Stakeholders' views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration.

Stakeholders' views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Our nation is witnessing the downsizing (1) Converting mainframe and mini-based systems to client/server LANs.(2) To reduce equipment and associated costs by switching to a less-expensive system. (jargon) downsizing of governmental agenciesand the merging of many private corporations in order to capitalize on Cap´i`tal`ize on`v. t. 1. To turn (an opportunity) to one's advantage; to take advantage of (a situation); to profit from; as, to capitalize onan opponent's mistakes s>. the largest number of resources at the lowest cost. Interagencycollaboration Working together on a project. See collaborative software. is at the cornerstone cornerstoneCeremonial building block, dated or otherwise inscribed, usually placed in an outer wall of a building to commemorate its dedication. Often the stone is hollowed out to contain newspapers, photographs, or other documents reflecting current customs, with a view to of this phenomenon. Throughinteragency collaboration, the level of services provided by the servicedelivery systems can be maximized and operational costs can be reduced.Moreover, each agency or discipline has its own specialization A career option pursued by some attorneys that entails the acquisition of detailed knowledge of, and proficiency in, a particular area of law.As the law in the United States becomes increasingly complex and covers a greater number of subjects, more and more attorneys are andcombining areas of specialization can help remediate re��me��di��a��tion?n.The act or process of correcting a fault or deficiency: remediation of a learning disability.re��me deficienciesexisting in the service systems. Many interagency collaborations have been developed as a result ofshortage of funds or resources, lack of qualified or trained personnel,legislative priorities or mandates, duplicated services or the need foradditional services, pressures from clients, and ownership of mutualproblems (Audette, 1980; Baxter Bax´tern. 1. A baker; originally, a female baker. , 1982; Brudder, 1998; Imel IMEL Instituto M��dio de Economia de Luanda (Institute of Economics of Luanda; Angola)IMEL IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory , 1992;Johnson, McLaughlin Mc��Laugh��lin? , John Born 1942.British jazz guitarist best known for his virtuosic playing and for his affinity for flamenco and Eastern music. , & Christensen, 1982; LaCour, 1982; Melaville& Blank, 1991). Such an endeavor is valuable when encounteringproblems that cannot be resolved efficiently by a single agency andrequires the attention of multiple agencies (Bruner, 1991; Imel).Competition among agencies for resources often provokes frictions FrictionsThe "stickiness" involved in making transactions; the total process including time, effort, money, and tax effects of gathering information and making a transaction such as buying a stock or borrowing money. thatcould harm individual agencies as well as whole service deliverysystems. Ultimately, the only losers are the clients served by thesystems. Reducing competition and developing a sense of cooperation andinterdependence among agencies are, therefore, vital to serving childrenand families (Gallagher, LaMontagne, & Johnson, 1995). As W. H.Johnson et al. (1982) described, "coordination of service deliverysystems has a benefit besides economy; that of comprehensively providingchild services based on a continuum Continuum (pl. -tinua or -tinuums) can refer to: Continuum (theory), anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes or "discontinuities" of child needs across social,psychological, medical, vocational, and educational domains" (p.395). Although there are many benefits to be derived from collaboratingwith others, the spirit of collaboration and cooperation is constantlyunder attack (Gallagher et al., 1995). In their statewide study,Stegelin and Jones (1991) identified that the following factors inhibit inhibit/in��hib��it/ (in-hib��it) to retard, arrest, or restrain. in��hib��itv.1. To hold back; restrain.2. the success of collaboration: (a) lack of understanding of otheragencies' policies, (b) lack of communication between policymakersand service providers, (c) lack of time for collaborative efforts, (d)unclear goals and objectives, and (e) gaps in screening and diagnosticservices diagnostic services,n.pl the imaging and laboratory capabilities available for determining the cause of an illness. . Other barriers identified by Friend and Cook (1996); Guthrieand Guthrie (1991); Harbin (1996); Johnson, Pugach, and Hammitte (1988);Johnson, Ruiz, LaMontagne, and George (1998); LaCour (1982); and Pugachand Johnson (1995) included (a) inconsistent service standards, (b)excessive use of jargon jargon,pejorative term applied to speech or writing that is considered meaningless, unintelligible, or ugly. In one sense the term is applied to the special language of a profession, which may be unnecessarily complicated, e.g., "medical jargon. , (c) different definitions of collaboration, (d)conflicting views on confidentiality issues, (e) establishment of a newlayer of bureaucracy, (f) difficulty in defining decision-making rulesamong team members, (g) insufficient time, (h) lack of sustainedavailability of key people, and (i) resistance to change among agencymembers. Service delivery systems are largely made up of both federaland state governmental agencies. Since the efficiency of these agencies has a direct and significantimpact on the services provided to families and children, andinteragency collaboration has been shown to enhance efficiency, thequestion of how federal and state governments facilitate and promotecollaboration among agencies is of special interest. Studiesinvestigating interagency collaboration for the past two decades havefocused on community- or neighborhood-based collaborations (Capper cap��per?n.1. One that caps or makes caps.2. Informal Something that surpasses or completes what has gone before; a finishing touch or finale.3. ,1994; Morris & Kirkpatrick, 1987; Quinn & Cumblad, 1994);school-based collaborations (Greenan, 1986; Mitchell Mitchell,city (1990 pop. 13,798), seat of Davison co., SE S.Dak.; inc. 1881. Mitchell is a trade, distribution, and shipping center for a dairy and livestock area. & Scott, 1993;Payzant, 1992); and early childhood services collaborations (Stegelin& Jones, 1991, Suarez, Hurth, & Prestridge, 1988). Clearlyinteragency collaboration is very important to providing appropriateservices to young children with special needs and their families. There is a paucity pau��ci��ty?n.1. Smallness of number; fewness.2. Scarcity; dearth: a paucity of natural resources. of research in the literature that directlyrelates to interagency collaboration at the state level. This studyexamined factors that inhibit or facilitate interagency collaboration atthe state level. Thirty-three stakeholders StakeholdersAll parties that have an