Because the response choices were “Yes,” “No,” and “I don’t know,”
an organization that allocated $1,000 to activities related to the MCI would have the same
answer as an organization that allocated $50,000. This limited the survey’s ability to
tease out the more nuanced relationships among participants in an effort to simply
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
103
understand how many organizations were willing to contribute with direct funding
support to participate in MCI.
Additionally, a number of questions inquired whether survey respondents noted a
“change” in a particular area of their organization as a result of MCI. The use of the word
“change” absent further inquiry as to whether the change was positive or negative
precluded a more nuanced understanding of the personal and organizational results of
partnership.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based upon the open-ended responses
gathered in the online survey, as well as comments from the interviews. Although some
recommendations may be of generalized value to network administration, they are
tailored to the specific architecture of the MCI.
Institutionalize the Backbone Role
Although a network is often described as strictly horizontal, with little
bureaucratic control, the literature frequently addresses the critical need for a centralized
hub or backbone agency. Provan and Milward (1995) stated, “Networks centralized
around a lead organization were more effective than dense, strongly tied networks,
raising questions about the effectiveness of ‘fully integrated’ networks” (p. 49). Such a
lead organization should be responsible for the “overall strategic direction of the
network,” managing the data, facilitating dialog and information exchange between
partners, coordinating the outreach regarding the network, and assisting with funding for
participation within the network (Hanleybrown et al., 2012, p. 6). Thomson et al. (2009)
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
104
argued that some form of administrative structure must exist in order to transition the
initial governance strategies into action within the broader community framework.
One vital element to centralized integration is the gathering and utilization of
shared data and metrics. Collective data shared among all partners, positive or negative,
assists with leveraging the commitment to shared goals among partners and encourages
innovation and experimentation in an effort to broaden organic adherence to best
practices and successful intervention strategies. It also promotes truthful reporting to
allow other partners to learn from described missteps. Information sharing promotes trust
as well as consistent learning opportunities that constantly renew the intrinsic value
gained by participating organizations. Herranz (2008) described a centrally integrated
network administrative organization as most effective at facilitating network performance
and Jolin et al. (2012) clearly stated, “Having a dedicated staff is critical to success, as is
a staff structure appropriate to the collaborative’s plan and goals” (p. 9).
An important role for the backbone agency is to regularly demonstrate the value
in collaboration through collective action, information sharing, coordination of efforts via
tangible (program) implementation of shared values, overall strategic vision or direction,
and sustained action among partners. And yet, as accurately identified by Jolin et al.
(2012), securing funding to support such an infrastructure or overhead of network
administration is extremely difficult, because such an agency, in providing behind-the-
scenes support to a diverse system of organizations, is not providing a direct and clearly
measureable community service.
Although a backbone organization must assume the costs necessary to perform
the functions that assist with administering and championing the network, the partner
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
105
participants also assume both direct as well as indirect, or soft, costs to participate. This
study sought to understand the breadth of the full costs of participation from the
organizational vantage point, viewed through a lens equally focused on the perceived
benefits such costs of participation provide, and the internal balancing of these variables.
A sense of community ownership is important for the long-term viability of the
initiative because not only do shared responsibility and ownership encourage investment
of time and resources by many participants, but a hierarchy may become costly and can
encourage opportunistic behavior by non-invested partner organizations that may be
deterred by a shared ownership structure (Gulati, 1995). However, in the case of MCI, the
lack of a centralized leadership-like function or hub proved challenging and confusing to
participant organizations.
The anecdotal research of the in-person interviews identified specific roles needed
from a backbone agency or centralized information hub. Foremost among the needs
expressed is a champion and storyteller, or an entity consistently poised to tell the story
of the MCI and the values it presents to both partners and the community. Equally critical
is a proactive, centralized hub that plays a matchmaker of sorts to organizations that
operate in the same or similar spheres, as helping to combine complementary
organizations would further reduce search costs for agencies and ensure that
organizations eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies.
Partner participants seek direction from a centralized source to describe the value,
the work, and the organizational benefits incurred by participating in the MCI. In
addition, they seek opportunities to share experiences with other partnering organizations
to orient themselves and their organizations within the network and assume their
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
106
appropriate roles. Partner participants look to a centralized source to serve these roles,
and at present the role is intentionally vacant. When the MCI was envisioned, the lack of
designated ownership or a centralized backbone agency enabled collective buy-in of the
initiative, and it also ensured that the MCI would not be locally tied to a specific
organization, and thus could be replicated anywhere. Yet while the lack of prescriptive
leadership is important to promote collective buy-in of the initiative and its goals, the
centralized infrastructure vacuum presents challenges for both presenting a clear sense of
direction based on collective input, as well as a clear messaging strategy to augment
financial support from outside of the MCI.
At present, agencies must seek funding to participate in the MCI on their own.
While this provides an opportunity for individual tailoring of funding requests, it
nonetheless requires that an agency not seek funding for a core function in lieu of
requesting infrastructure support for the initiative. Based on survey and interview
responses, this is clearly a significant challenge for agencies. An institutionalized,
independent 501(c)(3) agency would enable funders to support the collective and the
participants within the collective, through a designated pass through agency. Presently,
supporters can only fund single agencies rather than initiative issues, because to do so
would require a single agency allocating funds in support of the collective. An
institutionalize backbone agency would solve this challenge.
While the lack of sanctions for noncompliance and the porousness of the network
borders promote unfettered organizational engagement, the value is lost when the overall
significance of the MCI to an organization is not explicitly clear. The ability for
organizations to enter the network without fear of sanctions is an important vehicle for
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
107
expansion. However, the interviews made clear that the progression of organizational
involvement was continuously changing and no single agency or organization is
addressing those changing needs. Although the non-punitive structure of the network
allows for the organic growth of each organization within the network, a centralized
representative of the MCI must endeavor to meet constantly shifting partner needs with
different levels of attention and focus. Early on in the initiative, the focus was on
orientation and familiarization, but well-seasoned organizational participants have
different needs and expectations. A backbone agency must improve inter-partner
communication, better present the value of collaboration for participating organizations,
and consistently illustrate the significance of the MCI to the community and the
partnering organizations.
Centralize Data Collection
The interviews collectively identified a disconnection between the overarching
goals of the initiative and the systematic implementation of the strategies for community
engagement among the network partners. There was no understanding how one actively
influenced the other, through evaluation reports. In addition, the challenge of orienting
oneself within the initiative, the rapidly evolving jargon, and the lack of a cohesive story
were reflected in the sense of isolation and frustration expressed by many of the
interviewees. As previously indicated, one of the factors to network participation is the
organizational commitment to collect and share data. More than 5 years of data has been
collected, but a clearly envisioned, targeted approach to using the data has not been
established. Participants expressed a desire to see where the initiative was working, and
how the data that were routinely collected were used. They voiced a desire to move from
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
108
process to outcomes. Participant organizations communicated the need to see tangible
results for their efforts.
Simply improving organizational efficiency and increasing employee satisfaction
are not sufficient. Participating organizations want to understand how the initiative is
serving their community, and how the families they serve benefit from the collective
efforts of the partners. Although the lack of explicit rewards for partnering organizations
is not a fatal flaw, a lack of understanding about how the MCI benefits the community
that it serves is. The data in this area are lacking, and a number of the interviewees
expressed a need for this information in order to demonstrate return on investment to
their staffs, boards, and funders to justify continued allocation of funds and personnel for
participation.
Improve Communication Between the Hub and Partner Participants
Participants recommended understanding how partner organizations fit into the
bigger picture, implementing a clear and consistent language to describe the initiative and
intervention strategies, and providing an opportunity to vocalize challenges in a safe
environment as necessary for continued and robust participation. A centralized hub of
support must fill this role. While consistent communication exists through the online
group space, the communication is generalized and not focused on detailed initiatives and
strategies. Further, reflecting back to understanding the value of the initiative for the
surrounding community through data is another element that is currently lacking in
ongoing communication between the staff at MCI and the partner participants.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
109
Assist With Financial Support
The lack of financial incentives or assistance with the cost of participation in the
network was cited frequently in the interviews as one of the most formidable challenges
for consistent organizational participation. Within the network, a vast disparity in
financial size extends from the Department of Mental Health, which reports a total
operating budget of one billion dollars, or the county chief executive’s office, which
reports an overall county wide budget of $26 billion, to Mama’s Hot Tamales, which is a
program in the Institute of Urban Initiatives, with an operating budget of $50,000, or to
Pico Union Neighborhood Council, with an operating budget of $30,000. Thus, many
organizations that operate in the MCI do so on a shoestring budget with minimal staff,
and participation in the initiative should be flexible enough to adapt to each organization
in a manner that accounts for such size and fiscal disparities.