interest, financial or otherwise, in a firm-stockholders, creditors, bondholders, employees, customers, management, the community, and the government. from nine state departmentsand three private social services social servicesNoun, plwelfare services provided by local authorities or a state agency for people with particular social needssocial servicesnpl → servicios mpl socialesagencies in Ohio that implementedpolicy related to early childhood special education and Head Startparticipated in a series of semistructured interviews. The followingthree foci guided this effort (a) to examine the factors contributing tothe success or failure of interagency collaboration; (b) to identifyspecific problems that are likely to occur as part of the collaborativeprocess and to generate possible solutions to reduce the likelihood oftheir occurrence; and (c) to investigate whether significant differencesexist between two specific groups of stakeholders (categorized cat��e��go��rize?tr.v. cat��e��go��rized, cat��e��go��riz��ing, cat��e��go��riz��esTo put into a category or categories; classify.cat asprogram chiefs and program specialists in this study, see thedefinitions that follow) in terms of their opinions concerninginteragency collaboration. METHOD SUBJECTS Those departments and agencies in a midwestern state that hadreason to work with young children with disabilities and their familieswere selected to participate in this study (see Table 1). A panel ofexperts comprised of early intervention ear��ly interventionn. Abbr. EIA process of assessment and therapy provided to children, especially those younger than age 6, to facilitate normal cognitive and emotional development and to prevent developmental disability or delay. researchers, teacher educators,and health professionals developed a list of interviewees andcategorized these interviewees into two groups, program chiefs andprogram specialists. Program chiefs (PCs) included state officials whowere decision-or policymakers such as bureau chiefs or assistantdivision directors, division chiefs or division directors, and deputydirectors of departments. Program specialists (PSs) included those whoimplemented the policies and provided technical assistance to localentities such as consultants, program coordinators, and trainingspecialists. PROCEDURE A letter stating the purpose of the study was sent to eachinterviewee selected for the study, followed by a phone call to schedulethe date and time for the interview. Interviews were conducted by theauthors and were held on site in Columbus, Ohio Columbus is the capital and the largest city of the American state of Ohio. Named for explorer Christopher Columbus, the city was founded in 1812 at the confluence of the Scioto and Olentangy rivers, and assumed the functions of state capital in 1816. , in theinterviewee's office. One interview was conducted by phone due tologistical lo��gis��tic? also lo��gis��ti��caladj.1. Of or relating to symbolic logic.2. Of or relating to logistics.[Medieval Latin logisticus, of calculation difficulties. The average interview took 20-25 min tocomplete. Interviewees' responses were audiotaped and transcribedprior to analysis. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Two types of interview questions were asked: (a) direct questionsrelated to background information (e.g., During the past 2 years, whatinteragency collaborative efforts have you been involved with?), and (b)open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were as follows: 1. What factors contributed to the success of the collaboration? 2. What were the factors that might jeopardize jeop��ard��ize?tr.v. jeop��ard��ized, jeop��ard��iz��ing, jeop��ard��izesTo expose to loss or injury; imperil. See Synonyms at endanger. the success ofcollaboration? 3. What were the problems/issues that you encountered during thecollaboration process? 4. How did you overcome the problems? 5. If you had a chance to do a collaboration all over again, whatwould you change? Prior to conducting the actual interviews, four interviews werepiloted to ensure that the interview questions were relevant to thepurposes of the study. Based on this pilot, minor changes in wordingwere made to increase clarity of interview questions based on feedbackobtained from pilot subjects. DATA ANALYSIS Data contained in the transcribed interviews were analyzed an��a��lyze?tr.v. an��a��lyzed, an��a��lyz��ing, an��a��lyz��es1. To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.2. Chemistry To make a chemical analysis of.3. using acontent analysis approach as suggested by Johnson and LaMontagne (1993).Steps in this process were as follows: 1. Transcribe data. 2. Analyze notes and group similar ideas into category areas. 3. Identify units of analysis by bracketing A still camera technique for ensuring correct exposure. One picture is taken directly at, one slightly under and one slightly over the estimated exposure. See bracket. all complete referencesto objects, events, or people. 4. Define categorized responses by going through the developedcoding system Noun 1. coding system - a system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messagescode - a coding system used for transmitting messages requiring brevity or secrecy . 5. Refine categories by selecting a small sample of the units ofanalysis to assure a fit into those categories, discarding theinappropriate ones and creating new ones. 6. Establish category integrity by demonstrating interrateragreement. Reliability. Two individuals who were not involved in developingthe categories coded 15% of the data. The percentage of agreement andthe Kappa coefficient coefficient/co��ef��fi��cient/ (ko?ah-fish��int)1. an expression of the change or effect produced by variation in certain factors, or of the ratio between two different quantities.2. were computed for this data in each of thefollowing areas: (a) contributing factors for successful collaboration,(b) contributing factors for unsuccessful collaboration, (c) problemsencountered during the collaboration process, (d) solutions forovercoming barriers, and things the interviewee would have been donedifferently if participating in another collaboration. As can be seen inTable 2, the mean percentage of agreement and Kappa coefficient were 88%and .87, respectively, which exceeded recommended levels of acceptableagreement (Johnson, & Heal, 1987). Statistical Analysis. Once categories were developed, eachindividual's interview responses were coded to determine if theinterview response utilized the category. Following procedures describedby Kirk (1982), a split-plot factorial factorialFor any whole number, the product of all the counting numbers up to and including itself. It is indicated with an exclamation point: 4! (read “four factorial”) is 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 = 24. analysis of variance The discrepancy between what a party to a lawsuit alleges will be proved in pleadings and what the party actually proves at trial.In Zoning law, an official permit to use property