Although the benefits were unquestionably perceived by reporting organizational
staff with the MCI model, it was clearly difficult for the champions or staff to articulate
the value of participation to the powers who influence resource expenditures (i.e., boards,
executive management, and funders). This research advances the clear understanding of
the benefits, especially for nonprofits, to networked participation and collaboration in the
MCI, but also underscores the challenges many organizations must navigate to remain
consistently a participating member of the partnership and accrue those benefits. The
results indicate that the nonprofit sector gains significantly—if not the most, in
comparison with other organizational types—by participating in the MCI, but is the least
likely to do so as a result of the challenges of reallocating very scare resources. This is an
area wherein the philanthropic sector is well poised to make significant headway in
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
110
alleviating these challenges for nonprofits by awarding grants specifically tied to
participating in the MCI to an extent and in a manner that not only benefits the
community at large, but the organization that is serving it, as well.
As previously indicated, incorporation of an independent 501(c)(3) which focused
on both a universal messaging strategy as well as seeking funding to directly support
organizations unable to partner fully as a result of budget or staff constraints would
alleviate significant pressure on the smaller, nonprofit organization partners.
Provide Mentorship Opportunities
Orientation both personally and organizationally is time consuming and can be
frustrating for participants. Even the language used by MCI partners was described as
different and frequently changing, making finding an organization’s niche even more
challenging. Space and time to reflect were recommended, coupled with an opportunity
to orient oneself with the help of an MCI representative. A training class or orientation
lecture would be helpful and should be mandatory. Further, providing mentorship
opportunities to newer organizations would assist with both orientation in the initiative,
as well as a support system. One interviewee expressed the desire to be assigned a
“buddy organization” that was well versed in the MCI and would thus provide assistance
with orientation into the initiative, as well as act as a resource for new partner
organizations.
Future Research
Future research may wish to consider whether the intrinsic organizational and
personal values participants experienced translate into quantifiable savings for the
organizations, such as reduced turnover, sick days taken, and lateness, as well as self-
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
111
reported job satisfaction. A larger sample of participating agencies, beyond the
designated MCI partners, would be helpful to yield an interesting assessment of the
values of participation, in addition to perceived organizational costs of engagement
within as well as external to the network.
A more robust understanding of each partner organization’s constraints and
incentives would assist funders, governing boards, and centralized backbone agencies
understand the catalysts for sustained participation within a network. Finally, another
challenge for study is to determine which historically bureaucratic elements are
absolutely critical to the successful functioning of a network, and which elements prove
stifling to innovation and expansion of network relationship dynamics. These data would
be helpful to provide network architects or network backbone agencies with a clear path
of steps to ensure a robust network and avoid the pitfalls of suffocating innovation and
nimbleness as a result of bureaucratic rigor and centralized control.
Finally, while nonprofits had different outcomes than did other organizations in
this study that did not identify as nonprofits, further research could look at specific types
of other organizations. Future studies, for example, could attempt to replicate these
findings in comparisons between nonprofits and educational organizations or between
nonprofits and government organizations.
Conclusion
As the problems faced by our communities and our world expand and deepen to
touch every aspect of society, the challenges in achieving broad-based, systemic solutions
necessitate the input of many different perspectives. Networked systems offer a
significant source for optimism and investment as a potential game changer in solving
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
112
such complex or wicked problems. The literature continues to present evidence related to
best practices; elements for successful program replication and community problem
solving, not only in addressing the needs of the community, but in breaking down the
silos that preclude transparency; seamless communication; and effective, efficient, and
cost effective solutions. Yet, in encouraging networked problem solving, additional
efforts must be fostered within the third sector, especially the philanthropic sector, to
assist with safeguarding long-term feasibility of participation in a holistic sense or
beyond just financial assistance. Participant organizations in the MCI strive to achieve
improved service delivery, adherence to the mission and goals of the initiative, and a
better and more empathetic lens of doing business. As an organization evolves within the
network, its needs from the MCI evolve, as well. Current and future needs include
continued support; understanding of the challenges; assistance with telling the story to
invigorate staff and boards to continue participation; and furthering the data collection to
encompass larger aspects of the initiative. Ultimately, although long-term data
demonstrating community improvement are essential, it is the staff and on-the-ground
participants who are most critical to the initiative. The MCI is encouraged to consistently
and strategically evolve to meet the changing needs of the organizations and their partner
participants as the network continues to expand and age.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
113

References
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.
Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 58–65.
Alter, C. (1990). An exploratory study of conflict and coordination in inter-organizational
service delivery systems. Academy of Management Journal, 33(N3), 478–502.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Austin, J. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.
Barringer, B., & Harrison, J. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 367–403.
Bozeman, B. (2002). Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public
Administrative Review, 62(2), 145–161.
Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century.
Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen’s University Press
Bowie, P. (n.d.). Getting to scale: The elusive goal: Magnolia Place Community
Initiative. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.casey.org/media/GettingToScale_MagnoliaPlace.pdf
Bowie, P. (2008). Magnolia Place Community Initiative theory of change. Retrieved
from http://www.magnoliaplacela.org/index.php?FileName=theory-of-change
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
114
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Creating cross-
sector regimes of mutual gain. Paper presented to the Center for Organizational
Research initiative, University of California, Irving, CA, January 28, 2005.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of
cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public
Administration Review, (December, Special Issue), 44–55
Children’s Bureau. (n.d.). Programs: Magnolia Community Initiative. Retrieved from
https://www.all4kids.org/program/magnolia-community/
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
Dahlman, C. J. (1979). The problem of externality. Journal of Law and Economics, 22,
141–162.
de Tocqueville, A. (1835/2000). Democracy in America. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. The Academy of
Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.
Einbinder, S. D., Robertson, P. J., Garcia, A, Vuckovic, G., & Patti, R. J. (2000).
Interorganizational collaboration in social service organizations: A study of
prerequisites to success. Journal of Children and Poverty, 6(2), 119–140.
Elroy, S. (2014). Magnolia Community Initiative orientation. Retrieved from
http://prezi.com/n20bdgqcginz/magnolia-community-initiative-orientation/
Fosler, R. S. (2002). Working better together: How government, business, and nonprofit
organizations can achieve public purposes through cross-sector collaboration,
alliances, and partnerships. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
115
Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit
partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public
sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Graddy, E., & Chen, B. (2006). Influences on the size and scope of networks for social
service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 533–
552.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for
contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361.
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making collective
impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1–8.
Herranz, J. (2008). The multisector trilemma of network management. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 1–32.
Jolin, M., Schmitz, P., & Seldon, W. (2012). Needle-moving community collaboratives:
A promising approach to addressing America’s biggest challenges. The
Bridgespan Group, 1–17.
Mandell, M. P. (1999). The impact of collaborative efforts: Changing the face of public
policy through networks and network structures. Policy Studies Review, 16, 1–15.
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
116
Mandell, M. P., & Steelman, T. A. (2003). Understanding what can be accomplished
through interorganizational innovations: The importance of typologies, context,
and management strategies. Public Management Review, 5(2), 197–224.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. C. (2002). Governing the hollow state. In S. Osbourne
(Ed.). Public management: Critical perspectives (pp. 23–42). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. C. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using
collaborative networks. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of
Government.
Pallotta, D. (2009). Uncharitable: How restraints on nonprofits undermine their
potential. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3
rd
ed.). Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Provan, K.G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational
network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health
systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework fo
evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review,
61(4), 414–423.
Q&A roundtable on collective impact. (2012, Fall). Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Retrieved from http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/issues/2012/08/pdf/collective_impact.pdf
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
117
Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution.
International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–9.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government and the nonprofit sector
in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Salamon, L. M. (2000). The new governing and the tools of public action: An
Introduction. Fordham Urban Low Journal, 28(5), 1609–1674.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues:
Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873.
Thomson, A., Perry, J., & Miller, T. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring
collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23–
56.
Van Slyke, D. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-
nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 12(2), 157–187.
Wei-Skillern, J., Silver, N., & Heitz, E. (2013). Cracking the network code: Four
principles for grantmakers. Washington, DC: Grantmakers for Effective
Organizations.