in a manner that departs from the way in which other property in the same locality (ANOVA anovasee analysis of variance.ANOVAAnalysis of variance, see there ) wasperformed on coded data from each of the interview questions. Thisanalysis is a mixed design with both between group and within groupfactors. Between group factors were constant and represented differencesbetween PSs and PCs. Within group factors represented categoriesgenerated and varied according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. the categories developed for eachinterview question. When appropriate, Tukey Honestly SignificantDifference Test (Tukey, 1977) was used to evaluate which specific pairor pairs of category means contribute to the difference. RESULTS Table 3 contains the categories, category definitions, number ofresponses, and percentage frequencies of interviewees' responsesregarding the factors contributing to facilitating successfulcollaboration. Interviewees indicated that agencies' willingness towork together, strong leadership, and a common vision were the majorfactors contributing to the success of a collaboration. The ANOVAresults revealed no significant difference between the program chiefsand program specialists (F = 0.43; df = 1, 31; p < 0.518). The categories, definition of categories, number of responses, andpercentage frequencies of interviewees' responses regarding thefactors that jeopardize successful collaboration are found in Table 4.Interviewees indicated that lack of support from upper management orlack of leadership, lack of commitment of participating agencies, lackof common visions and goals, and lack of trust are the major factorsthat hinder hin��der?1?v. hin��dered, hin��der��ing, hin��dersv.tr.1. To be or get in the way of.2. To obstruct or delay the progress of.v.intr. collaborative efforts. A statistically significantdifference was found between the PCs and PSs in this category (F =12.83; df = 1, 31; p < 0.001). Tukey's HSD HSD Human Services DepartmentHSD High Speed DataHSD Hillsboro School District (Hillsboro, OR)HSD Hybrid Synergy Drive (Toyota/Lexus)HSD High School DiplomaHSD Historical Society of Delaware procedure indicated astatistically significant difference in how frequently the followingfactors were mentioned: lack of support from uppermanagement/leadership, lack of commitment, lack of common visions andgoals, lack of trust, lack of financial support, and turf turf:see lawn. turfIn horticulture, the surface layer of soil with its matted, dense vegetation, usually grasses grown for ornamental or recreational use. issues/resistance to change. An examination of means shows that PCs weremore likely than PSs to describe these as factors that contributed tounsuccessful results. Table 5 presents the categories, definition of categories,frequency of responses, and percentage frequencies of interviewees'responses regarding problems encountered during the collaborationprocess. Interviewees indicated lack of communication among agencies,turf issues/resistance to change, and lack of common visions/goals asthe common problems often encountered during the collaboration process.The ANOVA results revealed no statistically significant differencebetween the PCs and PSs (F = 0.37; df = 1, 31; p < .550). The categories, definition of categories, frequency of responses,and percentage frequencies of interviewees' responses regarding thesolutions for overcoming barriers of collaboration are contained inTable 6. Interviewees indicated enhanced communication, commitment fromall participating agencies or staying focused on the vision, andinvolvement of key persons who are decision makers, most often aspossible solutions for overcoming barriers. No statistically significantdifference was found between the two groups (F = 2.83; df = 1, 31; p< 0.102). The categories, definitions of categories, response frequency, andpercentage frequencies of interviewees' responses regarding thingsthat might be done differently if interviewees had a chance toparticipate in a collaboration again are reported in Table 7.Interviewees indicated that they would attempt to improve communicationamong agencies, preplan, and involve key persons who are decision makersin the collaboration. There was a statistically significant differencebetween the PCs and PSs in this category (F = 6.17; df = 1, 31; p <0.019). Tukey's HSD procedure revealed that enhanced communication,preplanning, involvement of key persons who are decision makers, noidea, and more entities/parental involvement were mentionedsignificantly more often than the other categories. Overall, PSs weremore likely than PCs to describe things that they would do differently. DISCUSSION These data suggest that interagency collaboration ismultidimensional, interactional, and developmental. Thai is, there aremany factors that contribute to the success of an interagencycollaboration. Moreover, these factors are in international in natureand interrelate in��ter��re��late?tr. & intr.v. in��ter��re��lat��ed, in��ter��re��lat��ing, in��ter��re��latesTo place in or come into mutual relationship.in to contribute to a successful or unsuccessfulinteragency Collaboration. Finally, it seemed that the successfulinteragency collaborations were developmental in nature, in that theyneeded time and work to reach a successful outcome. Intervieweesdescribed collaborations as improving as parties learned to understandeach other and to work together. Given the developmental nature ofcollaboration, preplanning and continued hard work and support wereneeded for it to continue to be successful. Synthesizing data from allfive questions, it appeared that there were seven factors that were mostimportant to successful interagency collaborations: (a) commitment, (b)communication, (c) strong leadership from key decision makers, (d)understanding the culture of collaborating agencies, (e) engaging inserious preplanning, (f) providing adequate resources for collaboration,and (g) minimizing turf issues. These factors are interrelated in��ter��re��late?tr. & intr.v. in��ter��re��lat��ed, in��ter��re��lat��ing, in��ter��re��latesTo place in or come into mutual relationship.in and canbe summed up into three major variables for promoting successfulcollaboration: (a) commitment, (b) communication, and (c) strongleadership. Harbin (1996) described state agencies "as separate,autonomous units, with separate missions and re sources ... a primaryoperating principle of an organization (in this case, an agency)[parentheses added] is to protect its boundaries" (p. 73). Onesolid way to break the rigid boundaries can be by adamant commitment,enhanced communication, and strong leadership that ensures theallocation The apportionment or designation of an item for a specific purpose or to a particular place.In the law of trusts, the allocation of cash dividends earned by a stock that makes up the principal of a trust for a beneficiary usually means that the dividends will be treated as of adequate resources and minimizes the impact of "turfissues." Sharing