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
118

Appendices

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
119

Appendix A: MCI Partner Organizations
Organization
211 – LA
1736 Family Crisis Center
Alianza Magnolia
All Peoples Christian Center
Angelica Center for Arts and Music
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Beyond Shelter
Broadway Federal Bank
California Food Policy Advocates
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Casey Family Programs
Center for Civic Mediation
Center for Lifelong Learners
Centro Latino for Literacy
Children’s Bureau of Southern California
Children’s Institute Inc.
Children’s Nature Institute
Church of the Redeemer Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles – Community Development Department
City of Los Angeles – Department of Recreation and Parks
Los Angeles Police Department
Community Financial Resource Center
Community Services Unlimited Inc.
County of Los Angeles
Chief Executive Office
Child Support Services Department
County of Los Angeles Public Library
Department of Children and Family Services
Department of Mental Health
Department of Public Health
Department of Public Social Services
Office of Child Care
Crystal Stairs, Inc.
Dignity Health
Echo Parenting and Education
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
120
Families in Schools
First 5 LA
Green Dot
Hope Street Family Center
Jewish Family Services of LA
Jewish Free Loan Association
Jump Start
Koreatown Youth and Community Center
LA County Perinatal Mental Health Task Force
LA Housing Partnership
Los Angeles Unified School District
Berendo Middle School
Commucity Adult School
Early Childhood Education
John Mack Elementary School
Leo Politi Elementary School
Magnolia Elementary School
Norwood Elementary School
San Pedro Elementary School
West Adams Preparatory High School
Levitt Pavilion – MacArthur Park
Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative
Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
Maternal and Child Health Access
NAMI (National Association on Mental Illness)
Occidental College: Urban and Environmental Policy Institute
Operation HOPE
Padres Unido
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment
Para Los Ninos
Pathways LA
Public Counsel
Public Health Foundation Enterprises – Women Infant and
Children
Red Shield: Salvation Army
SCOPE
South Central Los Angeles Regional Center
Southern California College Access Network
St. Johns Well Child and Family Center
St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
121
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
The RightWay Foundation
TRUST South LA
University of California, Los Angeles
UCLA – Health Care Institute
UCLA – Clinical & Translational Science Institute
UCLA – Community Engagement Research
UCLA – Center for Healthier Children, Families and
Communities
United Way LA
University of Southern California
USC – Clinical and Translational Science Institute
USC – Center for Religion and Civic Culture
USC – Early Headstart
USC – Eisner Family Medicine Clinic
USC – Family of Schools
USC – Government Partnerships and Programs
USC – Headstart
USC – Metamorphosis Project
USC – School of Social Work
Worksite Wellness LA

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
122

Appendix B: The MCI Model of Change

Appendix C: The MCI Service Referral Form

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
123

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
124

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
125
Appendix D: Online Survey

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
126

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
127

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
128

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
129

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
130

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
131

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
132

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
133

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
134

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
135

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
136
Appendix E: Email to MCI Network Partners