experiences regarding successful collaborationmight educate participating agencies or individuals that interagencycollaboration is a "doable" mission. Learning from themistakes of unsuccessful collaborations can help overcome barriers thatmight jeopardize a future interagency collaboration. Successfulcollaboration does not happen by accident. While we recognize that these data were obtained from one state andthat more research needs to be done to better understand interagencycollaboration at a state level, we believe that the wide variety ofagencies involved in this study provides a beginning platform foradditional research. Moreover, the findings of this study provide aninteresting pattern and suggest that there are strategic and deliberateactions that can be taken by critical stakeholders to facilitate successin interagency collaboration. Although we recognize that there arelimitations to these findings, we provide implications for practiceorganized according to the seven factors uncovered Uncovered may refer to: something "not covered" Uncovered (Sirsy) from these data. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE COMMITMENT Commitment entailed the sharing of goals and visions and theestablishment of a high level of trust and mutual responsibility forgoals held in common. Commitment was a critical factor and thefoundation of successful interagency collaborations but was oftenmissing in unsuccessful collaborations. The data from stakeholders,particularly the PCs, suggested that if agencies or significant numbersof members within agencies do not have a commitment to thecollaboration, the collaboration will probably fail. Clearly, allagencies involved in an interagency collaboration must have a mutualcommitment to the goals and visions of the collaboration if it is goingto reach its full potential. Examples of especially detrimental det��ri��men��tal?adj.Causing damage or harm; injurious.detri��men andtrust-destroying behaviors included * Developing or following one's own agenda at the expense ofother collaborators. * An unwillingness to examine or modify an agency's proceduresthat are unnecessarily inhibiting in��hib��it?tr.v. in��hib��it��ed, in��hib��it��ing, in��hib��its1. To hold back; restrain. See Synonyms at restrain.2. To prohibit; forbid.3. or detrimental to a collaboratingagency. * Not providing incentives or consequences for cooperative anduncooperative behavior of members of agencies. Suggestions related to building and maintaining commitment betweencollaborating agencies were as follows: * Develop a way to compromise on important differences. * Make clear those issues that cannot be compromised. * Keep the goals and the potential positive outcomes of thecollaboration in mind at all times. COMMUNICATION Open lines of communication "Lines of Communication" is an episode from the fourth season of the science-fiction television series Babylon 5. SynopsisFranklin and Marcus attempt to persuade the Mars resistance to assist Sheridan in opposing President Clark. were consistently presented as acritical component of successful collaboration. Interviewees, especiallyprogram chiefs, mentioned enhanced communication more often than anyother solution for overcoming barriers to collaboration. The followingsuggestions relate to enhancing communication between agencies: * Develop a proactive approach to communication with agencypartners. Be up front with the issues, talk about the differences, andbe sure that each party is aware of the problems. Most importantly Adv. 1. most importantly - above and beyond all other consideration; "above all, you must be independent"above all, most especially ,update agency partners with necessary information in writing to minimizemiscommunications. This precaution is particularly important in theearly stages of interagency collaboration. * Create frequent opportunities for communication through regularmeetings, phone calls, mail, and e-mail. * Develop personal connections to promote a cohesive cohesive,n the capability to cohere or stick together to form a mass. workingrelationship and informal communication links (e.g., occasionally meetfor a cup of coffee or lunch). STRONG LEADERSHIP FROM KEY DECISION MAKERS Stakeholders, especially PSs, indicated that it was critical thatupper management be involved and committed to the collaboration. Therewere repeated indications that, indeed, the success or failure of aninteragency collaboration is dependent on the commitment of key decisionmakers who are truly representative of the collaborating agencies. Forexample, the governor of Ohio has played a significant role insupporting and promoting interagency collaboration, and theGovernor's Office has acted as an independent agency thatfacilitated and coordinated collaboration among many' agencies. Thefollowing suggestions relate to involving upper management: * Involve someone who truly understands the agency's positionand priorities. * Involve someone with enough authority to make decisions on behalfof the agency. * Involve someone who can provide immediate and direct assistancewhen problems arise. * Involve someone who can authorize the utilization of theiragency's resources to support the collaboration. UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURE OF COLLABORATING AGENCIES Each agency has its own organizational culture, including language,values or priorities, rules and regulations, ways of doing business, andeven definitions of collaboration. These data also indicated that it wasimportant for individuals within agencies to understand the culture(i.e., rules, values, communication patterns, structure, etc.) of theagencies they were attempting to engage in an interagency collaboration.Interviewees indicated that attempting to understand another agency, asa culture, changes the context of the relationship. If individualsadopted a cultural perspective, it is unlikely that they wouldcharacterize the rules, values, communication patterns, or structures ofother agencies in the collaboration as wrong. Rather, using a culturalview encouraged them to seek solutions that were sensitive to the uniquecultures of agencies involved in the collaboration. Suggestions relatedto understanding the culture of collaborating agencies were as follows: * Take time to learn and understand each collaboratingagency's mission, priorities, and technical language. Potentialactivities include: (a) develop a staff loan program in which arepresentative of a collaborating agency is loaned to another agency andhoused in that agency's office, and (b) have each collaboratingagency provide a presentation about their agency prior to the beginningof a collaboration. * In particular, make sure that definitions of what may appear tobe common terms are understood by collaborating agencies. For example,"empowerment em��pow��er?tr.v. em��pow��ered, em��pow��er��ing, em��pow��ers1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.2. " has a positive connotation con��no��ta��tion?n.1. The act or process of connoting.2. a. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: for those working inearly intervention; whereas the same term has a negative connotation forthose working in areas related to substance abuse. Understandingdifferences in what appear to be common terms is extremely important toa successful interagency collaboration. * Review pertinent PERTINENT, evidence. Those facts which tend to prove the allegations of the party offering them, are called pertinent; those which have no such tendency are called impertinent, 8 Toull. n. 22. By pertinent is also meant that which belongs. Willes, 319. laws and regulations prior to the collaborativeeffort. Assure that the collaboration process does not inadvertentlyviolate any existing laws and regulations. Find ways to understand theregulatory environment surrounding sur��round?tr.v. sur��round��ed, sur��round��ing, sur��rounds1. To extend on all sides of simultaneously; encircle.2. To enclose or confine on all sides so as to bar escape or outside communication.n. the issues of the collaborativeeffort (e.g., legislation change; waiver The voluntary surrender of a known right; conduct supporting an inference that a particular right has been relinquished.The term waiver is used in many legal contexts. ). PROVIDING ADEQUATE RESOURCES FOR COLLABORATION An important theme that emerged in a variety of ways was thedifficulty of maintaining a successful collaboration. Stakeholderssuggested that it is important that the leadership in collaboratingagencies recognize the difficulty of the collaborative process andprovide individuals with adequate resources and support needed to besuccessful. Following are suggestions that relate to providing suchsupport for those attempting to engage in an interagency collaboration: * Provide time and additional resources for those engaging thecollaboration. * If needed, look for additional funding sources to avoid thepitfall pit��fall?n.1. An unapparent source of trouble or danger; a hidden hazard: "potential pitfalls stemming from their optimistic inflation assumptions"New York Times. of asking individuals to engage in a difficult task while stillbeing held accountable for their full load of tasks prior to thecollaborative effort. MINIMIZING TURF ISSUES Interviewees repeatedly referred to turf issues as important issuesthat must be addressed for an interagency collaboration to besuccessful. According to these stakeholders, it is important that peopleembarking on an interagency collaboration recognize that turf issues arelikely to occur and cannot be ignored. The best way to minimize theseissues is to anticipate their appearance and to develop a plan foraddressing them as they emerge. Suggestions related to anticipating andaddressing turf issues between collaborating agencies were: * Provide staff with a positive view of the collaboration byhighlighting the potential positive outcomes of the collaboration. * Disseminate dis��sem��i��nate?v. dis��sem��i��nat��ed, dis��sem��i��nat��ing, dis��sem��i��natesv.tr.1. To scatter widely, as in sowing seed.2. examples of the positive outcomes of previouscollaborations that worked effectively. * Implement a system of rewards and consequences for individualsparticipating in the collaborative effort. * Engage in serious preplanning to anticipate and minimizepotential "turf issues." ENGAGING IN SERIOUS PREPLANNING The strength of the theme of "turf issues" in theinterview data further highlighted the need for preplanning. Respondents In the context of marketing research, a representative sample drawn from a larger population of people from whom information is collected and used to develop or confirm marketing strategy. repeatedly indicated that interagency collaboration was difficult and itwas important that effort be directed at building a foundation thatenhanced the chances of successful collaboration. Suggestions related tothe engagement of collaborating parties in serious preplanning forcollaboration were as follows: * Form a steering committee steer��ing committeen.A committee that sets agendas and schedules of business, as for a legislative body or other assemblage.steering committeeNoun to identify potential problems, keyissues and similarities/differences between the cultures ofparticipating agencies. * Clearly articulate articulate/ar��tic��u��late/ (ahr-tik��u-lat)1. to pronounce clearly and distinctly.2. to make speech sounds by manipulation of the vocal organs.3. to express in coherent verbal form.4. the developing goals and anticipated outcomesof the collaboration. SUMMARY Providing services to children and their families requires a greatdeal of collaboration across various agencies to maximize availableresources. This study sought to gain a greater understanding of how toengage in successful interagency collaboration by having keystakeholders reflect on factors that in their opinion contributed to thesuccess or failure of past interagency collaborations. These dataindicated that the seven factors presented above are critical tosuccessful interagency collaborations. These data also suggested thatcommitment, communication, and strong leadership are essential forsuccessful collaborations. Finally, the findings of this study providesupport for a developmental view of collaboration, suggesting that thereare deliberate actions that can be undertaken by critical stakeholdersthat will contribute to the likelihood that interagency collaborationsare successful. Collaboration is hard work, and it is our hope that theresults of this study will contribute to the understanding of how toengage in successful collaborations and make this work a bit easier.TABLE 1Participating AgenciesAgencies NOhio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services 1Ohio Department of Education 4Ohio Department of Health 6Ohio Department of Human Services 4Ohio Department of Mental Health 3Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities 3Ohio Department of Youth Service 1Governor's Office 5Office of Budget and Management 1Action for Children 2Children's Defense Fund 1Ohio Head Start Association 2Total 33Note: N= Number of staff interviewed.TABLE 2Percentage of Agreement and Kappa Coefficients for the Five CategoryAreasCategory Area % Aggreement KappaContributing factors for successfulcollaboration 77 0.77Contributing factors for unsuccessfulcollaboration 83 0.82Problems encountered duringcollaboration process 96 0.96Solutions for overcoming barriers 100 1.00What would have been done differentlyif participating ina collaboration again 83 0.81Mean 88 0.87TABLE 3Contributing Factors for Successful CollaborationCategories DefinitionWillingness to work together Sharing responsibilities; coming to meeting on a regular basis; having a notion that working together is better than working aloneStrong leadership Governor's support; support from upper management/someone who can make decisionSharing a common vision Developing a common set of goals for providing better services to families/childrenTrust Not taking expense from other groups; supporting each other publicly and not talking against each otherCommitment Not giving up easily; "whatever it takes, get the job done"Previous collaboration Past positive experiences withexperiences collaborative effortsSupport of federal and Financial support to joint venturestate fundingSharing sense of urgency Meeting federal deadline; sharingand necessity same problems/same interests/same clientsNo choice but to collaborate Limited dollars or resources; pressure from the community/familiesGood communication Being upfront and listening to othersNo resistance to change Preparing for changes, even painful onesUnderstanding the cultures of Learning about cooperating agencies'cooperating agencies languages; missionsTotal PC % PSCategories (n = 16) (n = 17)Willingness to work together 11 68.75 9Strong leadership 8 50.00 11Sharing a common vision 9 56.25 7Trust 5 31.25 6Commitment 4 25.00 6Previous collaboration 5 31.25 4experiencesSupport of federal and 3 18.75 4state fundingSharing sense of urgency 3 18.75 2and necessityNo choice but to collaborate 1 6.25 3Good communication 3 18.75 1No resistance to change 2 12.50 0Understanding the cultures of 2 12.50 0cooperating agencies 56 51.38 53Total % Total %Categories (n = 33)Willingness to work together 52.94 20 60.60Strong leadership 64.71 19 57.58Sharing a common vision 41.18 16 48.48Trust 35.29 11 33.33Commitment 35.29 10 30.30Previous collaboration 23.53 9 27.27experiencesSupport of federal and 23.53 7 21.21state fundingSharing sense of urgency 11.76 5 15.15and necessityNo choice but to collaborate 17.65 4 12.12Good communication 5.88 4 12.12No resistance to change 0.00 2 6.06Understanding the cultures of 0.00 2 6.06cooperating agencies 48.62 109 100TotalNote: PC = bureau chiefs, division chiefs, division directors,or department deputy directors; PS = program specialists orconsultants.TABLE 4Contributing Factors for unsuccessful CollaborationCategories DefinitionLack of support from upper Not getting involved in planning; notmanagement/leadership knowing about the project; having other commitmentsLack of commitment Not fulfilling roles and responsibilitiesLack of common visions Having own agenda and not lookingand goals at the whole pictureLack of trust Taking expense from other groups; criticizing others publicly; not taking recessionsLack of financial support Insufficient funding to support collaborative effortsTurf issues/resistance Defending one's own territory;to change fear of changeLack of communication Not receiving correct information; using different data systems; using different languagesLack of time Insufficient time to meet deadline; not having enough time to participate in collaborationHinderance of rules/ Violation of existing rules/regulations,regulations both federal and state levelsLack of understanding of Having different definitionscollaborating agencies' of collaboration; having differentcultures priorities for what needs to be doneNo negative consequences Not held accountable if one doesif not collaborating not participate in collaborative effortsChange of personnel Changing direction/focus of the collaboration; starting things all over againTotalCategories PC % PS (n = 16) (N = 17)Lack of support from upper 8 50.00 6management/leadershipLack of commitment 9 56.25 4Lack of common visions 8 50.00 4and goalsLack of trust 7 43.75 5Lack of financial support 4 25.00 6Turf issues/resistance 5 31.25 4to changeLack of communication 2 12.50 2Lack of time 2 12.50 2Hinderance of rules/ 2 12.50 1regulationsLack of understanding of 2 12.50 0collaborating agencies'culturesNo negative consequences 2 12.50 0if not collaboratingChange of personnel O 0.00 1Total 51 59.30 35 % Total % (n = 33)Lack of support from upper 35.29 14 42.42management/leadershipLack of commitment 23.53 13 39.39Lack of common visions 23.53 12 36.36and goalsLack of trust 29.41 12 36.36Lack of financial support 35.29 10 30.30Turf issues/resistance 23.53 9 27.27to changeLack of communication 11.76 4 12.12Lack of time 11.76 4 12.12Hinderance of rules/ 5.88 3 9.09regulationsLack of understanding of 0.00 2 6.06collaborating agencies'culturesNo negative consequences 0.00 2 6.06if not collaboratingChange of personnel 5.88 1 3.03Total 40.69 86 100Note: PC = bureau chiefs, division chiefs, division directors,or department deputy directors; PS = program specialists orconsultants.TABLE 5Problems Encountered During Collaboration ProcessCategories DefinitionLack of communication Not sharing information; not knowing other programs within system; not receiving correct informationTurf issues/resistance Not wanting to accept change,to change not seeing the necessity of collaborationLack of common vision/goals Having different goals and objectives; having different opinions on which direction should be takenHinderance of rules/regulations Confidentiality issues; funding related issues (lack of flexibility)Disrespect for others/no trust Dominance of certain members; making decisions without consulting others; fear of losing somethingLack of financial support/ Dispute over funding;competition for resources insufficient funding for joint ventureProblems within system Bureaucracy; technical problems; mismanagementChange of personnel Changing focus/directions; starting the process all over againLack of time Insufficient time to meet deadline; having other commitmentsPoor participation of clients Difficulty getting clients to participate/cooperateLack of preplanning Not knowing the issues; no thorough planning (e.g., how to collect data) prior to the beginning of a collaborationLack of collaboration Unable to anticipate anyexperiences problems during the collaboration processTotalCategories PC % PS (n = 16) (n = 17)Lack of communication 10 62.50 6Turf issues/resistance 6 37.50 9to changeLack of common vision/goals 6 37.50 7Hinderance of rules/regulations 4 25.00 4Disrespect for others/no trust 3 18.75 5Lack of financial support/ 2 12.50 5competition for resourcesProblems within system 3 18.75 1Change of personnel 1 6.25 2Lack of time 1 6.25 2Poor participation ofdients 1 6.25 1Lack of preplanning 1 6.25 1Lack of collaboration 0 0.00 2experiencesTotal 38 45.78 45Categories % Total % (n = 33)Lack of communication 35.29 16 48.48Turf issues/resistance 52.94 15 45.45to changeLack of common vision/goals 41.18 13 39.39Hinderance of rules/regulations 23.53 8 24.24Disrespect for others/no trust 29.41 8 24.24Lack of financial support/ 29.41 7 21.21competition for resourcesProblems within system 5.88 4 12.12Change of personnel 11.76 3 9.09Lack of time 11.76 3 9.09Poor participation of clients 5.88 2 6.06Lack of preplanning 5.88 2 6.06Lack of collaboration 11.76 2 6.06experiencesTotal 54.22 83 100Note: PC = bureau chiefs, division chiefs, division directors, ordepartment deputy directors; PS = program specialists orconsultants.TABLE 6Solutions for Overcoming BarriersCategories DefinitionEnhanced communication Talking about differences; being upfront with the issues; making clients aware of problemsCommitment Persevering; always focusing on the vision; getting the job doneInvolvement of key persons Getting upper management involvedwho are decision makers in the collaboration earlier (e.g., planning stage) and involved problem-solvingForces behind collaboration Facing the pressure from the community or public--better to get the job doneDevelopment of trust/respect Not taking advantage of collaborating agencies; not criticizing each other overtly or covertlyInteragency support Sharing resources; working together instead of competing with each other; providing technical support to other agenciesThreat/elimination of turf Pulling out funding; removing someone who does not want to collaborateIntangible human factor Not wanting to hurt anyone; being sensitive to others' needsChange of rules/regulations Revising the rules that hinder collaboration; using waiverTotalCategories PC % PS (n=16) (n=17)Enhanced communication 10 62.50 6Commitment 7 43.75 4Involvement of key persons 6 37.50 2who are decision makersForces behind collaboration 3 18.75 3Development of trust/respect 2 12.50 3Interagency support 2 12.50 3Threat/elimination of turf 1 6.25 3Intangible human factor 2 12.50 1Change of rules/regulations 1 6.25 1Total 34 56.67 26Categories % Total % (n=33)Enhanced communication 35.29 16 48.48Commitment 23.53 11 33.33Involvement of key persons 11.76 8 24.24who are decision makersForces behind collaboration 17.65 6 18.18Development of trust/respect 17.65 5 15.15Interagency support 17.65 5 15.15Threat/elimination of turf 17.65 4 12.12Intangible human factor 5.88 3 9.09Change of rules/regulations 5.88 2 6.06Total 43.33 60 100Note: PC = bureau chiefs, division chiefs, division directors, ordepartment deputy directors; PS = program specialists or consultants.TABLE 7What Would Have Been Done Differently if Participating in aCollaboration AgainCategories DefinitionEnhanced communication Talking about differences; being upfront with the issues; making clients aware of problemsPreplanning Defining goals in more detail; planning how to collect data and achieve objectives; anticipating problemsInvolvement of key persons Involving upper managementwho are decision makers earlier, especially during the planning stageNo idea Never thought about this questionMore entities/parental involvement Including more local entities or dients in the collaborationUnderstanding the cultures of Learning about cooperatingcooperating agencies agencies' languages and missionsChange of rules/regulations Proposing change of rules/regulations before beginning the projectElimination of turf issues Identifying individuals who do not want to collaborate at the beginning of a collaborationMore funding Obtaining financial resources needed to facilitate the collaborationTotalCategories PC % PS (n = 16) (n = 17)Enhanced communication 7 43.75 6Preplanning 6 37.50 6Involvement of key persons 3 18.75 8who are decision makersNo idea 3 18.75 5More entities/parental involvement 3 18.75 5Understanding the cultures of 1 6.25 2cooperating agenciesChange of rules/regulations 1 6.25 1Elimination of turf issues 1 6.25 1More funding 0 0.00 1Total 25 41.67 35Categories % Total % (n = 33)Enhanced communication 35.29 13 39.39Preplanning 35.29 12 36.36Involvement of key persons 47.06 11 33.33who are decision makersNo idea 29.41 8 24.24More entities/parental involvement 29.41 8 24.24Understanding the cultures of 11.76 3 9.09cooperating agenciesChange of rules/regulations 5.88 2 6.06Elimination of turf issues 5.88 2 6.06More funding 5.88 1 3.03Total 58.33 60 100Note: PC = bureau chiefs, division chiefs, division directors, ordepartment deputy directors; PS = program specialists or consultants. REFERENCES Audette, R. H. (1980). Interagency collaboration: The bottom line.In J. O. Elder & P. R. Magrab (Eds.), Coordinating services tohandicapped children (pp. 25-44). Baltimore Baltimore,city (1990 pop. 736,014), N central Md., surrounded by but politically independent of Baltimore co., on the Patapsco River estuary, an arm of Chesapeake Bay; inc. 1745. : Brookes. * Baxter, J. M. (1982). Solving problems through cooperation.Exceptional Children, 48, 400-407. Brudder, M. B. (1998). A collaborative model In psycholinguistics, the collaborative model(or conversational model) is a theory for explaining how speaking and understanding work in conversation, specifically how people in conversation coordinate to determine definite references. to increase thecapacity of childcare providers to include young children withdisabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 21(2), 177-186. Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions andanswers to help policy makers improve children's services.Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium, Institute forEducational Leadership (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338984) Capper, C. A. (1994). "We're not housed in aninstitution, we're housed in the community": Possibilities andconsequences of neighborhood-based interagency collaboration.Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 257-277. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaborativeskills for school professionals (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. * Gallagher, R. J., LaMontagne, M. J., & Johnson, L. J. (1995).Early intervention: The collaborative challenge. In L. J. Johnson, R. J.Gallagher, M. J. LaMontagne, J. B. Jordan, J. J. Gallagher, P. L.Hutinger, & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Meeting early interventionchallenges: Issues from birth to three (2nd ed., pp. 279-288).Baltimore: Brookes. * Greenan, J. P. (1986). Networking needs in vocational/specialeducation: Enhancing interagency collaboration. Journal for VocationalSpecial Needs Education, 8(3), 15-20. Guthrie, G. P., & Guthrie, L. F. (1991). Streamlininginteragency collaboration for youth at risk. Educational Leadership,49(1), 17-22. Harbin, G. L. (1996). The challenge of coordination. Infants andYoung Children, 8(3), 68-76. Imel, S. (1992). Interagency collaboration: Its role in welfarereform. Columbus: Center on Education and Training for Employment, TheOhio State University Ohio State University,main campus at Columbus; land-grant and state supported; coeducational; chartered 1870, opened 1873 as Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, renamed 1878. There are also campuses at Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Newark. . (EDO-CE-92-126) (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 347 405) Johnson, L. J.; & Heal, L. (1987). Inter-observer agreement:How large should Kappa be? Capstone Journal of Education, 7, 51-64. Johnson, L. J., & LaMontagne, M. J. (1993). Using contentanalysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholderswithin early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 1(1), 73-79. Johnson, L. J., Pugach, M. C., & Hammitte, D. J. (1988).Barriers to effective special education consultation. Remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. andSpecial Education, 9(6), 41-47. Johnson, L. J., Ruiz, D. M., LaMontagne, M. L., & George, E.(1998). The history of collaboration: Its importance to blending earlychildhood education and early childhood special education practices. InL. J. Johnson, M. J. LaMontagne, P. M. Elgas, & A. M. Bauer (Eds.),Early childhood education: Blending theory, blending practice (pp.1-18). Baltimore: Brookes. * Johnson, W. H., McLaughlin, J. A., & Christensen, M. (1982).Interagency collaboration: Driving and restraining RESTRAINING. Narrowing down, making less extensive; as, a restraining statute, by which the common law is narrowed down or made less extensive in its operation. forces. ExceptionalChildren, 48, 395-399. Kirk; R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for thebehavioral sciences behavioral sciences,n.pl those sciences devoted to the study of human and animal behavior. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole * LaCour, J. A. (1982). Interagency agreement: A rational response toan irrational ir��ra��tion��aladj.Not rational; marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.irrationaladjective Unreasonable, illogical system. Exceptional Children, 49, 265-267. Melaville, A. I., & Blank, M. J. (1991). What it takes:Structuring interagency partnerships to connect children and familieswith comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education and HumanServices Consortium, Institute for Educational Leadership. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 330 748) Mitchell, D. E., & Scott, L. D. (1993). Professional andinstitutional perspectives on interagency collaboration. journal ofEducation Policy, 8(5-6), 75-91. Morris, J. H., Jr., & Kirkpatrick, C. (1987). Clarendon CLARENDON. The constitutions of Clarendon were certain statutes made in the reign of Henry H., of England, in a parliament holden at Clarendon, by which the king checked the power of the pope and his clergy. 4 Bl. Com. 415. County:An example of rural interagency coordination, cooperation andcreativity. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 11(2), 37-39. Payzant, T. W. (1992). New beginnings in San Diego San Diego(săn dēā`gō), city (1990 pop. 1,110,549), seat of San Diego co., S Calif., on San Diego Bay; inc. 1850. San Diego includes the unincorporated communities of La Jolla and Spring Valley. Coronado is across the bay. : Developing astrategy for interagency collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(2),139-146. Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Collaborativepractitioners, collaborative schools. Denver: Love.* Quinn, K., & Cumblad, C. (1994). Service providers'perceptions of interagency collaboration in their communities. Journalof Emotional and Behavioral behavioralpertaining to behavior.behavioral disorderssee vice.behavioral seizuresee psychomotor seizure. Disorders, 2(2), 109-116. Stegelin, D. A., &Jones, S. D. (1991). Components of earlychildhood interagency collaboration: Results of a statewide study. EarlyEducation and Development; 2(1), 54-67. Suarez, T. M., Hurth, J. L., & Prestridge, S. (1988).Innovation in services for young children with handicaps and theirfamilies: An analysis of the handicapped children's early educationprogram projects funded from 1982 to 1986. Journal of the Division forEarly Childhood, 12, 224-237. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis Exploratory Data Analysis - (EDA)[J.W.Tukey, "Exploratory Data Analysis", 1977, Addisson Wesley]. . Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley. * LAWRENCE J. JOHNSON, Dean, College of Education and ExecutiveDirector, Arlitt Child and Family Research and Education Center,University of Cincinnati The University of Cincinnati is a coeducational public research university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ranked as one of America’s top 25 public research universities and in the top 50 of all American research universities,[2] , Ohio. BRIAN KAI YUNG TAM, Associate Professor,Specialized spe��cial��ize?v. spe��cial��ized, spe��cial��iz��ing, spe��cial��iz��esv.intr.1. To pursue a special activity, occupation, or field of study.2. Educational Academic Group, National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University (Abbreviation: NTU) is a major research university in Singapore. The University's garden campus, known as the Yunnan Garden campus is in the southwestern part of Singapore. , Singapore. DEBBIE ZORN, Director,Evaluation Services Center, University of Cincinnati, Ohio. MAGGIELAMONTAGNE (CEC (Central Electronic Complex) The set of hardware that defines a mainframe, which includes the CPU(s), memory, channels, controllers and power supplies included in the box. Some CECs, such as IBM's Multiprise 2000 and 3000, include data storage devices as well. #1165), Assistant Professor, Department of Leadership,Technology and Human Development, College of Education, Georgia SouthernUniversity Georgia Southern University, established 1906, is a regional university located in Statesboro, Georgia, USA, and part of the University System of Georgia. It is the largest center of higher education in the southern half of Georgia and is the sixth largest institution in the , Statesboro. SUSAN A. JOHNSON, Nursing Program Director,Associate Professor, Department of Health Sciences, College of Mount St.Joseph The College of Mount St. Joseph is a Roman Catholic liberal arts college located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its enrollment as of fall 2006 was approximately 2,200 students. The school is also known by its students as Delhi Tech, the University of Delhi, or simply UD. , Cincinnati, Ohio “Cincinnati” redirects here. For other uses, see Cincinnati (disambiguation).Cincinnati is a city in the U.S. state of Ohio and the county seat of Hamilton County. . This study was supported by the Office of Special Education andRehabilitative re��ha��bil��i��tate?tr.v. re��ha��bil��i��tat��ed, re��ha��bil��i��tat��ing, re��ha��bil��i��tates1. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.2. Services, U.S. Department of Education GrantH024J30012-94 to the Ohio Department of Health. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lawrence J. Johnson,University of Cincinnati, Arlitt Child and Family Research and EducationCenter, One Edwards Center, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105. Manuscript manuscript,a handwritten work as distinguished from printing. The oldest manuscripts, those found in Egyptian tombs, were written on papyrus; the earliest dates from c.3500 B.C. received January 2001; revision accepted April 2002. * To order books referenced in this journal, please call 24 hrs/365days: 1-800-BOOKS-NOW (266-5766); or 1-732-728-1040; or visit them onthe Web at http://www.BooksNow.com/Exceptional Children.htm. Use Visa,M/C M/C Machine (mechanical engineering)M/C MotorcycleM/C MiscarriageM/C Multiple ChoiceM/C Maitre de Cabine , AMEX AMEXSee: American Stock Exchange , Discover, or send check or money order + $4.95 S&H ($2.50each add'l item) to: Clicksmart, 400 Morris Avenue, Long Branch, NJ07740; 1-732728-1040 or FAX 1-732-728-7080.