Dear MCI Network Partner
In an effort to evaluate MCI's effectiveness, we have created the 2013 Magnolia
Community Initiative Network Partner Survey for all of our network partners.
This survey will help us better understand our MCI network and the gains and costs to
participation. This data is invaluable to us. It also helps all of us to present what we do in
clear terms to potential funders and legislators.
This survey takes approximately 10-20 minutes to complete. If you need a break,
please minimize the survey and come back to it. If you close the page, you will lose
your data.
By completing the survey you not only contribute to our knowledge, but you will
be entered to win one of four brand new IPads!!!
Each week, for four weeks, we will draw one name from the
completed survey submissions to win one iPad. That means if you get your survey in
during the first week, you will have four chances to win!!!(one for each week that a
name is drawn). If you complete your survey in the fourth week, you will only have one
chance to win. So get your survey in early for more chances to win!
Please click on the following link and complete the online survey by October 1st, 2013.
http://www.instant.ly/s/26dr9

I truly appreciate your effort and willingness to support the Magnolia Network in this
way and thank you for your attention, time, and feedback. Please call or email me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lila
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
137

Appendix F: List of Survey Respondents

Organization
Number of
respondents
1736 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER 1
211 LA County 2
Angelica Center for Arts and Music 1
Aspire Public Schools 1
Autism Speaks 1
Berendo Middle School 1
Beyond Shelter 1
Bright Star Schools 1
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy 1
Centro Latino for Literacy 1
CFRC 1
Chief Executive Office 1
Child Support Services Department 1
Children's Bureau 8
Children's Bureau MCINTYRE 2
Children's Nature Institute 2
CNCA Jose A. Castellanos 1
Community Financial Resource Center 1
Crystal Stairs 4
CSSD 1
DMH 1
DPSS 1
Echo Parenting and Education 2
Esperanza Community Housing Corp 5
Frank D Lanterman Regional Center 1
Friends of the Family 1
Grandparents As Parents 1
Green Dot Public Schools 1
Health Care Institute 1
Jewish Free Loan Association 1
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
138
John W. Mack Parent Center 1
Jumpstart 1
Keck Medical Center of USC 1
LA County 1
LA County CEO 1
LA County Dept of Mental Health 1
LA County Perinatal Mental Health Task Force 2
LA County Suite-DCFS 1
LEO POLITI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1
LIFT 3
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office 1
Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health 4
LURN 1
Magnolia Community Initiative 13
Mama's Hot Tamales a program of the Institute of Urban
Initiatives 1
Maternal & Child Health Access 4
NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Health) LA 2
Neighborhood Ambassador 1
Occidental College - Urban & Environmental Policy Institute 1
PACE Early Childhood Education 3
Padres Unidos en Accion 1
PAN AMERICAN BANK 1
Pathways LA 3
PHFE WIC 1
Pico Union Neighborhood Council 2
Public Counsel 1
Redeemer Church Los Angeles 1
SBCC 2
South Los Angeles Child Welfare Initiative 1
St. John's Well Child & Family Center 2
St. Thomas the Apostle 1
The Children's Nature Institute 3
The RightWay Foundation 1
The Salvation Army L.A. Red Shield Youth and Community
Center 1
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
139
UCLA 1
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families & Communities 1
UCLA CTSI Community Engagement & Research Program 1
University of Southern California -School for Early Childhood
Education 1
USC Eisner Family Medical Center 2
USC Metamorphosis Project 1
USC School for Early Childhood Education 6
TOTAL 126

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
140

Appendix G: Questions for Interviews

Don’t need to say their name, just identify the organization.
1. Can you tell me why your organization joined the MCI? (When?)
2. Was there something about MCI that you thought would benefit your
vision/mission?
If no, make sure that #1 was answered.
3. Do you have employees/volunteers who are dedicated to participating in the MCI
on behalf of your organization (is there a liaison)? Why or Why Not?
4. How much do you (your liaison) participate in the network? What % of time
would you say you spend on MCI?
a. If yes, “how do you pay for that?”
5. Are there other costs to your organization to participate in the MCI?
a. If yes, “how do you pay for that?” (fundraise?)
6. Have your/your liaison’s responsibilities changed as a result of being a part of the
network?
7. Are there ways in which being a part of the network has made it easier or more
difficult to perform your/your liaison’s role in your organization?
8. Do you feel that it is a good thing that your organization is part of the MCI
network? If yes, how so? If no, why not?
9. What about being an MCI partner would you recommend to a peer organization?
10. What warning would you give to a peer organization about joining MCI?
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
141
11. Has participating in the network changed your organization’s ability to raise
funds?
12. If there was one thing you could change about the MCI that would improve your
or your organization’s ability to have impact, what would it be?
13. Is there anything you would like to add about your organization’s experience
participating in MCI?
14. Is there anything you would like to add about your OWN personal experience
participating in MCI?

COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
142
Appendix H. Participating Organizations’ Year Founded and Budget

Organization Year founded Budget
Children's bureau MCINTYRE 1904 $30,000,000.00
Children's Nature Institute 1985 $750,000.00
St. John's Well Child & Family Center 1964 $30,000,000.00
Autism Speaks 2007 $60,000,000.00
Esperanza Community Housing Corp 1989 $1,900,000.00
Children's Bureau MCINTYRE 1904 $30,000,000.00
1736 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER 1972 $7,000,000.00
Children's Bureau 1912 $30,000,000.00
Frank D Lanterman Regional Center 1966 $15,000,000.00
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation 1989 $2,300,000.00
Padres unidos en accion 2009 missing
Child support services department 1999 missing
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation 1989 $1,500,000.00
Esperanza Community Housing Corp 1989 $1,500,000.00
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000.00
LA County Suite-DCFS missing unknown
USC Eisner 1920 NA
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families &
Communities
missing missing
UCLA 1995 $5 million
Los Angeles County Department of Mental
Health
1960 missing
USC School for Ealry Childhood Education 1970 $4,000,000.00
Univeristy of Southern California -School for
Early Childhood Education
1975 $4.7 million
LIFT 1999 $5,000,000.00
The Children's Nature Institute 1985 $650,000.00
Maternal and Child Health Access 1996 $2,800,000.00
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000.00
Los Angeles County Perinatal Mental Health
Task Force
2007 $400,000.00
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000.00
St. John's Well Child and Family Center 1993 $25,000,000.00
The Children's Nature Institute 1985 $800,000.00
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
143
Bright Star Schools 2003 $10,000,000
Children's Bureau 1904 $30,000,000
Maternal and Child Health Access 1996 $2,800,000
NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Health) LA 1988 $200,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
LIFT 1999 $5,000,000
Crystal Stairs, Inc. 1980 $89,000,000
LA County CEO 1850 $26,000,000,000
Los Angeles County Department of Mental
Health
1938 $1 million
Los angeles County 1943 unknown
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
Magnolia Comunity Initiative 2008 $400,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
LA County Perinatal Mental Health Task Force 2007 $450,000
Pathways LA 1978 $16,800,000
Mama's Hot Tamales a program of the Institute of
Urban Initiatives
1995 $50,000
Children's Bureau 1904 $30,000,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
Occidental College - urban & Environmental
Policy Institute
1997
we report
Occidental
College's budget,
not for UEPI
Friends of the Family 1972 $2,100,000
Public Counsel 1972 $1,200,000
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office 2007 $35,500,000
neighborhood ambassador 2009 $0
SBCC 1973 $5,000,000
Maternal and Child Health Access 1996 $2,800,000
NAMI 2003 $200,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
Crystal Stairs, Inc. 1980 $89,000,000
Children's Bureau 1904 $30,000,000
Echo Parenting and Education 1999 $1,000,000
LURN 2009 $100,000
Children's Nature Institute 1985 $750,000
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
144
Los Angeles County Perinatal Mental Health
Task Force
2007 $400,000
DPSS 1938 unknown
Community Financial Resource Center 1994 $1,000,000
LA County Dept of Mental Health
approx
1960
missing
Echo Parenting and Education 2000 $1,000,000
Pathways LA 1978 $2,000,000
Crystal Stairs 1980 $89,000,000
LEO POLITI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1991 $4,000,000
LIFT 1998 $5,000,000.00
Children's Bureau 1904 $30,138,793
CFRC 1992 $685,000
USC School Early Childhood Education 1972 $4,750,000
Pico Union Neighborhood Council 2003 $37,000
USC School for Ealry Childhood Education 1970 $4,000,000
Pico Union Neighborhood Council 2003 $30,000
Health Care Institute 2001 unsure
PACE Early Childhood Education 1976 $30,000,000
PHFE WIC 1976 unsure
PACE ECE 1976 $30,000,000
UCLA CTSI Community Engagement &
Research Program
2011 missing
Jewish Free Loan Association 1904 $1,600,000
Maternal & Child Health Access 1995 $2,800,000.00
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy 1999 $22,000,000.00
USC School for Early Childhood Education 1970 missing
Aspire Public Schools 1998 $126,000,000
Centro Latino for Literacy 1991 500,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
St. Thomas the Apostle 1904 $1,500,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
Keck Medical Center of USC 1885 I do not know
USC School for Early Childhood Education 1970 $5,000,000
Green Dot Public Schools 1999
it varies by
organization
and by school
The Children's Nature Institute 1985 $750,000
COLLABORATION: IS IT WORTH IT?
145
Magnolia community initiative 2008 $400,000
The RightWay Foundation 2011 $350,000
Grandparents As Parents 1987 $850,000
Angelica Center for Arts and Music 2010 $42,000
DMH 1960 missing
The Salvation Army L.A. Red Shield Youth and
Community Center
3-May
Not involved with
finances
Jumpstart 1993 missing
South Los Angeles Child Welfare Initiative 2009 $657,548
PACE ECE 1976 $20,000,000
SBCC
I do not
know
I do not know
LAC Perinatal Mental Health Task Force 2007 $500,000
Redeemer churd los angeles 1993 missing
PAN AMERICAN BANK 2010 N/A
211 LA County 1981 $8,000,000
Magnolia Community Initiative 2008 $400,000
USC Metamorphosis Project 1998 $150,000
Children's Bureau 1904 $30,000,000
Crystal Stairs, Inc. 1980 $89,000,000
childrens bureau 1904 $30,000,000
Children's bureau 1904 $30,000,000.00
Esperanza Community Housing. org 1989 $1,900,000
Beyond Shelter 1988 missing
John W. Mack Parent Center
I do not
know
I do not know
USC Eisner Family Medical Center 1920 Unknown
USC School for Ealry Childhood Education 1970 $4,000,000
Chief Executive Office ? $26 billion
Pathways 1978 $2,000,000
211 LA County 1981 $8,000,000
CSSD 2009 unknown
Berendo Middle School 1911 N/A
CNCA Jose A. Castellanos 2010 N/A

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Community foundations and new governance networks: three studies exploring the role of regionally-networked philanthropic organizations in local problem-solving

PDF

Quango reforms and challenges in South Korea: social relations, informal networks, and hidden actions

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society

PDF

Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization

PDF

Governance networks: internal governance structure, boundary setting and effectiveness

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership

PDF

Simple majority or supermajority: what do California's special tax initiatives mean for local governance?

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

Communicating organizational knowledge in a sociomaterial network: the influences of communication load, legitimacy, and credibility on health care best-practice communication

PDF

Interagency collaboration: cultivating resources and strengthening substance use service delivery in child welfare

PDF

Organizational and community capacity building efforts: a case study of initiatives funded by the Children's Trust

PDF

A view from below: the development and role of organizational social capital in neighborhood regeneration in Los Angeles

PDF

Making it: a strategies primer for African-American entrepreneurs seeking capital in Los Angeles

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

Asset Metadata

Creator Esposito, Cara L. (author)

Core Title Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 07/29/2015

Defense Date 05/06/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Magnolia Community Initiative,networks,OAI-PMH Harvest,service delivery networks

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ferris, James Michael (committee chair), Morgan, Donald (committee member), Robertson, Peter John (committee member)

Creator Email cesposito@locff.org,clesposito@earthlink.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-613437

Unique identifier UC11303112

Identifier etd-EspositoCa-3739.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-613437 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EspositoCa-3739-1.pdf

Dmrecord 613437

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Esposito, Cara L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA