CONTRIBUTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND CONTRADICTIONS: … · Multi-sector collaboration is an appealing...

CONTRIBUTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND CONTRADICTIONS:

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITHIN

COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING

by

MEREDITH LEIGH TETLOFF

(Under the Direction of Michelle Mohr Carney)

ABSTRACT

Multi-sector collaboration is an appealing intervention strategy to address complex social

problems, such as economic stagnation and environmental hazards. By working together,

community members have the potential to develop a thorough and accurate understanding of the

cause of the problem, and share the responsibilities associated with implementing a solution. As

participants share costs and resources, they create a synergistic approach to problem-solving.

Collaboration has increased in popularity due to a shift from the federal government to local

municipalities to address social concerns and funder mandates to create partnerships. Despite the

potential and increasing popularity of collaboration, research indicates it fails as often as it

succeeds. This is likely due to the complexity of the intervention strategy that is inherently

conflict-ridden and logistically demanding. One promising approach to mitigate challenges is to

employ a fulltime professional community organizer who can manage the details and address

challenges as they arise. This multiple case study investigates nine university-community

collaboratives in order to better understand the challenges of partnership, and the contributions of

a fulltime professional community organizer. Data were collected through in-depth interviews

with organizers, focus groups with community participants, and document analyses. The

Archway Partnership, an innovative university-community engagement initiative of the

University System of Georgia, provides the cases. Findings suggest eight primary roles within

the context of a university-community partnership: resource broker, relationship builder, process

designer, facilitator, community insider, conflict resolver, visionary, and ego manager. Data

analyses indicated that by fulfilling these roles, community organizers serve a valuable purpose

within collaboration and provide a promising strategy to overcome the challenge of cross-sector

partnership in order to improve the well-being of communities.

INDEX WORDS: Collaboration, community organizer, coalition, university-community

partnerships


ASSESSING THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITHIN


by


BA, Birmingham-Southern College, 2000

MS, Columbia University, 2004

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2012

© 2012

Meredith Leigh Tetloff

All Rights Reserved


ASESSING THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITHIN


by


Major Professor: Michelle Mohr Carney

Committee: Michael Holosko Thomas Holland Mel Garber Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2012

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my son John Oliver Tetloff, who inspired me to work

hard and reminded me to play and have fun along the way. I love you the most.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As with most of my accomplishments, this would not have been possible without the

support of many people. My doctoral committee represents the ideal of collaboration, each

member contributing necessary components that enabled me to do my best. Michelle Carney

shared insight and guidance from initial conception, through the challenging process of pushing

me to focus the study, and finally to completion. I will always have a great deal of gratitude for

her unwavering graciousness and equanimity when life took unexpected turns. Michael Holosko

embodied the spirit of a mentor, ever present and giving of his time and expertise, and

motivating me to rise to the challenge. Tom Holland has provided an invaluable professional role

model, generously sharing his wisdom and demonstrating patience and prodding as necessitated

by the process. Without the support of Mel Garber, this study would have been impossible. He

opened doors and advocated on my behalf, providing access to the data, and inspired me with his

dedication to authentic partnership between universities and communities.

I am immeasurably grateful to the Archway Professionals, Emily Watson, Kim Jackson,

Laura Gillman, Ilka McConnell, Gail Webb, Barbara Grogan, Mary Beth Bass Chew, Melissa

Lu, and Michelle Elliott for opening up their worlds to me, convincing busy community leaders

to spend time with me, sharing thoughtful and thought-provoking insight, and constantly

reenergizing me with their own enthusiasm for community development. It was also an honor to

visit the communities of Colquitt, Washington, Clayton, Hart, Sumter, Pulaski, and Whitfield

Counties, and I am indebted to many community members who gave generously of their time. I

am also grateful for the support and guidance from other Archway Partnership staff members,

vi

including Matt Bishop, Sue Chapman, Angel Jackson, and Michelle Wilder. Finally, the

financial support of the University of Georgia’s Graduate School provided me with the

opportunity to prioritize my research.

In addition to my committee, this work is a reflection of my fortune to have had several

extraordinary mentors throughout my life. I am grateful to Leslie Parker for igniting my love of

politics; Ed LaMonte, Bob Slaughter, and Natalie Davis for providing an outstanding education

in political science; and to Stewart Jackson and Rachel Alterman Wallack for living lives

dedicated to social justice, and nurturing and inspiring me to do the same.

I want to express my love and gratitude to my friends and family, who not only tolerated

this long and often tedious process, but also consistently shared their belief in my ability to see it

through even when I had doubt. My dear friends, Brooke Budney, Kristy Caruso, Natalie Cotter,

Nikki Deal, Amy Espy, Betsy Hart, and Danielle Williams, whose support, love, and advice

through our 20+ years of friendship have enriched my life more than I can express. I was also

fortunate to have a solid support network at UGA, most especially John Barner, a kindred spirit

whose astute advice and encouragement propelled me forward; and Sara Kintzle and Jacquelyn

Lee, who were always willing to listen to my complaints, keep things in perspective, and share

some laughs at Blue Sky.

I also want to thank my family, including my siblings, Elizabeth and Joe Testa, Michael

and Emily Bruner, and Athena and Lawton Roberts, and the brood of nephews they have blessed

me with, Joey, Alex, Nolan, Mason, Nolan, and Benjamin. I am grateful for your interest in my

work, your ability to make me laugh and relax when I most needed it, and your support with the

day-to-day complications of writing a dissertation (especially the computer help, Lawton!). My

parents-in-law, Mary and Gary Tetloff, were among the first to encourage me to pursue my

vii

dream of a doctorate, and exceeded their promise to support me, most importantly by providing

Ollie with daily love and care while I was away, and providing me with the peace of mind that

accompanies the knowledge of a child’s well-being. There are no words to express my gratitude

to my parents, Johnny and Lee Bruner, for providing me with a lifetime of love and opportunities

to find my own path, even when it was not clear where I was heading. You epitomize

unconditional love and encouragement, and inspire me to find opportunities to similarly care for

and contribute to the well-being of others. Finally, I am grateful to Anthony Tetloff, who

enthusiastically embraced my suggestion of quitting my job and returning to graduate school

when our son was one-year-old, and patiently tolerated the ensuing highs and lows of completing

a doctorate. Thank you for believing in me.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 2

University-Community Partnerships..................................................................... 6

Role of the Professional Organizer ....................................................................... 8

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 9

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 11

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 12

Study Rationale .................................................................................................. 14

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 19

2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 21

Community Organization ................................................................................... 21

University-Community Partnerships................................................................... 27

Coalition Building .............................................................................................. 36

Professional Organizers...................................................................................... 42

ix

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 47

3 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 49

Design of the Study ............................................................................................ 49

Sample Selection ................................................................................................ 55

Case Description ................................................................................................ 57

Data Collection .................................................................................................. 58

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 61

Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 62

4 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 65

Case Descriptions............................................................................................... 66

Community Organizer Roles .............................................................................. 96

Community Perceptions ................................................................................... 132

The Influence of Additional Variables .............................................................. 144

Unique Contributions ....................................................................................... 146

Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 153

5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................. 155

Role Identification ........................................................................................... 156

Implications for Practice .................................................................................. 172

Limitations ....................................................................................................... 174

Future Research ............................................................................................... 176

Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 178

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 179

APPENDICES

x

A Community Member Focus Group ......................................................................... 193

B Archway Professional Interview ............................................................................ 195

C Focus Group Consent Form ................................................................................... 197

D Interview Consent Form......................................................................................... 199

E Data Summary Table: Role Prevalence .................................................................. 201

F Data Summary Table: Roles by History ................................................................. 202

G Data Summary Table: Roles by Community Size ................................................... 203

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Rothman’s (2001) Three Community Intervention Approaches to Selected Practice

Variables ....................................................................................................................... 23

Table 2: Primary Variables ........................................................................................................ 51

Table 3: Focus Group Participant Demographics ....................................................................... 68

Table 4: Individual Case Studies ............................................................................................... 95

Table 5: Summary of Identified Organizer Roles ..................................................................... 139

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: The Community Coalition Action Theory .................................................................. 10

Figure 2: Archway Partnership Host Counties ........................................................................... 56

Figure 3: The Archway Partnership Model ................................................................................ 58

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The ongoing impact of the recent recession has increased poverty while simultaneously

reducing public resources due to declines in tax revenues. The poverty rate in the United States is

over 15 %, the highest level in 17 years (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011) and

unemployment continues to hover above 8% (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). As the economic

crisis continues to wreak havoc worldwide, millions of people struggle with meeting basic needs.

Concurrently, a majority of states have cut funding to all major services, including health care

(31 states), services to the elderly and disabled (29 states and the District of Columbia), K-12

education (34 states and the District of Columbia), and higher education (43 states) (Johnson,

Oliff, & Williams, 2011). As a result, communities are squeezed to provide more services with

fewer resources.

The subsequent gap between needs and resources affects a broad range of people and

organizations, and therefore are the responsibility of entire communities. An increasingly

popular intervention strategy is collaboration (El Ansari & Weiss, 2006; Hawkins, Shapiro, &

Fagan, 2010). Such an effort encompasses several variations, including coalitions, partnerships,

collectives, and collaboratives (Alexander, Zakocs, Earp, & French, 2006). Regardless of the

name attributed to the effort, a similar expectation generates the promotion of collaboration: by

working together, a group can achieve more than any one individual person or organization

(Gray, 1989; Kegler, Rigler, & Ravani, 2010). Features such as shared responsibility, widespread

2

support, accruing a critical mass to affect change, minimizing duplication of efforts, and

mobilizing resources highlight potential benefits (Wandersman, Goodman, & Butterfoss, 2005).

As expected, such a complex intervention is also associated with many challenges, such

that experts implore practitioners to seek out alternative strategies when possible (Huxham &

Vangen, 2004). Prohibitive characteristics are transactional costs, particularly of time invested in

communication and relationship-building, as well as lack of transparency and accountability due

to the widespread division of labor and shared leadership (Geddes, 2008). It is theorized that

collaboration works best when partners trust each other, share a vision, and are willing to

compromise (Dunlop & Holosko, 2004; Mandell & Keast, 2008). Yet diverse partners bring

differing expectations and goals, varying levels of trust and history of working with each other,

inequitable power and resources, and come from wide-ranging cultures (Geddes, 2008; Huxham

& Vangen, 2004; Mandell & Keast, 2008). At times, these challenges are insurmountable, and in

a review of community practice literature, Ohmer and Korr (2006) found interventions aimed at

changing physical, social, or economic conditions were as likely to fail as succeed.

Collaboration

In her seminal book, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problem,

Barbara Gray (1989), defines collaboration as “a process through which parties who see different

aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go

beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” (p. 5). Underlying this assumption is the

belief that collaborating, i.e., pooling resources and skills, enables a group of people to

accomplish what they cannot alone (Wandersman et al., 2005). Weiss, Anderson, and Lasker

(2002) refer to this as “synergy,” defined as “the extent to which combined perspectives,

knowledge, and skills of the partners strengthen the thinking and actions of the group and the

3

partnership’s relationship to the broader community” (p.687-688). Collaborations also espouse

characteristics that have rhetorical sway, such as empowerment, democratic decision-making and

inclusivity of diverse community members (Zakocs & Edwards, 2006). By bringing together

community members and organizations, collaboratives present the opportunity for holistic

problem-solving targeted at the origin of the problem, sharing of costs and risks, reduction of

duplication, increased access to resources, and community ownership of the solution (Gray,

1989; Kegler et al., 2010). Those closest to the problem are ostensibly in the best position to

identify and implement a solution. A more cynical explanation is offered by Bryson, Crosby, &

Stone (2006), who argued that people “fail” into collaboration (p. 45). In other words, failure to

satisfactorily achieve a goal independently forces individual entities to seek out partners. In some

cases, collaboration is less voluntary than even this sentiment. Budget cuts, accompanied by a

dismal economic future, have resulted in increased local responsibility for problem-solving. As

the federal and state governments provide less funding and resources, the gaps for service

provision weigh heavily on local institutions (DeFilippis, Fisher, & Shrage, 2006). Collaboration

presents an option for spreading the responsibilities and therefore the costs across a range of

service providers. Foundations and other funders (e.g., the Robert Wood Foundation and the

W.K. Kellogg Foundation) have also contributed to the increase in collaboration by mandating

partnership as a prerequisite to receive funds (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, & Yang, 2007;

Wandersman et al., 2005).

However intuitive collaboration may seem, the process of building and sustaining

partnerships that effectively execute positive change in communities is elusive at best, and in

some cases, even subjugates the goals of the community members (Wandersman et al., 2005). In

fact, empirical investigations of the effectiveness of community partnerships to instigate social

4

change often show failure (Hallfors, Cho, Livert, & Kadushin, 2002; Hawkins et al., 2010) or are

inconclusive (Granner & Sharpe, 2004; Kreuter, Lezin, & Young, 2000; Zakocs & Edwards,

2006). This is largely due to the fact that collaboration is difficult, and for all the potential

benefits, there exist costs (Gray, 1989). These interventions are only as strong as the investment

of members; therefore, time, money, and scare resources must be diverted away from other

priorities. Collaborative initiatives may not provide the best solution, and because of the costs

involved, should not be considered if an alternative exists.

In order to make the determination of whether or not to implement a collaborative

partnership, the problem must first be clearly articulated. When this is not satisfactorily

accomplished, the collaboration is vulnerable to “theory failure” (Wandersman et al., 2005, p.

306), which is a mismatch of the problem with a collaborative strategy. Gray (1989) presents

characteristics of problems that are likely to require a collaborative solution. Such problems

impact a variety of stakeholders, and therefore have many people willing to invest in a solution.

It is not necessary for the stakeholders to be well organized, or even in agreement as to the nature

of the problem and potential solutions. Collaboration can be helpful when differing viewpoints

and inequitable power complicate the ability of stakeholders to work together by providing an

organizing mechanism that assists in conflict resolution. These complex problems often require

technical expertise and may have no easily identifiable solution, therefore calling for innovation,

another product of collaboration. Finally, a clear indicator of the need for collaboration is the

failure of previous, unilateral efforts to solve the problem.

Theory and research offer a variety of explanations for the failure of partnerships even

when collaborative problem-solving presents a good fit for addressing the concern. Operating

within a resource-scare environment increases susceptibility to system or resource failure, which

5

occurs when collaboratives do not have adequate resources or support to implement strategies

(Wandersman et al., 2005). Much like the social problems collaboratives aim to mitigate, the

complexity of partnership is daunting for even well-resourced communities. Implementation

failure can occur when groups are unable to cooperate or manage the various challenges of

collaboration (Wandersman et al., 2005). Many of the strengths of collaboratives, e.g. diversity

of participants, contribute to conflict and often present as obstacles during the process. Conflict

resolution is considered essential for success by many experts (Chavis, 2001; Wandersman et al.,

2005). Wandersman et al. (2005) explained, “conflict transformation is the process whereby

resolution of conflict strengthens the coalition and builds capacity” (p. 301-302). This

perspective argues that the process of resolving conflict not only prevents disagreement, but

actually increases the commitment of the members and improves their ability to implement

solutions.

Many impetuses for conflict are inherent in collaboration. Conflict can arise when the

goal of the partnership differs, and perhaps even contradicts, the goal of a member’s organization

(Chavis, 2001; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1993). Huxham and Vangen (2004) point out that the

importance of the collaborative goal varies in relationship to the organizational goal of each

member. For some, it is imperative to organizational survival; for others, it is only tangential,

and failure does not present dire consequences. Inevitably, members invest varying levels of

commitment. This becomes even more complicated in groups where goals are not clearly

articulated (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1993). Another possible source of goal conflict resides within

the relationship between community members and external funders and supporters, who may

have contrasting priorities and expectations (Chavis, 2001).

6

A diverse membership contributes to a broad range of skills, resources, and perceptions,

but also challenges the unity needed to achieve group consensus. Resource contribution and

disbursement are not necessary equitable, resulting in members who bear a larger responsibility

or gain more benefits, and perhaps creating resentment. Additionally, the tension between

community ownership and the need for technical expertise may result in a stalemate of decision-

making if outside experts and community members disagree on the appropriate solutions

(Chavis, 2001). Several of these sources of conflict are related to power, both explicit as

identified through roles and leadership positions, as well as implicit for those whose influence

comes from personality traits, socioeconomic status, and professional expertise. Contributing to

the complexity, power within collaboration is dynamic, shifting as membership changes, projects

are completed or end in failure, and social, political, and economic forces change (Huxham &

Vangen, 2004).

University-Community Partnerships

One specific type of collaboration that is gaining traction across the country is a

university-community partnership (UCP). Millions of dollars have been invested in UCPs by

private foundations and federal programs (Fisher, Fabricant, & Simmons, 2004). In 2006, the

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching established a community engagement

classification, recognizing the relevance and importance of partnership (Driscoll, 2008). Defined

as, “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities

(local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and

resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity,” (Driscoll, 2008, p. 39), such partnerships

have the potential to improve the community’s ability to problem-solve, and enhance the

university’s mission of education and knowledge production. Academic institutions have an

7

abundance of what communities often need: information, technical expertise, credibility, and

human capital. Communities offer real-world labs for researchers to investigate phenomena

within context as well as develop theory in relation to application, and real-world classrooms for

students, increasing the relevance of what they are learning, enhancing civic responsibility, and

improving employability through practical experience (Buys & Bursnall, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar,

Harper, & Lewis, 2005).

Despite the opportunities within partnerships, many obstacles impede the acceptance and

development of such collaboratives, or interfere with success. Faculty, students, and community

partners have great demands on time and resources, and investing in partnership may distract

from other goals, such as promotion and tenure for academics and service delivery and

constituent appeasement for community partners. In order for potential partners to take the risk

and invest limited time and resources in UCPs, a greater understanding is needed as to when

implementation is beneficial, and how to best develop and facilitate the partnership.

Relationships between universities and communities date back to the Morill Act of 1862

and the initiation of land-grant schools to benefit communities (Dubb, 2007), and blossomed in

urban settings in the 1800s and 1900s through the settlement houses (Fisher et al., 2004).

However, these past examples often operated from a charity perspective, positioning the

university as the savior of the community. Current efforts, guided by research that demonstrates

that universities will only invest in partnerships long-term when reciprocity of benefits is present

(Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993; Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001;

Metzger, Alexander, & Weiner, 2005; Seifer, 2006), must shift the paradigm towards one of

authentic partnership and collaboration. It is here that research is sparse, and much can be

8

learned from those investigating other forms of collaboration and coalitions. This study aims to

contribute to an increased understanding of how UCPs can succeed.

Role of the Professional Organizer

The myriad of challenges in implementing a collaborative solution highlight the

importance of quality management. In a study of N=86 coalitions, Chavis (1996) found that

conflict resolution, or the absence of it, was the most important factor in goal attainment.

Negotiating this tenuous process is an essential task for collaboratives, often dictating success or

failure. Additionally, collaborations require task management. Gray (2008) proposed a

confluence of driving and restraining forces, located both within and external to the group.

Driving forces include the need for resources and knowledge, as well as government incentives

and funding mandates. Restraining forces are primarily variants of power and conflict issues.

These forces must be deliberately managed, implying the need for a professional organizer.

Referred to as a coordinator (Casey, 2008; Hawkins et al., 2010), consultant (Butterfoss,

2004), intervener (Gray, 2008), social change professional (Minkler, 2005), staff (Wandersman

et al., 2005), and mediator (Gray, 1989), the professional organizer provides a vital advantage to

collaborative problem-solving (Gray, 2008; Hawkins et al., 2010). Many necessary roles and

associated skills and tasks have been suggested for the purview of a professional organizer.

During the initial planning and implementation of the partnership, the organizer serves as a

catalyst and convener (Gray, 2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2001). Tasks involve assessing community

readiness, identifying potential partners, and bringing stakeholders together. Organizers are also

often in a teaching role, providing training and technical assistance. The goal for this role is to

build the community’s capacity. This must be balanced with achieving desired outcomes, which

means at times the organizer becomes a facilitator, ensuring follow-through and doing mundane

9

and technical tasks that would otherwise go uncompleted (Rubin & Rubin, 2001). The

professional organizer also serves as a relationship builder, bringing together stakeholders within

the community, as well as bridging to external supporters (Pilisuk, McAllister, Rothman, &

Larin, 2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2001). As a person with a nuanced understanding of the political,

social, and economic context, the organizer can also serve as a visionary (Gray, 2008). In a

multiyear study of coalitions and the role of staff, Sanchez (1999) found that community

members greatly appreciated leadership, passion, and vision from paid staff. Organizers must

also be acutely aware of the process, driving and guiding it as needed (Gray, 2008). This

includes negotiating interactions among partners, conducting meetings, and navigating decision-

making. Finally, as anticipated from the literature identifying the challenges of collaboration,

organizers must be resolvers of conflict and builders of trust (Gray, 2008; Pilisuk et al., 2008).

Theoretical Framework

This study utilizes the Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT) as a guiding

framework. Building on years of experience and a growing literature base, Butterfoss and Kegler

(2002) developed the CCAT, which explicates the form and function of community coalitions.

Coalitions are, “interorganizational, cooperative, and synergistic alliances that …unite

individuals and groups in a shared purpose” (Wandersman et al., 2005, p. 293-294). Butterfoss

and Kegler (2002) further define community coalitions as entities that, “bring people together,

expand available resources, and focus on a problem of community concern to achieve better

results than any single group or agency could have achieved alone” (p.157-158). As defined by

these theorists, coalitions also are comprised of individuals representing organizations; are

action-oriented, encouraging strategies that engage community members and result in

community-prioritized outcomes; and are formal, multipurpose, and long-term.

10

Broadly, this theory proposes three stages that coalitions cycle through as members and

activities change: formation, maintenance, and institutionalization. The coalition is convened by

a lead agency that assists with the membership development. Primary inputs of processes,

leadership, staffing, and structures result in synergy. This facilitates the achievement of

improved community capacity and change outcomes. All aspects of the coalition are continually

influenced by the community context, such as history of partnership, availability of resources,

and geography (Butterfoss, 2007).

(Adapted from Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002)

Figure 1. Community Coalition Action Theory

Coalitions present many benefits as an intervention strategy. As formal organizations,

they offer members structure and opportunities to share information and become involved in

solutions without solely shouldering the responsibility (Butterfoss, 2007). Coalitions are

multipurpose, accommodating the goals of several organizations. As open organizations, they

11

provide a useful tool for recruiting and integrating diverse constituents. By bringing together

several people and organizations, coalitions increase public awareness of issues and are able to

leverage their influence and legitimacy to access to resources (Wandersman et al., 2005).

Statement of the Problem

The problem this dissertation strives to inform is the discrepancy between the popularity

and theoretical appeal of collaboration, and the dismal success rate. Failure to satisfactorily solve

social problems such as substance abuse and teen pregnancy, reduced federal resources, and

transfer of responsibility to local communities prompt the creation of collaborative partnerships.

These groups are envisioned to share resources and holistically tackle problems, creating

solutions that are tailored to the unique needs of the community. Coalitions and other

partnerships have seen an increase in support through funding and government mandates,

receiving millions of dollars (Hawkins et al., 2010). However, the literature reveals little

evidence of the effectiveness of collaboration. The failure of almost half of all coalitions (Zakocs

& Edwards, 2006) indicates the need for more research in order to better understand when to

implement collaborative interventions, and how to best manage them.

Theoretically, the need for a professional organizer is assumed to be a prerequisite for

success. Absent this component, groups are much more likely to succumb to collaborative inertia

or completely dissolve (Huxham & Vangen, 2004). However, very little empirical research has

examined the role of the professional organizer. A review of the literature revealed no empirical

comparison of success between coalitions who utilized a professional organizer and those that

did not. The sparse evidence that exists supports claims of importance of this position. In a two-

year study of five university-community partnerships, Zakocs, Tiwari, Vehige, and DeJong

(2008) discovered the most developed collaboratives had administrative support, a community

12

organizer, and community initiation of the partnership. In 2006, Alexander et al. examined eight

substance abuse prevention collaboratives, concluding that effective leadership was closely tied

to insider status, bridge building skills, and shared leadership. Additional research is needed to

better understand the appropriate role of the professional organizer within a variety of

collaborative contexts.

Purpose of the Study

This dissertation aims to explore the role of professional organizers within the complexity

of collaborative interventions. Evidence indicates the importance of a professional organizer in

aiding the process of collaboration; however, a gap exists as to what are the unique contributions

of a professional, what skills are required to bring about change, and what contextual factors

influence the role of the organizer. Professionals involved in coalition development and

maintenance often have lengthy and broad job descriptions, including responsibility for formal

tasks, such as facilitating meetings and obtaining funding, as well as informal capacity building

obligations, such as mending broken relationships and increasing the efficacy of community

members.

Despite the complexities of job expectations, the organizer’s greatest challenges may be

the paradoxical nature of collaboration (Pilisuk at el., 2008). As an intervention method

distinguished by the fact that the process is as important as the outcome, collaboration often gets

bogged down in building consensus and planning for change, and the action of actually bring

about change may come very slowly. The organizer must balance a commitment to both process

and outcome, inevitably faced with the decision of prioritizing one over the other. Additionally,

communities are not homogenous entities, and collaboration depends upon a diverse

representation of community members in order to holistically define and tackle problems; yet

13

multiplicity of opinions and experiences foster conflict. Varying perspectives of a problem are

likely to result in differing opinions of solutions. Finally, community organizers are accountable

to many stakeholders, who may have differing priorities and expectations. The community

members themselves, funders of the initiative, the lead agency and employer of the organizer,

and various community leaders will put pressure on the organizer to meet numerous

expectations.

Faced with such a multitude of responsibilities, the professional must assume a variety of

roles and tasks. This occurs within the milieu of the coalition, and therefore any analysis of the

role of the professional must be done in relation to the context of the coalition. A great deal of

conjecture exists in regard to how a professional is expected to function in relation to the

coalition attributes, but no empirical research documents if and how coalition characteristics

impact the professional organizer. It was hypothesized that several contextual factors will

influence the role of the organizer and the most pertinent tasks. Years of practice experience and

thorough review of empirical research have generated the Community Coalition Action Theory

(CCAT) which stipulates several influential factors of coalition development and maintenance

(Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002). This theory aided in the selection of constructs most relevant to the

role of the organizer. This study focused on the community’s history of collaboration and current

demographics, the phase of coalition development, membership composition, and the goal of the

coalition.

Obviously, the coalition and the organizer will likely be influenced by many more factors

than the a priori ones identified here. This reinforces the selection of qualitative methods due to

the opportunity to discover influential factors as identified by those closest to the phenomenon.

As additional factors presented themselves, the researcher investigated those as potential

14

considerations for the professional organizer in prioritizing roles and tasks. It is the intention of

this study to assess the unique contributions of a professional organizer to community problem-

solving, specifically in relation to contextual factors that influence a coalition and the role of the

organizer. Central research questions that guided the study are:

1. What are the contextual factors of the nine university-community coalitions in terms of

the following: community demographics, history of collaboration, phase of development,

membership composition, and coalition goal?

2. What are these roles of the professional organizer within the context of collaborative

problem-solving?

a. How are the roles influenced by the identified constructs?

3. What is the perception of the community members about the role of the professional

organizer?

a. How do these converge or deviate from the perspective of the organizer?

4. What are the unique contributions of the professional organizer to the process of

collaborative problem-solving?

Study Rationale

This study resonates with the foundation of social work and the call by many to embrace

our roots of community practice (Specht & Courtney, 1994). Organizing people to build

relationships gave birth to our discipline. Weil (1996) states, “At their best, the settlements

engaged and continue to engage neighborhood residents in educational reform, environmental

actions, program development, inter-group relations, and broad arenas of economic and social

development” (p. 9). Bailey and Koney (1996) rightly recognize the potential social work

represents to lead the field of community collaboratives, stating:

15

As advocates for social justice as well as individual and community empowerment, social

work professionals bring essential skills and values to the task of developing

interorganizational community-based collaboratives. Further, social workers possess both

knowledge of and relationships in local neighborhoods to enable them to serve as links

among community agencies, their consumers, and local residents. (p. 605)

Not only should social workers be involved in community coalitions; we should be leaders, and

this requires a commitment to researching and disseminating best practices.

Paulo Freire (1973) argued, “one cannot be a social worker and be like the educator

who’s a coldly neutral technician. They keep our options secret, to conceal them in the cobwebs

of technique, or to disguise them by claiming neutrality does not constitute neutrality; quite the

contrary, it helps maintain the status quo” (p.104). Community coalitions are a direct link for

ordinary people from diverse backgrounds to claim power and make change in their

communities, and social workers have the skills and knowledge to educate community members

in how to achieve this. Bailey and Koney (1996) assert, “in a political climate where individual

input often is overshadowed by larger, more organized groups, the community-based

collaborative structure allows individuals and local organizations to work together, thereby

increasing their collective power and resources to effect change” (605). Community coalitions

epitomize social work’s commitment to empowerment by relegating the decision-making and a

majority of the intervention implementation to the community members themselves.

Diversity is viewed as an asset for coalitions because it helps groups achieve their

primary function of uniting resources and skills to more holistically tackle problems. No one

individual or organization must carry the burden of solving an issue. Coalitions also present

opportunities for people with differing experiences and perspectives to come together and

16

discuss the problem and possible solutions. Those directly affected by the issue will have new

insight to offer those funding efforts to alleviate troubles, and those employed by social service

agencies will have insight to offer public officials about the effectiveness of current laws and

policies. Yet this diversity comes at a cost. The very essence of its strength is that people are

different, which is also why members will not always agree and will likely have varying

priorities. Gamble and Weil (2010) state, “Conflict should be expected because organizational

partners come and go as changes in life and jobs create transitions, some partners have a history

of mutual ill will and find it hard to trust each other, or some partners believe they should have

more influence in decisions and others should have less” (p. 343).

Not only should conflict be expected; it can also serve a valuable purpose within a group.

Within an environment of trust and respect, conflict can provide community members the

opportunity to express dissent, establish boundaries, maintain equilibrium of power, and

strengthen relationships if it is successfully negotiated (Fellin, 1995). This study adds insight to

this paradox by providing a detailed look at the way relationships are structured, where potential

conflict arises, and what coalition factors are most susceptible to divergence from collaboration.

It also may show instances in which conflict is tolerable and not an impediment to success.

Research has shown that coalitions and community groups are often in need of technical

assistance for a variety of tasks, from leadership development to program evaluation (Hunter et

al., 2009; Kegler & Redmon, 2006). This is intuitively obvious as communities that face

intractable problems are often deplete in resources and experience in community change.

Exclusion from power structures and failed efforts to bring about change, or the perception that

change is too difficult, may discourage people from taking the risk and investing time and

resources into a collaborative effort. Lack of knowledge of how to access resources, technical

17

expertise, and an understanding of how to gain the attention of power brokers can stifle even the

most enthusiastic community members. Technical assistance can alleviate these gaps in

community work by providing people technical knowledge, such as how to design a web site,

and leadership training, such as how to implement a decision-making process. Previous research

indicates that receiving technical assistance has aided coalitions in gaining the confidence and

skills necessary to achieve goals. Specifically, coalitions with technical expertise have been more

successful at implementing best practices and evidence-based interventions (Hunter et al., 2009).

The challenge within the administration of technical assistance is assessing what

assistance is needed, how to best deliver it, and perhaps most importantly, how to do so in a

manner that does not usurp the community’s ownership and power within the coalition. This is

an especially relevant concern for social workers, who often have the role of coming into

communities of which they are not members with the goal of providing assistance while

maintaining a commitment to empowerment. Inattention to this issue may result in preservation

of the status quo by reinforcing the perception that the community must depend on external

entities for power and lack the ability to bring about change on their own. The question then

becomes how do social workers partner with communities in a way that both empowers and

meets the needs of the communities? This study hopes to shed light on this dilemma by asking

community members directly what assistance they need, if they have received it, and what they

have received that was not necessary.

This study also has implications for social work education. A minority of students enters

community practice intentionally, but all social workers must have knowledge and experience

with the broader systems that affect people’s lives. Community practice can be intimidating for

some students because of the largeness of the problems often encountered, such as violence and

18

poverty. Students may see these problems as having no solution or difficult to intervene in and

therefore feel a sense of powerlessness. By studying the role of the professional within coalitions

and community partnerships, social work students are provided an opportunity to envision a

doable model of social work practice that can be successful at implementing community-wide

interventions by dissecting problems and dividing up the efforts to combat them (Gamble &

Weil, 2010). For example, coalitions that strive to reduce tobacco use first start by educating

practitioners and community members about the impact of using tobacco through disseminating

pamphlets and conducing workshops in schools. This work is much more practical and tangible

than a goal of ending substance abuse.

The findings of this study enable social work students and experienced practitioners to

better understand where to invest limited time and resources. For example, should social

networking opportunities be arranged in order to build relationships, or would technical training

on grant-writing be more appropriate for the coalition? The skills needed for coalition-building

are in line with social work, e.g. conflict resolution, advocacy, resource brokering, and social

workers should be at the forefront of these potentially powerful community interventions. It is

only by emphasizing the importance of this work and making it practical and accessible to

students that future social workers will take on this challenge.

The recent recession highlights the trend of decreasing resources, increasing inequalities

among people, and the inability of public services to improve social well-being due to

dismantling of programs and devolution of responsibility to strapped local resources. States are

responsible for providing social welfare, but a majority, including Georgia, cannot run a deficit

(Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, 2009). Inevitably, the cracks that people fall through will

grow bigger and more prevalent. Community coalitions are the antithesis of this political climate.

19

Rather than shifting responsibility, coalitions provide the opportunity for organizations to share

the burden of improving social well-being. Collaboration among social service agencies is not a

new phenomenon (Stoecker, 1995). However, an increase in mandates from funders and the

government place an increased importance on making connections (Bailey & Koney, 1996).

Coalitions also address a reduction in resources by reducing duplication of services and pooling

assets. Coalitions can also improve client-friendly services by coordinating the efforts of

agencies serving the same clients, leading to greater efficiency for the agencies and less stress for

the client. Bailey and Koney (1996) assert, “to succeed, these collaboratives must transcend the

policy mandate for local participation. They must challenge existing paradigms to establish what

for many organizations and community leaders is a fundamentally new approach to planning and

service delivery” (p. 609).

Conclusion

This chapter presented an overview of the social problem this study aims to inform. The

need for comprehensive solutions to address complex, multi-sector social problems create a

demand for collaboration among key stakeholders. Collaboration presents many benefits,

including a mechanism for resolving conflict, sharing resources, and funding opportunities.

However, the process of collaboration is very difficult, and research suggests it fails as often as it

succeeds. In order to investigate the phenomenon of collaboration closely, this study researched

nine UCPs, a type of collaboration with a great deal of promise to improve the well-being of

communities and provide universities with unique opportunities for research and education. One

potential intervention to mitigate the challenges of collaboration is the use of a professional

organizer. Previous research indicates that organizers fulfill many of the necessary roles required

to achieve success within collaborative partnerships. Utilizing the CCAT as a framework to

20

identify important factors, this study attempts to provide a description of the roles of professional

organizers within collaboration.

21

CHAPTER 2

A Review of the Literature

While groups of people have been functioning in organized patterns since the inception

of society, the practice of community organization within social work first appeared late in the

19th century (Fisher, 1994). Defined by Minkler and Wallerstein (2008) as “the process by which

community groups are helped to identify common problems or goals, mobilize resources, and

develop and implement strategies for reaching the goals they have collectively set” (p. 26),

community organizing efforts are distinguished from other community level interventions by

utilizing collaboration among community members and empowerment strategies to foster

capacity growth. The community is both the driving force of the intervention, and the target of

change. This literature review focuses on community organization as an intervention method to

improve community well-bring. Specific areas of focus include: university-community

partnerships, an increasingly popular model of community organization; coalition-building, a

specific strategy for community organization; and the role of the professional community

organizer in fostering collaboration and increasing capacity.

Community Organization

Social workers coined the phrase “community organization” in the late 1800s in reference

to efforts to improve the well-being of immigrants and people living in poverty, and since that

time the field has grown and diversified to the extent that no single framework or definition

exists (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008, p. 27). The community organization nomenclature includes

community development, community-based planning, social action, collaboration, and coalition

22

building, among many others (Sites, Chaskin, & Parks, 2007). In an attempt to minimize the

ambiguity of what community organization really means and how it is implemented, Rothman

(1968) proposed a three-model framework, grounded in practice experience and verified by

empirical evidence (Cnaan & Rothman, 1986). The three models and hybrids with components

of each have experienced multiple iterations throughout the years, most recently in 2007, and

continue to remain the primary guiding framework for community practice within social work

(Hardina, 2002; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008; Rothman, 2008; and Sites et al., 2007).

Rothman’s (2001) framework delineates the models of community intervention along

twelve practice variables (see Table 1). In general, they differ according to the primary goals of

the intervention and strategies employed to achieve them. The first of the models, locality

development, “presupposes that community change should be pursued through broad

participation by a wide spectrum of people at the local community level in determining goals and

taking civic action” (Rothman, 2001, p. 29). Currently referred to as “capacity development”

(Rothman, 2007, p. 12), this approach emphasizes the process, seeking to build consensus among

community members and prepare them to be the primary problem-solvers. The second approach,

social planning/policy, relies upon technical expertise to design and deliver goods and services.

The community members are recipients rather than leaders of the intervention strategies, and the

end product is more important than the process to achieve it. The final approach, social action,

seeks to empower disenfranchised populations through redistribution of power, often utilizing

confrontation tactics.

23

Table 1

Rothman’s (2001) Three Community Intervention Approaches According to Selected Practice

Variables

Practice

Variables

Locality Development

(Capacity

Development)

Social

Planning/Policy

Social Action

Goal categories of community action

Community capacity and integration; self-help (process goals)

Problem solving with regard to substantive community problems (task goals)

Shifting of power relationships and resources; basic institutional change (task or process goals)

Assumptions concerning community structure and problem conditions

Community eclipsed, anomie; lack of relationships and democratic problem-solving capacities; static traditional community

Substantive social problems, mental and physical health, housing, recreation, etc.

Aggrieved populations, social injustice, deprivation, inequality

Basic change strategy

Involving a broad cross section of people in determining and solving their own problems

Gathering data about problems and making decisions on the most logical course of action

Crystallizing issues and mobilizing people to take action against enemy targets

Characteristic change tactics and techniques

Consensus: communication among community groups and interests; group discussion

Consensus or conflict Conflict confrontation, direct action, negotiations

Salient practitioner roles

Enabler-catalyst, coordinator; teacher of problem-solving skills and ethical values

Fact gather and analysis, program implementer, expediter

Activist advocate: agitator, broker, negotiator, partisan

Medium of change

Guiding small, task-oriented groups

Guiding formal organizations and treating data

Guiding mass organizations and political processes

Orientation toward power structure(s)

Members of power structure as collaborators in a common venture

Power structure as employers and sponsors

Power structure as the external target of action: oppressors to be coerced or overturned

Boundary definition of the beneficiary system

Total geographic community

Total community or community segment

Community segment

Assumptions regarding

Common interests or reconcilable differences

Interests reconcilable or in conflict

Conflicting interests which are not easily

24

interests of community subparts

reconcilable, scarce resources

Conception of beneficiaries

Citizens Consumers Victims

Conception of beneficiary role

Participants in an interaction problem-solving process

Consumers or recipients

Employers, constituents, members

Use of empowerment

Building the capacity of a community to make collaborative and informed decisions; promoting feeling of personal mastery by residents

Finding out from consumers about their needs for service; informing consumers of their service choices

Achieving objective power for beneficiary system – the right and means to impact community decisions; promoting a feeling of mastery by participants

While aspects of all three models are often present in community organization

interventions, this study will rely primarily on the model of capacity development due to its

alignment with the approach utilized by the Archway Partnership, the focus of the case study. As

stated by Archway leaders, “The Archway Partnership is a process, not a project, with commu-

nity members integrated from the beginning through meetings with University of Georgia

outreach faculty members as well as through a community-wide listening session that involves

citizens from nearly every aspect of the community” (Garber, Creech, Epps, Bishop, &

Chapman, 2010, p. 72-73). Originating in the early 20th century, capacity development expanded

during the 1960s in response to the decline of living conditions within cities and focused on

interventions aimed at community ownership of solutions (Sites et al., 2007). This model

prioritizes the process of building consensus and increasing communication among a broad

cross-section of community members (Cnaan & Rothman, 2001).

As noted earlier, collaboration is a critical component of community organization, and is

the driving mechanism of capacity development strategies. Defined by Gray (1989),

collaboration is “a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can

25

constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited

vision of what is possible” (p. 5). Collaboration does not exist within the individual members,

but rather the connections between them. Relationships are built and organizations enter

partnerships for a variety of reasons, including access to resources, mandates from funders,

improved service provision, and comprehensive community planning. Provan, Nakama, Veazie,

Teufel-Shone, and Huddleston (2003) argue, “Only through collaboration can human capital,

social capital, and organizational resources, be brought together in ways that are likely to have a

meaningful impact on community health and well-being” (p. 646).

Several other assumptions underlie this approach to community organization. The

practitioner facilitates the process, promoting self-determination and a sense of ownership among

community members who craft solutions that are appropriate for the community. The goal is to

support community members in developing the capacity to solve their own problems. Capacity

development often follows the steps of other interventions – problem identification, intervention

design, and implementation. However, according to Cnaan and Rothman (2001), “what is

distinctive is the multiplicity of individuals and groups that are intimately and integrally bought

into all aspects. Locally based groups are the core medium that locality development

practitioners rely on to solve problems and foster community capacity” (p. 260).

The ideals of capacity development, such as consensus and community empowerment,

present several challenges. The process-orientated nature of this intervention strategy may result

in a great deal of time invested in the process with little to no outcome achieved. Even in ideal

situations, the outcome may be achieved only after a lengthy time period, perhaps losing the

interest and enthusiasm of community members (Rothman, 2001). Sites, Chaskin, and Parks

(2007) refer to this as the primary tension within development, and for external supporters and

26

funders, it may become unclear as to whether to prioritize capacity building or outcome

achievement.

The challenges of capacity development are evident in the literature. In a review of

community practice literature, Ohmer and Korr (2006) discovered that community interventions

have a positive effect on citizen participation and individual improvements, such as new and

increased skills and a sense of efficacy, but very little success at altering social, physical, and

economic conditions. The authors recommend engaging citizens in community interventions

while simultaneously developing improved access to resources, such as funding, technical

expertise, and power, which can be applied to broader change. In a review of 34 studies of

community partnerships for health, Roussos and Fawcett (2000) report similar findings. While

there is some indication of behavior changes, the evidence base does not substantiate claims of

population-level improvements.

Despite the paucity of evidence as to the effectiveness of collaborative interventions,

multi-sector partnerships are increasing in use (Butterfoss, 2007; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008).

This is partially in response to a gap between community needs and externally provided

resources. Since the 1980’s, the United States’ federal government has abdicated responsibility

for many community services, shifting decision-making and resource provision to state and local

governments, often referred to as the “devolution revolution” (DeFilippis et al., 2006, p. 675).

Many municipalities are unable to adequately assume the increase in responsibility. As a result,

“community is implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, expected to fill the gaps left as the state

retreats” (DeFilippis et al., 2006, p. 675). In response to contending with this localized

responsibility of social concerns, community-based interventions have increased in popularity

among both funders and service-providers as a way to pool resources and share costs (Mizrahi,

27

2001). Straining under the pressure to provide more with less, community institutions and

organizations also partner when isolated efforts do not succeed. Foster-Fishman, Nowell, &

Yang (2007) explain:

Recognizing the failure of discrete programs to address entrenched and unstructured

social issues, funders created comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) that were

designed to: 1) address problems holistically and at multiple levels; 2) engage residents

as architects of the design and implementation efforts; and 3) promote sustainable

systems change. (p. 198)

In sum, community organization has a long history within social work and other

disciplines striving to solve broad-based problems. Rothman’s (2001) model of community

organization continues to serve as a framework for those practicing within and researching

communities. One specific model, capacity development, relies on community empowerment

and collaboration among multiple partners in order to pool resources and create and implement

holistic solutions. Inherent within this model are many challenges, often creating a frustrating,

time-consuming, and resource-intensive process that often fails to achieve intended results

(Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). Despite a lack of evidence as to the effectiveness of

collaborative community organizing, it is increasing in terms of use and funding. One model,

university-community partnerships (UCPs) has received millions of dollars and presents a great

deal of promise for improved community organization (Dubb, 2007). The following section will

address the literature related to this model of community organization.

University-Community Partnerships

Academic institutions and communities have a long, complex history of partnership, and

present a great deal of potential as a model of community organization. The level of engagement

28

has ebbed and flowed in relation to social and political climates. In the late nineteenth century, as

society was being radically changed by industrialization, community members and public

officials envisioned a new form of higher education with the purpose of addressing complex

social problems through applied education and increased enrollment in universities (Aronson &

Webster, 2007). The federal government granted land for universities through the Morill Act of

1862 and 1890, and in exchange, institutions served the needs of local communities and

increased access to education (Dubb, 2007). The sponsor of the bill, Justin Smith Morrill (as

cited in Dubb, 2007) claimed:

This bill proposes to establish at least one college in every State upon a sure and

perpetual foundation, assessable to all, but especially to the sons of toil, where all of

needful science for the practical avocations of life shall be taught … and where

agriculture, the foundation of all present and future prosperity, may look for troops of

earnest friends, studying its familiar and recondite economics, and at least elevating it to

that higher level where it may fearlessly invoke comparison to the most advanced

standards of the world. (p. 11)

The legislation was very successful at broadening the mission of higher education and

establishing the foundation of university-community partnerships. As Aronson and Webster

(2007) note, “at their best, state and land-grant institutions, working with their community

constituents, delivered tangible and intellectual resources that made a difference in the lives of

the citizenry” (p. 266).

During this same time period, other institutions of higher education maintained an elitist

perspective, providing an education that was isolated from social ills. Many academics argued in

favor of the ivory tower, claiming that research should be pure rather than applied, striving for

29

universal significance, and that students learn best when isolated from the complexities of local

environments. As Fisher et al., 2004, state, “proponents argue that the ivory tower

conceptualization offers faculty and students the opportunity to consider larger questions

unencumbered by parochial local or contemporary pressures” (p. 18). The resulting tension

between knowledge creation for the purpose of knowledge and knowledge creation in order to

improve communities remains today, as evinced by the segregation of applied science and basic

science (Aronson & Webster, 2007). During the Cold War, the federal government again shaped

higher education with the creation of the National Science Foundation, prioritizing the

development of science over addressing social concerns (Dubb, 2007). As a result, universities,

even those established through a land-grant, withdrew from society in favor of academic purity.

In the late 20th century, two notable leading academics argued for a revival of the land-

grant mission. Derek Bok, then President of Harvard University, and Ernest Boyer, then

President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, both strongly advocated

for increased engagement in order to benefit both society and higher education. This clamoring

for increased community participation reflected political pressure that was once again shifting

towards engagement. Devolution of social services and increased demands on communities to

meet the needs of members with fewer resources coalesced into social demand for publically

funded institutions to contribute to the well-being of society. As Fisher et al. (2004) point out,

due to globalization, “problems and solutions are pushed out of the public spaces onto

individuals, families, and communities that lack the resources to address deep-rooted social

problems” (p. 23).

Public universities were not immune to the decline in resources, encouraging many

schools to seek funding through foundational support and federal programs that encouraged

30

community partnership (Fisher et al., 2004). Both communities and academic institutions needed

new partners and resources to achieve their goals. Schools also recognized benefits of

engagement. As place-bound institutions, investing in the revitalization of local communities

improved the living conditions of students and faculty (Fisher et al., 2004).

In order to keep the momentum in favor of increased engagement, advocates for

partnership tout benefits of pursuing such relationships. While community engagement may

align with altruistic motivations for some, it is the practical benefits that gain traction in

increased funding and implementation. Universities and communities present an ideal scenario

for reciprocal collaboration. Universities offer high levels of technical expertise that can be

applied to community problem-solving, and communities offer real-world labs for research and

application of knowledge for students.

Advocates for engagement, including Bok and Boyer, argue that universities have a great

deal to gain from partnerships with communities. Relationships provide a conduit for research

opportunities, especially for academics who seek knowledge generation grounded in real world

context (Allen-Meares, 2008; Aronson & Webster, 2007; Dubb, 2007; Keating & Sjoquist,

2000). Communities provide the setting and study participants, and preexisting relationships

enable researchers access with greater ease. Such research can result in opportunities for

longitudinal studies, funding, and publication of results (Allen-Meares, 2008; Seifer, 2000).

Universities’ core mission of education can also be enhanced by community partnerships

(Allen-Meares, 2008; Dubb, 2007; Kegler et al., 2006; Rogge & Rocha, 2004). By using the

community as a classroom, students are exposed to leaders in action, the operations of businesses

and organizations, and citizens’ perspectives on topics of study (Rogge & Rocha, 2005).

Research shows that students appreciate exposure to real world circumstances, creating an

31

increase in the relevancy of classroom-based knowledge (Kegler et al., 2006). Career

opportunities are enhanced as students gain practical experience, access to mentors, and

expanded networks of potential employers (Kegler et al., 2006; Rogge & Rocha, 2004). Students

also benefit from a civic education, cultivating development of social responsibility (Leiderman,

Furco, Zapf, & Gross, 2003).

Higher education institutions as a whole also benefit from engagement. By reaching out

to communities, schools increase visibility and may improve their reputation as community

members experience direct benefits from the partnership (Aronson & Webster, 2007). Improved

public relations contribute to recruitment of students and faculty (Vidal et al., 2002). Universities

may also utilize relationships to access funds through federal and foundation grants for

partnerships (Allen-Meares, 2008). The federal government has shown increased support of

engagement through the creation of new initiatives, such as Learn and Serve, and the shifting of

funds in existing programs, such as NSF grants for community-based participatory research. The

most prominent of these initiatives is the Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC),

established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1994, and

subsequently investing over $50 million in more than 100 colleges and universities (Vidal et al.,

2002). COPC’s goal is to, “create enduring partnerships between academic institutions and

communities in order to build capacity for more effective responses to the needs and problems of

distressed neighborhoods and to enhance the research and teaching capacity of participating

colleges and universities (Vidal et al., 2002, p. 1-4).

Foundations have also encouraged university-community partnerships. The Kellogg

Foundation created the Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities in the

mid-1990s, convening 25 university presidents to commit to prioritizing community engagement

32

(Aronson &Webster, 2007). In 2006, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

created a classification for community engagement (Driscoll, 2008).

University-community partnerships present several potential opportunities for

communities as well. As institutions with cutting-edge knowledge, schools can improve

community well-being by providing best practices and access to empirically tested and supported

information (Kegler et al., 2006). Academics can also build capacity through technical training

and assistance with processes such as needs assessments, program development, and evaluation

(Ebata, 1996). Beyond information exchange, schools can share resources such as facilities,

human capital, and technology (Seifer, 2000). Finally, association with universities offer

community organizations increased credibility, especially in terms of policy advocacy and

developing influence outside the community (Allen-Meares, 2008).

Despite the potential for mutually beneficial outcomes, universities and communities

confront many challenges to partnership. By nature, partnerships are time-consuming due to

relationship building and negotiating of differences. As Maurrasse (2001) points out, improving

whole communities is far more challenging than focusing on the well-being of individuals. In

order to assume such an undertaking, both universities and communities must be fully invested

in the process. However, the differing missions and goals of the various partners present a major

obstacle. Academic institutions prioritize the advancement of knowledge and science, as evinced

by the most common requirements for promotion and tenure, such as publishing research and

presenting at conferences. The pressure to achieve these goals discourages faculty from the time-

consuming task of engagement (Kegler et al., 2006). Some academics believe work in the

community deviates from the core mission of higher education, creating an environment that

neither supports nor rewards community-based research, and may even be openly hostile towards

33

it (Dubb, 2007). For communities, the purpose of knowledge is to improve efforts addressing

community needs. Similarly to their academic counterparts, community workers and public

officials are under a great deal of pressure to achieve professional goals in a timely manner.

Student interns require training and supervision, and participating in research projects may

distract workers from delivering services to the community (Kegler et al., 2006; Leiderman et al.,

2003). The action-orientated nature of community work may not align with the methodical

approach to research, similarly creating an environment that neither supports nor rewards

partnership.

In order to enhance the benefits and overcome challenges, researchers and advocates of

community engagement seek empirical evidence that delineates how to best go about

partnership. Due to the unique context of each partnership and the complexity of multiple

participants with various goals, skills, and resources, several researchers have used case studies

in order to capture the idiosyncratic nature of collaboration as well as identify trends across

different partnerships. Contributing to the challenge of partnership research is the lack of

agreement as to what constitutes success. Seifer (2006), who investigated ten partnerships funded

by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), found that success is multifaceted due to the fact that

partnerships form for various reasons, and progress through different stages in which success

may mean different things. This makes delineation of variables that foster success all the more

difficult.

One of the most comprehensive studies of UCPs was conducted by Vidal et al. (2002),

investigating 25 of the COPC grantees. On the academic side, partners were primarily centers

within academic departments, professional degree programs, or centers under central

administration. Community partners were mostly volunteer-driven neighborhood associations,

34

community-based organizations, or public institutions. Activities were categorized into eleven

types, including life skills training, workforce development, economic development, community

planning, professional services, and information technology. Of the more than 200 activities

included in the study, 67 % were at least partially successful, and only 10 % failed altogether.

Vidal et al. (2002) found that success was more likely for activities that involved coursework for

students, faculty and staff were transferring expertise through technical assistance, and were

supported by higher level administrators at the university. Activities that were least successful

often required university partners to perform unfamiliar roles or functions. In a study of five

partnerships, Zakocs et al. (2008) found similar evidence for the importance of higher level

administrative support. Additionally, partnerships that were more fully developed had staff that

functioned as community organizers and the community initiated the partnership.

Research indicates several other important factors that contribute to partnership success.

One of the most consistent is mutual benefits for all partners (Maurrasse, 2001; Seifer, 2006;

Taylor, Braveman, & Hammel, 2004; Vidal et al., 2002). In a qualitative study of 19 community

leaders, perceived benefits include access to expertise, access to people who could serve on

boards and as advisors, access to other campus resources, such as facilities and libraries,

increased opportunities to learn new skills, increased grant opportunities, and legitimacy

(Leiderman et al., 2003). While a great deal has been speculated about potential benefits for

academic partners, little has been adequately documented. However, Aronson and Webster

(2007) highlight the importance of this by reporting their finding that faculty buy-in was the

most important factor in sustainability of the partnership.

Another influencing factor, quality of relationships, is difficult to measure, but essential.

As Seifer (2006) states, “Strong relationships are at the heart of successful partnerships, even as

35

participants acknowledge the lengthy, sometimes challenging, course of developing them” (p.

992). Quality relationships are characterized by trust, open and frequent communication, and

processes for conflict resolution (Maurrasse, 2001). The prominence of relationships highlights

the importance of the process of partnership, i.e. the activities and environment that foster quality

relationships, such as information exchange, shared decision-making, and resolving conflict.

However, research indicates a balance must be achieved between time and resources invested

into the process, and implementation of activities and achievement of goals (Seifer, 2006).

Logic and research indicate the importance of the structure of the partnership, which

defines roles, responsibilities, and processes for decision-making; creates a system of

accountability; and manages the multitude of logistical tasks associated with collaboration. This

will be dictated by the context of the community and the goal of the partnership. However, Vidal

et al. (2002) provide recommendations based on their research. They found that partnerships

managed by a central organizing entity have many advantages. Centers are better able to

coordinate communication among many partners, especially for multidisciplinary projects that

involved different academic departments. They also serve as a clearinghouse of information,

providing faculty, students, and community members an accessible entry point that is less

confusing or intimidating than a faculty member within an academic department (Keating et al.,

2000; Vidal et al., 2002).. In addition to organizing logistics, an external center can also

negotiate power imbalance by serving as a neutral third party during negotiations and conflict

resolution (Keating & Sjoquist, 2000). A center based in the community will likely have

knowledge of the community and existing relationships that can be built upon. Finally, a center

can address one of the challenges of partnerships that must accommodate an academic calendar

year, and therefore result in unfinished projects. Centers can contribute to continuity by either

36

finishing up tasks with their own human resources, or recruiting new students and faculty to

complete projects.

In sum, the current wave of university-community engagement and funding opportunities

present a promising model for community organization. Both universities and communities have

a great deal to gain from partnership. However, without quality oversight, the challenges of

collaborate will derail even the best of intentions. The meager evidence of how to best develop

and implement UPCs in order to maximize benefits and mitigate obstacles requires those

studying this phenomenon to look to literature beyond UPCs explicitly. Community coalition

research provides guidance to those studying and facilitating UPCs due to similarities, such as

managing multiple partners, balancing process and outcomes, and resource mobilization. The

following section provides the literature of a well-suited strategy to manage UCPs, coalition-

building.

Coalition Building

Butterfoss and Kegler (2002), the architects of the Community Coalition Action Theory

(CCAT), define community coalitions as entities that, “bring people together, expand available

resources, and focus on a problem of community concern to achieve better results than any single

group or agency could have achieved alone” (p.157-158). However, this definition could also be

applied to a variety of community partnerships that serve a diversity of functions. Butterfoss and

Kegler (2002) are explicit in their approach to theorize community coalitions, and provide

specific characteristics of such a collaborative. It is composed of individuals representing

organizations; and it is action-oriented, involved in the process of analyzing the problem,

conducting needs assessments, developing and implementing solutions, and striving for

37

community-based outcomes. Additionally, community coalitions as conceptualized by these

theorists are formal, multipurpose, and long-term.

Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT) is a relatively recent development within

the field of inter-organizational relations. First published in 2002, CCAT builds on the extensive

research and experience of two leading experts within public health, Francine Butterfoss and

Michelle Kegler. The specificity of this theory provides both researchers and practitioners of

community coalitions a framework from which to conceptualize, implement, and evaluate

community-wide interventions. Despite its newness, many of the tenets of the theory are rooted

in decades of empirical research and the development of similar theories focused on relationships

and collaboration between organizations.

Butterfoss (2007) identifies several models and frameworks that influenced the

development of CCAT. One of the earliest influences, Framework of Organizational Viability,

was authored by Prestby and Wandersman (1985) based upon their research on block

organizations. It focuses on the primary components of organizational functioning: resource

acquisition, maintenance subsystem, production subsystem, and external goal attainment.

Overarching the entire framework is the proposition that organizations operate in conjunction

with the environment. Resources are obtained from within the organization, as well as externally.

Subsequent models have reiterated the primary elements of structure, process, and the influence

of contextual factors (Habana-Hafer & Reed, 1989; Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman,

1993). It is consistently hypothesized that successful collaboration is most likely to occur within

groups who have a shared vision and history of working together; inclusive leadership; and open

communication (Butterfoss, 2007). Collaboratives are also theorized to move through cyclical

38

stages of formation, implementation, maintenance, and outcomes (Butterfoss, Goodman, &

Wandersman, 1993).

In 1996, several land-grant universities and the Cooperative States Research Education

and Extension Services developed the Collaboration Framework to provide guidance for

community partnerships (Butterfoss, 2007). The involvement of universities in conceptualizing

community partnerships demonstrates the strong relationships between UCPs and the CCAT.

Similar to other efforts, this model considers both contextual and process factors to be integral to

the success of collaboration. Process factors include leadership, communication, and evaluation,

and contextual factors include history of collaboration, politics, laws, and access to resources.

Other elements of collaboration included in the model are the diversity of skills and resources of

the partners; and a shared vision, mission and principles. Finally, the model includes outcomes,

which are the targeted community improvements and changes.

Based upon these previous models and research, Butterfoss and Kegler (2002) devised

twenty-three propositions for the CCAT, divided within fourteen constructs:

• Stages of Development o Coalitions develop in specific states and recycle through these stages as new

members are recruited, plans are renews, and new issues are added. o At each at stage, specific factors enhance coalition function and progression to the

next stage.

• Community Context o Coalitions are heavily influenced by contextual factors in the community

throughout all stages of coalition development.

• Lead Agency/Convener Group o Coalitions form when a lead agency or convening group responds to an

opportunity, threat, or mandate. o Coalition formation is more likely when the convening group provides technical

assistance, financial or material support, credibility, and valuable networks and contacts.

o Coalition formation is more likely to be successful when the convener group enlists community gatekeepers who thoroughly understand the community to help develop credibility and trust with others in the community.

• Coalition Membership

39

o Coalition formation usually begins by recruiting a core group of people who are committed to resolve the health or social issue.

o More effective coalitions result when the core group expands to include a broader constituency of participants who represent diverse interest groups, agencies, organizations, and institutions.

• Operations and Processes o Open and frequent communication among staff and members helps create a

positive climate, ensures that benefits outweigh costs, and makes collaborative synergy more likely.

o Shared and formalized decision-making processes…same. o Conflict management…same. o The benefits of participation must outweigh the costs to make collaborative

synergy more likely. o Positive relationships among members are likely to create a positive coalition

climate.

• Leadership and staffing o Strong leadership improves coalition functioning and makes collaborative synergy

more likely. o Paid staff who have the interpersonal and organizational skills to facilitate the

collaborative process improve coalition functioning and make collaborative synergy more likely.

• Structure o Formalized rules, roles, and structures, and procedures make collaborative

synergy more likely.

• Pooled member and External Resources o They synergistic pooling of member and community resources promotes effective

assessment, planning, and implementation of strategies.

• Member engagement o Satisfied and committed members will participate more fully in the work of the

coalition.

• Assessment and Planning o Successful implementation of strategies is more likely when comprehensive

assessment and planning occur.

• Implementation o Coalitions are more likely to create change in community policies, practices, and

environment when they direct interventions at multiple levels. o Community change outcomes o Coalitions that are able to change community policies, practices, and

environments are more likely to increase capacity and improve health and social outcomes.

• Community capacity o As a result of participating in successful coalitions, community members and

organizations develop capacity and build social capital that can be applied to other health and social issues.

40

These constructs illustrate the complexity of community coalitions and the variety of factors

hypothesized to impact them. They also provide a practical framework for conceptualizing the

multiple facets and levels of coalition functioning (see Figure 1).

As expected with a new theory, the major limitation is lack of empirical evidence

validating all the speculations across diverse settings. Some research does exist to support most

of the claims, and practice wisdom supplements or supports areas less developed within research.

The constructs most strongly supported by empirical research are community context; benefits

and costs; leadership and staffing; member engagement; and formalization of structure. The

areas in which empirical findings are the weakest are relational components, such as

communication and decision-making;, and outcomes (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002). Empirical

evidence strongly supports the importance of leadership (Brown, Feinberg, & Greenberg, 2010;

Bryson et al., 2006; El Ansari, Oskrochi, & Philips, 2009; Pathman, Chuang, & Weiner, 2008);

administrative mechanisms (Feinberg, Bontempo, & Greenberg, 2008; Kegler & Wyatt, 2003);

access to resources (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000); technical assistance (Hunter et al., 2009; Kegler,

Norton, & Aronson, 2008); the presence of challenges unrelated to the coalition (Kegler, Rigler,

& Honeycutt, 2010); and history of collaboration within the community (Bryson et al., 2006;

Kegler, Rigler, & Honeycutt, 2010) , such as duration and size (Emshoff et al., 2007).

Scrutiny of the existing research reveals other major gaps. One of the first such

limitations is the primary focus on substance abuse prevention coalitions (Butterfoss, 2007). This

is likely because a large portion of funding, and therefore impact evaluation research and

published findings, are concentrated on this issue. Yet, coalitions exist for a wide variety of other

purposes, such as environmental causes, coordinating social services, and violence prevention.

This necessitates a need for empirical evidence of the theory within a diversity of coalitions.

41

Another area in which research is almost completing lacking is the relationship between the

constructs (Butterfoss, 2007). Are some variables more essential than others for specific

outcomes? Do the different stages require more or less of member engagement and/or resources?

Perhaps most challenging and most debilitating to claims of coalition success is the difficulty of

measuring outcomes and claiming causation. There are several obstacles to achieve this level of

validation, including the long-term nature of community goals (Weiss et al., 2002); lack of valid

and practical instruments to measure goals (Granner & Sharpe, 2004); and lack of control over

extraneous variables (Berkowitz, 2001).

Overall, the literature on the effectiveness of community coalitions presents ambiguous

findings. Comprehensive reviews of literature consistently show lack of success (Dowling,

Powell, & Glendinning, 2004; El Ansari & Weiss, 2006; Granner & Sharpe, 2004; Wagemakers,

Vaandrager, Koelen, Saan, & Leeuwis, 2010; and Zakocs & Edwards, 2006). This is partially

explained by the challenge of measuring community-wide outcomes, the most common objective

of community coalitions. Such goals are long-term and highly sensitive to contextual factors,

such as politics and the economy, making it extremely difficult to isolate the relationship

between the coalition and outcomes. As a result, most of the research is focused on the process

and functioning of the coalition, an intermediate goal assumed to be correlated to long-term

outcomes. In a review of 26 studies, Zakocs and Edwards (2006) found that only 7% of the

studies measured changes of community-wide health behaviors. Others hypothesize that in

addition to measurement challenges, failure can be attributed to poor implementation or

insufficient resources and support (Wandersman et al., 2005). Foster-Fishman et al. (2007)

argue, “systems change efforts are intended to change the system; yet, many systems change

efforts ignore the systemic nature of the contexts they target and the complexity of the change

42

process” (p. 198). Edelman (2000) points out that this is not a new development for community

initiatives, but rather is consistent with efforts throughout history, including the Progressive Era,

the New Deal, and the War on Poverty. Edelman (2000) asks the logical question, “Why does an

approach we find so promising so often seem to fail?” (p. 169). Yet Edelman and other leading

experts do not recommend giving up on coalition building as an approach to solve community

problems (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007; Wandersman & Florin, 2003). Rather, the

recommendation is to strengthen research efforts in order to clarify theory, improve

implementation, and utilize appropriate evaluative techniques. This dissertation contributes to the

evidence base by providing a detailed and nuanced investigation into one of the most pertinent

factors of success, the professional organizer.

In sum, coalitions offer great potential as a community organizing strategy. Benefits

include utilizing a formal structure to bring about order and provide diverse members equal

opportunities to provide input and shape the agenda. However, many impediments can interfere

with coalition success, such as conflict and lack of resources. One of the most universally agreed

upon factors associated with success is the presence of a fulltime, professional community

organizer (Kegler & Wyatt, 2003; Kegler, Steckler, Malek, & McLeroy, 1998; Lasker et al.,

2001; Provan et al., 2003; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000; Seifer, 2006; Weiss et al., 2010). The

following section addresses literature associated with the role of the professional organizer and

variables that are hypothesized to influence this role.

Professional Organizers

The challenges inherent in achieving the delicate balance of diversity and cohesion often

require intentional and deliberate intervention on the part of professional organizers (Butterfoss,

2004; Gray, 2008). Based on Kurt Lewin’s (1951) model of force field analysis, Gray (2008)

43

identifies facilitating and prohibitive factors as “driving forces” and “restraining forces” (p. 666).

Such factors exist both within the collaborative (e.g., need for resources and internal conflict)

and externally (e.g., government incentives and history of mistrust). The role of the professional

organizer is to maximize the driving forces while reducing the restraining forces. As Fisher

(1994) notes, “the best organizers are not the ones who are the most skilled, energetic, or

forceful, but rather those who have a sense of both a larger visions and what is possible and

combine this with the knowledge, ability, and skills of local people” (p. 226).

Research supports this by consistently demonstrating associations between skilled

partnership management and collaborative effectiveness (Kegler & Wyatt, 2003; Kegler et al.,

1998; Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000; Seifer, 2006). One study of a

large network of health and human service organizations found that a single community

organizer was a key factor of successful collaboration (Provan et al., 2003). A recent study of

inter-organizational collaboratives concluded that participant satisfaction was higher in groups in

which managers facilitated broad partner involvement, increased access to information, fostered

opportunities to express opinions, and resolved conflict (Weiss et al., 2010). In a study of the

impact of technical assistance, Hunter et al. (2009) found that coalition activities were difficult to

sustain once the assistance was terminated. Butterfoss (2004) had a similar finding, leading to the

conclusion that coalition sustainability is dependent upon long-term technical assistance, and this

is best achieved through employing a skilled consultant. Despite the intuitive and empirical need

for quality management of a collaborative, little research has investigated the specific roles of a

professional organizer and factors that influence intervention strategy selection (Hibbet,

Huxham, & Ring, 2008; Weiss, 2010). This is particularly important to groups utilizing

Rothman’s capacity development model due to the challenge of balancing community

44

leadership, building capacity, and achieving outcomes (Sites et al., 2007). From an

empowerment perspective, Fawcett et al. (1995) suggest several tasks for the community

organizer, including: expanding experiences, capacity, and competence; removing social and

environmental barriers to success; and resource brokering. Rothman’s (2001) framework

provides insight into what the role of the organizer will be within specific contexts. As expected

for capacity development, trust-building among participants and conflict resolution are

considered essential tasks, especially for groups with high levels of tension (Gray, 1989; Gray,

2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2001).

While navigating the complexity of collaboration, professional organizers will assume a

variety of roles, many of which encompass an aspect of relationship-building. Lasker et al.,

(2001) argue, “Building relationships is probably the most daunting and time-consuming

challenge partnerships face” (p. 192). Organizers must facilitate relationships both within the

community and among external entities. This is often done through meetings, phone calls,

emails, and attending community events. Cnaan and Rothman (2001) state, “a practitioner’s day

may be composed of numerous meetings with people and activities that may seem on the surface

irrelevant to the implementation of locality development. Yet the activities serve to establish the

contacts, make the worker and the cause visible, help set the agenda, and stir ‘the pot’ in the

community” (p. 260). Organizers are not the primary decision-makers within community

development; however, they must be intentional and assertive in bringing together community

members and familiarizing themselves with the context of the community and its leaders. In this

regard, they serve as conveners, process managers, and conflict resolvers (Gray, 2008). Mizrahi

and Rosenthal’s (2001) research delineated relationship building into a process, which enables

quality relationships among coalition members; and structure, which facilitates and encourages

45

communication and participation. Findings from a quantitative study of sixty partnership

members suggest that member satisfaction is correlated to the ability of the manager to facilitate

broad, inclusive participation (Weiss et al., 2010). El Ansari and Phillips (2004) found that active

participation by members resulted in higher levels of commitment and ownership as well as

perceived benefits. Acknowledging and utilizing member resources was associated with higher

levels of trust and sense of partnership (Straub et al., 2007).

Organizing within coalitions is highly sensitive to the context of the coalition. The

literature provides theorizing and research that suggests how the role of the organizer is

influenced by major contextual factors. The following are the variables of focus in this study,

selected due to their relevance in relationship to the role of the community organizer.

History of collaboration. The organizer is entering a community with history, and

presumably a failure or inability to alleviate the social concerns that the coalition is attempting to

resolve (Gray, 1989; Lasker et al., 2000). These previous experiences will impact the group,

particularly during the early stages, as members establish communication based on past patterns.

Successful collaboration in the past will likely boost the efficacy of the group and provide a solid

foundation on which to build. However, negative past experiences or lack of experience may

create tensions and distrust that must be addressed in order to achieve a favorable working

environment (Reininger et al., 1999). The history of a community will not only impact the

environment of the coalition, but may dictate many of the organizer’s initial tasks, such as

repairing or establishing relationships, identifying causes of past failures, and building

confidence.

Phase of development. It is widely recognized that coalitions go through phases of

development, and several versions of the process have been proposed (Butterfoss et al., 1993;

46

Fawcett et al., 1993; Gray, 1989). Because of the dynamic nature of coalitions and inevitable

changes in membership, goals, and political factors, the phases are viewed as cyclical rather than

linear. This study will utilize the four stages proposed by Gray (1989): problem-setting,

direction-setting, implementation, and institutionalization. Because each phase has differing

objectives and priorities, the organizer’s role will likely be influenced by the phase of the

coalition. During the initial stage, the professional organizer is likely to be a convener, bring

together the key stakeholders, and linking with external entities. As the problems are identified,

the organizer may assist with assessment of the root causes of the problem and identify potential

solutions. This phase will likely require intervention in assisting members to resolve differing

opinions and priorities. Once a solution is selected, the organizer may provide technical

assistance, sharing expertise that is otherwise absent within the community, as well as help with

the less glamorous, albeit practical, tasks of gathering materials, scheduling meetings, and

distributing information. Throughout the entire process, the organizer is expected to be a

visionary, inspiring members to work together and preserve through difficulties (Gray, 2008).

Membership composition. Another coalition factor that will likely influence the

organizer is the membership of the group (Butterfoss, 2007; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). Larger

groups will provide more resources, perspectives of the problems to be solved and increased

creativity in solution-making. However, these groups are also susceptible to communication

breakdown, distrust, and power struggles. An organizer has more people to be mindful of, and

therefore more time is likely invested in relationship-building. Smaller groups can also face such

issues, but have the advantage of fewer relationships to manage; yet groups with fewer people

have reduced human capital, and the organizer may have to take a more hands-on role in project

47

implementation. Membership is reflected by the number of participants, the diversity of

community sectors represented, and capacities of individual people.

Coalition goal. Coalitions are typically aiming to improve community conditions either

through community-based programming, which is task-oriented, or community development

programming, which prioritizes the process and seeks to increase community competency (Pilsak

et al., 2008). In the first goal, the power generally resides with the experts brought in, and in the

second goal, it is with the community members themselves. Understanding the goal of the

coalition will aid an organizer in making difficult decisions of when to step forward and exert

more leadership and directive facilitation, and when to step back and invest time in building

indigenous leadership.

In sum, the presence of a skilled professional organizer can improve the effectiveness of

a coalition. Specific roles that are likely to be required include catalyst, visionary, conflict

resolver, resource broker, logistical manager, and relationship builder. The evidence base

supports the importance of the professional organizer within collaboration, but is lacking in

terms of how roles are chosen, what factors impact role selection, and how this contributes to the

success of the initiative.

Conclusion

This chapter presented an overview of the pertinent literature associated with the study. It

began by explicating various forms of community organization within social work, including a

model of community development that guided this study. In order to better understand

interventions based on this model, literature from public health and public administration were

included in a discussion about coalition-building. This study investigated a specific type of

coalition, a university-community partnership, and therefore literature in relation to these

48

collaboratives was included. It is suggested that coalition-building presents an ideal strategy for

developing UCPs, and the employment of a professional organizer improves the ability of the

partnership to succeed.

49

CHAPTER 3

Method

Design of the Study

Collaborative problem-solving has received increased support and funding for several

years (Kegler et al., 2010). Unfortunately, theory development and empirical research has not

sustained a compatible pace, resulting in a lack of understanding of whether or not collaboratives

are effective, in what contexts they are most appropriate, and what factors contribute to success.

A variety of challenges associated with collaboration attribute to the lack of research and

suggests the use of various methods over others.

Berkowitz (2001) provides several obstacles to conducting traditional quantitative

research when investigating collaboration. Coalitions vary in important ways, such as goals, size,

composition, and funding, and any attempt to achieve a representative sample will be severely

limited by the idiosyncratic nature of partnerships. Implementing a control mechanism, such as a

comparison group or random assignment, is rarely feasible, and when resources for such a design

do exist, it is challenging due to the plethora of intervening variables, such as politics, history,

and severity of the problem, making a comparable community difficult to locate. Because of this,

the wide variety of variables that may impact the coalition would be difficult to fully account for

when conducting quantitative research. Not only are extraneous variables difficult to control, but

the interaction among them present even greater complexities in untangling correlation among

independent and dependent variables. Additionally, dependent variables are not obvious because

of the multiple goals of a coalition, such as building community capacity, empowering partners,

50

and achieving a specific outcome. Theorists point out that the process is often as important as the

product of a coalition. Even when dependent variables are clearly identified, measurement is

difficult because of the long-term nature of coalition goals, the diversity and turnover of

participants, and the likelihood of bias, such as social desirability. Finally, coalitions are

particularly susceptible to environmental factors, such as politics and economics. El Ansari and

Weiss (2006) sum up the primary limitation of quantitative research by claiming that even when

plausible, it fails to “reveal why the partnership works” (p. 176).

The complexity of relationships, processes, and contexts that give collaboration its appeal

(diversity of perspectives, interventions tailored to specific communities, equitable distribution

of costs and resources) also prohibit a deconstructive, variable-centered approach to research.

Many characteristics of collaboration must be present for it to work, but what those pieces are is

dependent on the context of each unique group. For example, process must exist through which

decisions are made and projects are implemented, but the process is dynamic, adapting to the

personalities, goals, and environment of each group. Attempting to reduce collaboration to a list

of quantifiable variables absent the process, or a timeline independent of contextual factors poses

the risk of misunderstanding how collaboration works, or leaving out critical information.

Because of this, a qualitative methodological approach was utilized for this study. Creswell

(2007) articulates the need of this approach when investigating complex phenomenon:

We also conduct qualitative research because we need a complex, detailed understanding

of the issue. This detail can only be established by talking directly with people, going to

their homes or places of work, and allowing them to tell the stories unencumbered by

what we expect to find or what we have read in the literature. (p. 40)

El Ansari and Weiss (2006) speak directly to the context of this study:

51

The full potential of qualitative research has yet to be realized in the health field,

especially in partnership work, since it is challenging for studies to explore

simultaneously and with precision a wide range of individual and contextual variables of

a partnership. (p. 177)

This choice enabled the researcher to navigate the challenges of researching collaboration by

enlisting those directly involved to identity all pertinent variables (see Table 2).

Table 2

Primary Variables

Variable Definition Measurement

Role of professional organizer

What the organizer does in order to develop and maintain the collaborative partnership as identified through functions, tasks, goals, and skills.

AP interviews Executive Committee (EC) focus groups Archway documents

History of collaboration The community’s previous experience working together. The assumption is that past success will aid current and future collaboration, and past failures present an obstacle to be overcome (Butterfoss, 2007; Gray, 1989).

AP interviews EC focus groups

Community demographics Population density, racial diversity, and level of poverty

U.S. Census Bureau

Phase of partnership Groups progress through stages as the partnership develops; however, the process is cyclical as groups often revert to previous stages with change. Several versions of stages exist. Problem-setting (defining the problem(s) to be addressed by the group; Direction-setting (identifying and selecting interventions); implementation (conducting the specific tasks related to the intervention); institutionalization (Gray, 2008)


Membership composition Number of Archway members for Archway documents

52

each partnership; number of sectors represented

EC focus groups

Goal of partnership Overarching objective of the collaborative. Community-based programming, defined by the leadership of experts and prioritizes the outcomes; or community development programming, which emphasizes the leadership of the community and prioritizes the process (Pilisuk et al., 2008).


A qualitative methodology provided the opportunity to be open to and consider a wide

range of variables that impact collaborative problem-solving, as well as probe deeply into the

process of collaborative problem-solving, specifically the role of the organizer. One of the

defining characteristics of qualitative research is the perspective from inside the phenomenon of

interest (Padgett, 2008). By utilizing an emic approach, this study attempted to accurately

describe the role and essential tasks of a community organizer within a collaborative problem-

solving context. As experts note qualitative methodologies are an ideal choice for studies that are

investigating underexplored phenomenon (Padgett, 2008),. In this instance, virtually no research

has been conducted from the perspective of the organizer within collaboratives despite the

documented importance of this role.

Within the field of qualitative research, several unique approaches are generally used,

dictated by the purpose of the study. Examples include ethnography, grounded theory, case study

analysis, narrative approaches, phenomenological analysis, and action research/community-

based participatory research (Padgett, 2008). For this research project, an instrumental, multiple

case study analysis was selected as the best approach. As defined by Creswell (2007):

53

Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a

bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed,

in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations,

interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case

description and case-based themes. (p. 73)

Stake (1995) distinguished case studies according to purpose: an intrinsic case study seeks to

explore the case of inquiry in detail, and an instrumental case study is employed to learn about a

particular phenomenon within the context of the case. For either purpose, the use of more than

one case is referred to as a multiple case study (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995).

The selection of this research design was guided by several rationales. Yin (2009) states,

“the case study is preferred in examining contemporary events, but when the relevant behaviors

cannot be manipulated” (p. 11). The objective of this study was to investigate partnership as it

exists within the current social and political environment. While historical accounts of

community partnership are informative and useful in developing propositions for the current

study, the researcher aimed to provide findings relevant for present-day collaboratives.

Additionally, the nature of community partnerships presents challenges in terms of control.

Common strategies to exert control over extraneous variables, such as randomization and

utilizing a control group, are often impractical, if not impossible, with large community

collaboratives (Berkowitz, 2001).

Not only is it difficult to isolate a collaborative from its context, it is unadvisable.

Collaboratives are touted as an intervention method that empowers community members by

allowing participants to tailor strategies to fit the history, resources, and realities of each specific

community (Gray, 1989). Because of this, research of a collaborative devoid of the context

54

would likely be incomplete of meaningful findings. Yin (2009) explains, “you would use the

case study method because you wanted to understand a real-life phenomenon in depth, but such

understanding encompassed important contextual conditions – because they were highly

pertinent to your phenomenon of study” (p. 18). This design is especially congruent in situations

in which the phenomenon of interest is not easily distinguished from the context within which it

exists (Yin, 2009). A collaborative cannot be separated from its context because it is grafted on

top of the environment. The importance of the context within which a community partnership

exists should not be underestimated, and therefore the comprehensiveness of a case study was

appropriate for this investigation.

A case study is also compatible with the intent of this study to contribute to theory

development. Yin (2009) clarifies a common misconception in regard to the generalization of

case studies. He states (2008), “case studies, like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical

propositions and not to populations or universes” (p. 15). Case studies are useful in supporting or

contradicting theoretical assumptions by examining a person, thing, or entity within its practical,

everyday context. Many assumptions about collaboratives exist, and this case study sought to

contribute to the refinement of such claims. More specifically, this study sought to fill in a gap of

coalition theory in regards to the role of the professional organizer.

A multiple case study presented advantages that are congruent with the goals of this

study. Yin (2009) refers to this as a “replication” design (p. 53). Similar to the rationale of

duplicating experiments in order to increase robustness of findings, multiple case studies seek to

discover similarities across differing cases, and therefore strengthen claims, or discover

inconsistencies and provide an explanation as to why the differences occur. This design

component was essential for the current study in order to examine the relationship between the

55

phenomenon of interest, the community organizer, and the context of the collaboration. The

propositions associated with collaboratives stipulate that the roles adopted by the organizer will

alter in accordance to the presence or absence of several factors, such as group coherence, access

to resources, and the stage of group development. The comparison of multiple cases will provide

greater insight into the influence of these factors in order to either confirm or revise the

theoretical propositions.

Multiple cases also present a practical benefit. Findings that are consistent across several

cases are more compelling than those of a single case. Because this study sought to provide

recommendations for future collaboratives, differing contexts needed to be examined to

strengthen claims of best practices. While broad generalization was not the goal of this study or

most case studies, examining multiple cases did increase the possibility of applying findings to a

wider range of contexts.

Sample Selection

The selection of the cases to be examined constitutes one of the most important decisions

for a multiple case study design. As most qualitative studies, this investigation utilized a

purposive sampling method, “a deliberate process of selecting respondents based on their ability

to provide the needed information” (Padgett, 2008, p. 53). Within the context of a case study, the

unit of analysis is identified (Yin, 2009), and then sites are selected to represent that unit of

analysis (Creswell, 2007). In other words, what is the case? Similar to all objects of inquiry, a

case can be defined as a person, an entity, an event, and a variety of other options (Stake, 2006),

distinguished as a “bounded system” (Creswell, 2007, p. 73). For this study, the case was a

community coalition. Criteria for this study were as follows: a) multi-sector, b) formal, as

identified by a contractual agreement, and c) inclusive of a professional organizer.

56

Based on this definition, cases were selected in terms of applicability and access. In 2005,

the University of Georgia (UGA) instituted the Archway Partnership, an entity that organizes

community leaders into formal, contractual, and mutually funded collaboratives to address

community problems by utilizing university resources. Since that time, the partnership has grown

to include eight community collaborations, all of which met the inclusion criteria listed above

(see Figure 2). Due to a pre-existing relationship with the UGA School of Social Work, the

Archway Partnership was receptive and supportive of a study of its process and provided access

to the eight cases that encompass the sampling frame for this study.

(Archway Annual Report, 2009)

Figure 2. Archway Partnership Host Counties

57

Case Description

In 2005, the two outreach units of the University of Georgia, Public Service and Outreach

and Cooperative Extension, partnered together expand the relationships between the university

and communities within the state of Georgia. The Archway Partnership, a comprehensive

platform for community engagement, was established to serve the community of Moultrie, GA.

The success of the partnership has resulted in seven additional community coalitions, each in a

differing county located within Georgia (see Figure 2). Archway aims to improve access to

university resources, enabling communities to increase capacity for problem-solving. As the

mediating body between the university and communities, Archway ensures the process is

community-driven, directed by community-identified needs and priorities. After an initial

listening session in which communities voice their concerns, the Archway staff negotiates access

to university expertise and resources. When the process goes smoothly, communities are able to

leverage university support in order to improve local conditions, while maintaining ownership of

the entire process. The crux of the Archway process is the presence of a fulltime employee, the

Archway Professional (AP), who lives in the community and serves as the organizer of the

myriad of relationships that contribute to success, or hinder progress (see Figure 3). The

communities have many similarities, such as an Executive Committee charged with leadership of

the partnership and financial investment. However, differences abound and intersect with the

Archway process, resulting in eight unique community collaboratives.

58

(Archway Annual Report, 2009)

Figure 3. The Archway Partnership Model

Data Collection

One of the defining characteristics of a case study is multiple sources of data (Creswell,

2007; Yin, 2009). A case study seeks to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the object of

inquiry, and multiple sources of data are necessary to achieve this. Referred to as “triangulation”

(Stake, 2006; Yin, 2009), utilizing multiple sources is “an effort to assure that the right

information and interpretations have been obtained” (Stake, 2006, p. 35). Convergence of

59

findings from various sources strengthens the researcher’s claims, and contradictory findings

point to the need for further exploration.

This study utilized three data collection methods (focus groups, interviews, and document

analysis), from a variety of perspectives, in order to identify similar and differing viewpoints,

both within and across cases. The methods were selected because of their appropriate fit with the

purpose of the study, as well as complementary strengths and weaknesses. Focus groups and

interviews provided access to information that directed reflected the experiences of the

participants. Interviews and focus groups also provided the advantage of gathering facts of

events, as well as opinions from those with insight. These techniques afford a targeted approach,

letting the researcher direct the data collection in order to maximize meaningful and pertinent

information in shorter time periods. Disadvantages included bias from recall issues and reactivity

due to the presence of the researcher. Document analysis addresses these concerns by providing

information that is not influenced by obtrusion and records events, information, and experiences

across a range of time and viewpoints. This method was vulnerable to subjectively of the person

who created the document, and missing and/or inaccurate information. Yin (2009) recommends

utilizing documents as a source to augment findings from other methods, or discover clues for

further investigation.

Focus groups. Focus groups were conducted seven times during the course of the study,

guided by a semi-structured protocol (Appendix A). The primary advantage of a focus group is

the ability to gather information from multiple people within a short timeframe. It is particularly

appropriate when the group dynamic is expected to provide information that might otherwise be

omitted from an individual interview. By working together, a group of people can supplement

statements and trigger insight. Padgett (2008) states, “it is particularly well-suited to studies in

60

organizations and communities where there is a web of social networks already in place” (p.

103). In this study, all focus groups took place among collectives of people who have preexisting

relationships and shared experiences related to the case study. The seven focus groups were with

the Executive Committees of seven of the nine partnerships. They consisted of inquiry into the

roles of the APs, specifically their unique contributions to the collaborative and tasks associated

with each identified role. The focus groups took place in the county that hosts the partnership at a

convenient location as determined by the AP, and lasted approximately one to one and half

hours. With the approval of participants, all of the focus groups were recorded and transcribed

verbatim by the researcher.

Interviews. In-depth, semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2007) were conducted with

each of the nine APs (Appendix B). Designed to be a probing method of inquiry, interviews

were guided by the key domains of the study, but flexible to adapt to the participant’s level of

disclosure. Interviews’ primary asset was the opportunity to grapple with the messiness of

collaboration (Yin, 2009). For this study, the interviews focused on the AP’s role within the

context of the coalition. The interviews were scheduled by contacting the AP directly and

arranging to meet at a comfortable and convenient location. All interviews took place in person

due to the advantage of observing body language and the decrease of possible misinterpretation

that accompanies phone interviews (Padgett, 2008), lasted between approximately one to three

hours. Permission was requested and granted for the interviews to be audio recorded, and they

were all transcribed verbatim by the researcher.

Document analysis. Finally, the researcher utilized documents from Archway, such as

the AP job description, the minutes of meetings, and project reports to corroborate or contradict

61

findings. All documents were obtained from Archway, either as web-based information posted

on archwaypartnership.uga.edu, or from Archway staff.

Data Analysis

Qualitative research lacks a prescriptive analysis process. It is generally up to the

discretion of the researcher to determine how to best analysis and interpret the data. However,

several strategies and techniques exist to guide this process, ensuring an analysis that

synchronizes with the data, providing empirical findings grounded in the data. Generally, “data

analysis in qualitative research consists of preparing and organizing the data for analysis, then

reducing the data into themes through a process of coding and condensing the codes, and finally

representing the data in figures, tables, or a discussion” (Creswell, 2007, p. 148). A qualitative

study with a strong theoretical foundation and a priori propositions, such as this one, utilizes two

primary strategies: following the theoretical propositions and examining rival explanations (Yin,

2009). The propositions guided the researcher during analysis as to information was most

relevant. In order to not only include confirmatory data, however, the researcher was also

compelled to search for situations that do not follow the propositions in order to develop rival

explanations, if applicable.

Several techniques were implemented in order to establish findings. One of the most

common, and the present study’s strategy, is open coding (Charmez, 2006). Codes are “concepts

or meaning units drawn from raw and partially processed data,” (Padgett, 2008, p. 139). The

researcher reviewed the materials constituting the data, and created a list of important concepts.

As more material was consumed, the list was adapted, adding when new codes were discovered,

or eliminating codes that were not strongly supported, or determined to be integrated with

another code (Padgett, 2008). Simultaneously, the technique of memo writing occurred. This is

62

the process of documenting the decision-making associated with the codes, such as the definition

of the concept and the rationale for its inclusion. Codes where then grouped into themes, which

provided the overall structure of findings and interpretations. Because this study was a multiple

case study, an additional step was taken of cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009). Each case was

analyzed separately, following the strategy of going deep before expanding outward (Padgett,

2008). After the separate analysis, themes were compared across cases for similarities and

differences.

Yin (2009) provides additional suggestions to ensure a high quality analysis. First, all

evidence must be considered and included in the analysis. This required the researcher to

exercise attention to detail, taking in each word and statement as a potential piece of evidence.

Similarly, this attention to detail sought out all rival interpretations, searching for negative cases,

which are examples of situations in which propositions or findings are challenged. Yin also

recommends focusing on the most significant aspect of the findings so as to decrease the

likelihood of confusion, misinterpretation, or lack of clarity in regard to the most critical

findings. Finally, as a methodology that utilizes the researcher as the primary data collection

tool, qualitative analysis was improved by a researcher who used prior and expert knowledge to

interpret findings.

Validity and Reliability

Similarly to quantitative research, qualitative inquiry is cognizant of issues of validity and

reliability, employing several strategies to ensure the trustworthiness of the study, i.e., “one that

is carried out fairly and ethically and whose findings represent as closely as possible the

experiences of the respondents” (Padgett, 2008, p. 184). The primary threats to trustworthiness

63

are reactivity, researcher biases, and respondent biases. Below are the strategies that were

employed in this study to control for these threats.

Internal validity. Differences exist in the conceptualization of validity and reliability, as

delineated by paradigmatic stances. In qualitative research, it is often the goal to capture the

subjective nature of the phenomenon being investigated, and therefore reporting an objective,

fixed reality is not congruent with this type of research (Padgett, 2008). Rather, internal validity

within qualitative research is concerned with accurately representing the reality of the

participants, providing an interpretation consistent with their perspectives and experiences. In

order words, does the study truthfully represent the experience of the participants? Triangulation

is commonly employed within qualitative studies, and refers to “using two or more sources to

achieve a comprehensive picture of a fixed point of reference” (Padgett, 2008, p. 186). This

study utilized multiple data sources (interviews, documents, and focus group) in order to

assemble a comprehensive understanding of the coalition. Additionally, internal validity was

fortified by the use of peer debriefing and member checking. Both of these strategies involved

sharing findings with expert peers and study participants, respectively, in order to glean feedback

of accuracy, feasibility, and clarity of findings. The first member check took place in September

after half of the data had been collected, and the second member check took place in December

when almost all data had been gathered. Negative case analysis, the process of critically

reviewing the data to identify exceptions to expectations and findings, was another method of

ensuring the presentation of the fullness of the phenomenon (Padgett, 2008).

External validity. While it is generally not the goal of a qualitative study to generate

findings that can be generalized to a population, it is important to identify findings that are

relevant beyond the specific scope of the study (Yin, 2009). This may include theory

64

development or evidence of relationships that may exist within similar situations. This study

used two strategies to strengthen claims of external validity, multiple cases and rich, thick

description (Creswell, 2007). First, multiple cases were included, providing an opportunity to

identify findings that were consistent across varying circumstances, and insight into why

differences occurred. I also provided detailed description of the cases and rationales for findings,

providing readers of the study an opportunity to identify similarities in other situations where

findings may hold true.

Reliability. In qualitative research, reliability refers to consistency between the findings

and the data (Creswell, 2007). This is often achieved by multiple investigators and coders,

probing for congruence across researchers’ conclusions. Because this study was conducted by

one researcher, this option is not available; however, several of the methods mentioned

previously contribute to reliability: triangulation, peer debriefing, member checking and negative

case analysis.

65

CHAPTER 4

Findings

It is believed the findings contribute to a better understanding of collaborative community

organizing, university-community partnerships, and the specific role of the professional

organizer within the context of the nine cases. This chapter presents the findings gathered

through document analysis, nine in-depth interviews with professional organizers, and seven

focus groups with community members. The interviews lasted from 50 to 180 minutes, and the

focus groups ranged from 45 to 70 minutes. Data collection took place between August 2011 and

January 2012. I transcribed all of the interviews and focus groups verbatim within the same

timeframe. Additionally, I conducted two member checks, one in September 2011 after half of

the data had been collected, and again in December 2011. The feedback from participants

corroborated several preliminary findings, and their suggestions and insight were incorporated

into subsequent data collection and analysis. Due to the study’s intent to investigate the

phenomenon from an emic perspective and provide an insider viewpoint, the emphasis is on

letting participants speak for themselves. Therefore, illustrative quotes are used throughout the

findings to support researcher observations. The professional organizers were provided with

pseudonyms in order to protect confidentiality, and community member participants are referred

to as “focus group participant” and identified by their county of residence.

I begin this chapter with case descriptions of the Archway Partnership organization and

the eight individual counties that host partnerships. Two of the counties, Glynn County and

Whitfield County, did not participate in a focus group, so the descriptions are lacking details

66

from the community perspective. This is followed by descriptions of the primary roles obtained

through open coding and constant comparative analysis of the in-depth interviews with the

professional organizers. During the data analysis, observations of the complexities of the

organizers’ jobs led to the identification of several contradictions inherent within the profession

of collaborative community organizing, and these are included in the discussion. The third

section provides description of the organizer role from the perspective of the community

members as obtained from the focus groups, and a comparison of these perspectives with those

of the organizers. As anticipated, the roles of the organizers are influenced by contextual factors,

and the fourth section includes observed relationships between the roles and constructs found to

be influential. Finally, the last section explicates the unique contributions of the professionals to

the process of collaboration. The findings in this section are obtained from both the interviews

and the focus groups.

Case Descriptions

The following section provides narratives of each case included in this study: Colquitt

County, Washington County, Glynn County, Clayton County, Hart County, Sumter County,

Pulaski County and Whitfield County. As anticipated, a great deal of diversity exists among the

groups in terms of history, population, and goals. Three of the counties (Colquitt, Sumter, and

Washington) meet the criteria of “persistently poor,” which is defined as a county that has had a

poverty rate over 20% for at least the past 20 years” ” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). I provide a

brief description of county demographics from U.S. Census Bureau data; county

accomplishments, Archway history, and Executive Committee membership composition from

Archway documents; and county history, goal, phase, and successes as identified by study

participants from both focus groups and interviews. Two of the counties, Glynn and Whitfield,

67

did not participate in focus groups. Because of this, their descriptions are less thorough than the

other counties.

The Archway Partnership

The Archway Partnership, an intermediary body between Georgian communities and the

University System of Georgia (USG), was founded in 2005, and serves as a platform for

comprehensive community engagement. Archway’s director claims, “By fostering relationships

in the community and navigating resources within the university, the Archway Partnership effi-

ciently matches faculty members and student research interests with the community’s identified

issues and needs” (Garber et al., 2010, p. 75). Archway is guided by a community-driven

process, and achieves this by placing decision-making responsibility within the community.

Another essential component is the Archway Professional (AP), a full-time university employee

who lives within the community and serves as a liaison between community stakeholders and

university representatives.

Thus far, Archway has created nine multi-sector partnerships in eight counties; brought

together leaders in education, health, public service, community organizations, and private

businesses, as well as many statewide agencies, such as the Georgia Departments of Labor and

Community Affairs; and campus involvement has included almost half of the 35 USG

institutions and hundreds of students (Archway Partnership Annual Report, 2011). Once a county

is identified as a potential partner, administrators from Archway conduct a listening session with

county residents to identify top priorities. A group of key stakeholders, often leaders in business,

government, healthcare, and education, are then convened to form an Executive Committee

(EC). This group meets monthly and additional community members are engaged through

steering committees and project works groups who focus on specific concerns. The process is

68

facilitated by the Archway Professional (AP), who typically lives within the county (see Figure

3). While the model of Archway is similar across the counties, they vary in terms of priorities,

constituency, goals, and often modify the process as dictated by the community environment.

Below are details of the eight counties included in this study.

Table 3 Focus Group Participant Demographics

Frequency (N) Percent (%)

County

Colquitt 7 16.3 Washington 6 14 Washington PH 3 7 Clayton 6 14 Hart 6 14 Sumter 7 16.3 Pulaski 8 18.6

Years as Archway member 1-2 years 5 11.6 3-4 years 29 67.4 5 or more 9 20.9

Sector affiliation Education 7 16.3 County 6 14 City 5 11.6 Business 4 9.3 Healthcare 8 18.6 Chamber 5 11.6 Community Volunteer 3 7 Extension 2 4.7 Agriculture 2 4.7 Social services 1 2.3

Gender Female 16 37.2 Male 27 62.8

Race Black 6 14 White 37 86

Age 30 or less 1 2.3 31-40 3 7 41-50 8 18.6

69

51-60 7 16.3 Over 60 22 51.2

N = 43 Colquitt County

Introduction. Colquitt County is a rural, persistently poor county in southern Georgia

where poverty permeates entire communities. The county has a population of 45,498, with a

poverty rate of 23.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). In 2005, the University of Georgia

established the first Archway Partnership with Colquitt County in order to facilitate a

relationship through which the university provides the county with resources, such as expertise

and student interns, and the county provides the university opportunities for hands-on

educational and research projects. That year, several members of the county convened and

identified the following priorities: a shortage of worker housing; higher enrollment in the school

system; a desire to preserve neighborhood schools; lack of land-use planning and zoning;

increased stress on roads and main arterials; blighted neighborhoods; increased consumption of

water and disposal of wastewater; and an increasing Latino population with unique challenges

related to language, healthcare, housing, financial literacy, childcare, after-school care, and food

safety. Based on these priorities, several projects have been implemented, most notably

infrastructure improvements to support a growing population; a community-created land use

plan; an annual Leadership Summit that engages community leaders from a breadth of sectors;

and an increase in Census participation (Archway Annual Report, 2011). In 2011, Colquitt

officially graduated from the Archway program. Due to its success, the collaborative has

committed to continuity of partnership and obtained funds to continue to employ the AP.

History. Colquitt County has a long history of collaboration. In the early twentieth

century, leaders in the agricultural industry created the Colquitt County plan, an innovative

70

agreement among farmers, bankers, and merchants to diversity crops. According to one focus

group member:

The banks, the merchants, and farmers all had to collaborate to decide what happened

next. And out of that came what’s known, what is known, is still known, as the Colquitt

Plan, and it was a collaboration. Collaboration between the banks and the merchants who

provided input for the farmers, and the farmers, and they worked it out, and it’s the

reason today that we are the largest ag producer in the state of Georgia. But that plan

started through collaboration very early in this community, and in addition to that, such

ancillary organizations as the YMCA began during that, during the teens, to you know,

provide recreation, and the ethical growth you know, for the youth and so forth and for

this community. But that, that spirit of collaboration, collaboration has been there for a

long time.

Colquitt also as a long history of collaborating with the University of Georgia. The county was

home to the first extension agent from UGA, an entity that continues to garner respect and

appreciation from the community.

Phase of development. The Colquitt County Archway Partnership has recently

transitioned into an institutionalization phase. In 2011, the community graduated from the

Archway Partnership. The group used this transitional time to discuss future commitments and

direction, and the Executive Committee agreed to continue the partnership, and sought out and

received external funds in order to maintain the AP position. These efforts and success in moving

away from shared university-community support towards a community-run and maintained

collaborative indicate longevity of partnership.

71

Goal. Despite the long history of collaboration, both within the community and between

the university and county, Colquitt, like many poor counties, faces seemingly intractable

problems that are beyond the resources of the community. The members of the focus group

identified the overarching goal to be connecting university resources to community concerns.

One participated stated, “This is about getting professional assistance to move forward on issues

that muddle up our community.” The AP corroborated this assertion by stating:

In terms of their overall goal, it’s a very proactive community, and I think you already

got a lot of leaders who have vision, um, in some of our partners, certainly not all of

them, but some of the organizations, um, I really think they see Archway as truly just

bringing resources that can assist the folks who have some of those visions already.

Based on the responses of both the focus group participants and the AP, the Colquitt Archway

partnership prioritizes capacity development as the primary goal of the collaborative.

Successes. The focus group identified both comprehensive successes, as well as specific

projects. In terms of community-wide impact, the members commented on the role of Archway

in broadening community participation in decision-making. Specifically, they believe the smaller

municipalities and groups of people that are often excluded from leadership roles are now more

involved in community affairs. One participant said, “I think Archway has made those smaller

towns feel like the rest of the county wanted them to be involved. They wanted them to come to

the table, they cared about them.” And a second participant followed up with, “And it was not

just the small municipalities, even going deeper into the community, because we went into the

schools and the churches within those communities to have community meetings, to give a voice

to people who generally are not at the table.” In addition to the expansion of participation, the

community members highlighted the apolitical nature of the group, and its ability to stay out of

72

the political realm and credited this facilitating success. By not aligning with any one group, the

partnership is able to dialogue and work with all groups. This apolitical nature of Archway as

enabled it to host a Leadership Summit, an annual gathering of Colquitt County public officials,

which is well attended by various political groups.

The specific projects mentioned by the focus group were a land-use plan, a water waste

treatment infrastructure improvement, the completion of the most thorough housing study in the

state, cityscape planning, landscape design, a data processing system for the technical college,

and the success in increasing 2010 Census participation. In regards to this, one participant

explained:

Higher than we have ever had, and that was largely due to the educational program that

was led by Emily, and going into the communities and helping people understand why it

is important. Because it is much more than just counting heads. You know, the funding

and all those things that are attached to it. But that was something that was very

remarkable as to how Archway took a lead in educating the public and generating that

participation.

The AP identified success primarily through projects, specifically identifying the Leadership

Summit and its widespread attendance for over four years; the increase in Census respondents;

and the waste water treatment. As the AP noted:

I mean, that could potentially have been a huge, huge expense to the city of Moultrie.

And could have really stopped a lot of our industrial growth. So that was a really big in

early on, was bringing in the expertise of the engineers.

73

Membership composition. The Colquitt County Executive Committee is comprised of

12 members. They represent seven sectors, including county (4); education (2); health (1);

private business (2); social service organizations (1); media (1); and extension (1).

Washington County

Introduction. Washington County, located in the middle of the state of Georgia, is a

persistently poor region, with a poverty rate of over 20% for the last 20 years. It has an economy

driven by mining, and is known is the Kaolin Capital of the world. Recently, Washington

residents have been mindful of diversifying economic growth in order to address poverty within

county, especially in light of the decline of the mining industry. Washington is a rural county

with a population of 21,187, and a current poverty rate of 27.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). As

one of Georgia’s original ten counties, Washington has a rich history upon which Archway has

been able to build. The partnership began in 2007, at which time Washington citizens prioritized

the following concerns: air quality, education, economic development, and recycling.

Washington is unlike other Archway communities in that it has undergone AP turnover two

times. This disruption of leadership was reflected in the focus group, and has provided the

county the unique perspective of the impact of losing the leadership of a professional organizer.

Despite this challenge, the county has several recent accomplishments, including a grant to

retrofit buses and trucks with filters in order to improve air quality; a housing survey conducted

by the UGA Housing and Demographics Research Center; and the development of a strategic

plan for the city of Tennille’s Downtown Development Authority (Archway Annual Report,

2011).

Washington County is also distinguished from the other partnerships due to the

implementation of an issue-based partnership in 2008. This group operates parallel to the general

74

Archway Partnership with its own AP, focusing exclusively on public health. While the issue-

based group and the general partnership operate independently, the history, goal, and successes

are similar. Therefore, the county is presented within one narrative, with quotes labeled as either

“general” or “public health.” The Public Health Partnership has had several accomplishments

over the past few years, including the development and implementation of the Georgia Rural

Medical Scholar program to assist with recruitment of medical professionals in order to increase

access to quality health care; and the acquisition of a grant to support leadership training of

medical professionals within the community (Archway Annual Report, 2011).

History. Cross-sector collaboration is fairly new for Washington County. The leaders do

have some experience of working together, most often around specific projects as dictated by

needs. Once the project was completed, or the specific need was no longer urgent, the

collaborative effort would erode. One focus group member stated:

We have been on this from the beginning, and as far as I know, we’ve never had anything

like this before and it was, um, the first time that we, we talk about the issue with all of us

around the table… You work together but in separate times, but never all together at one

time. And I think the working relationships with all the groups that are at the table have

always been pretty good within our community. I don’t think people have fought with

one another. (General focus group member)

Goal. When asked about the goal of the group, the first participant to respond stated that

air quality was the focus at the beginning. Another participant followed, “But our idea was to

solve some of our problems, that’d [air quality] be one of them, by using some of Georgia’s

[UGA] resources. The professional is supposed to get those resources” (General focus group

75

member). The AP stated the goal is to utilize the external resources available through Archway

to improve the community:

Well, I think the overarching goal is to better our community. And that is so generic, and

probably not helpful, but I think the overarching goal of the Executive Committee and the

Washington County Archway Partnership is to be a group that is going to somehow better

our community and move our community forward in some way, whatever way we define

as our important steps to move forward… I think that they think that this is something

that, they want that linkage, you know? And that by me being here, that’s the linkage that

they wouldn’t otherwise have.

These responses indicate that the goal of the community is currently focused on building

capacity through increased access to resources among community members and external entities,

and improved collaborative problem-solving. The Public Health Partnership members also

indicated a goal of capacity development. One participant stated, “Well, we each have individual

goals, as committees, and then an overarching goal of just improving access to good healthcare

in this community. Improving communication between healthcare organizations in this

community” (Public Health group member).

Phase of development. While Washington County has been involved with Archway

since 2007, it lost a great deal of time due to the turnover the AP two times. The group

frequently spoke of the loss of momentum due to these periods of transition. One focus group

member noted:

I think one of the disadvantages that we have had as an Archway group is that our

Archway Professional, we’ve had three different ones, and also had a part-time one in

between. And I think that it started off with great fanfare and was very successful, and

76

then we went through a period that I think we really lost momentum. (General group

member)

Because of this, the partnership is primarily in the direction-setting phase with some

implementation, and focused on identifying and developing the best solutions for their concerns.

One focus group member stated, “We’re really just getting started, aren’t we?” The AP also

indicated this phase with her comment:

And so, you know, we’ve done a lot of small projects. We’ve done a lot of strike-them-

off-the-list type things that probably would have gotten done otherwise, but as far as big

picture break-through type things, we just, since I’ve been here, we haven’t gotten there

yet.

The Public Health partnership also indicated a direction-setting and implementation phase, with

one member stating, “I would say that this program is still in its infancy stage. We haven’t had

enough time to feel ownership.”

Successes. The first success the participants identified was improved working

relationships, noting specifically that relationships with the county commissioners and city

officials are “better than it’s ever been.” As one participant explained:

Nobody knew what everybody else was doing. And once a month we come and hear what

everybody else is doing. And the nice thing is that you can ask, well, Lamar what’s going

on with the school system? Are you building that new school? And he can say honestly,

yeah, but we’ve got this problem we don’t know what we’re going to do. You can’t say

that out at any other meeting. (General focus group member)

The Public Health partnership members also acknowledged the value of improved collaboration.

One focus group participant noted:

77

I do think one of the beauties of Archway is that the group is made up of a diverse group

of people. We have a literacy coordinator here, a health department manager, community

volunteer, um, versus in the corporate world, everybody has tunnel vision because they

only know what they do, and with Archway you have just a diverse group of people that

come to the table that represent a lot of different backgrounds that can bring a lot of

different perspectives. And, it, it creates dynamic discussion that otherwise would have

been very tunnel vision.

The General Partnership AP also recognized improved relationships as a success. From her

perceptive, Archway has been able to utilize the history of cooperation to push the community

even further.

A lot of the things that they are trying to work on they recognize that they all have to be

around the same table for anything to be done and that the discussions all have to be

going on around one table for anything to get done… I think Archway has really done a

good job of kind of getting the community members to think about that collaboration.

Um, they may have all said yeah, we have to all agree or nothing is going to get done, but

I don’t think that they really all thought about how much more could be done when

everybody, all the players were all at the same, all in the same direction. So I think that is

something that is present now that probably was not present before.

The group did identify several projects that have been successful due to Archway’s support,

including the preservation of a historic building; landscape projects; the implementation of a

Boys and Girls Club; podcasts and videos promoting tourism; and the acquisition of an air

quality grant.

78

Member composition. The Washington County General Partnership has 14 members

from the following sectors: county officials (5); city officials (2); education (4); health (1); and

extension (2). The Washington County Public Health Partnership has 13 members, with the

majority from the health field (7); and the remainder from private business (2); citizen volunteers

(2); education (1); and extension (1).

Glynn County

Introduction. Glynn County is located on the coast of Georgia, and home to several

wealthy water-front communities, making it the wealthiest of the Archway communities. It is

also one of the larger counties with a population of 79,626 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The

county’s priorities are planning for growth, enhancing leadership development, and improving

intergovernmental coordination. Recent achievements include the completion of a community-

wide plan for growth and a recycling program (Archway Annual Report, 2011).

History. The wealth in Glynn County is concentrated on the coastal communities,

creating a wide divide between those residents and the ones living in low-income areas. Due to

this divide, the county and city of Brunswick are often at odds. According to the AP, the county

tends to hold more power and the city struggles to assert its own priorities. There is some history

of collaboration through a group called the Coastal Community Foundation; however,

immediately before Archway entered the community, a very controversial and divisive issue was

dominating the politics of the county, and resulted in a breakdown in collaboration. The conflict

centered on the decision to build a jail on property adjacent to the wealthier coastal communities.

Archway became mired in the argument and faced several challenges from the beginning. During

those initial years, people would rarely speak during EC meetings, and this stunted

communication made progress difficult. There is also tension between the community and the

79

university. Several residents have shared concerns and displeasure of with tendency of the

university to conduct research in the community due to its coastal environment in a way that

offends community members. Despite these very large obstacles to collaboration, the community

is making progress, and in recent years communication has improved.

Goal. When asked about the goal of the partnership, the AP shared her perception of

identifying and implementing multi-sector projects. She said:

They see their goal for Archway is to provide resources across broad, cross-cutting

community issues. Like, they don’t want to do a project that is going to just benefit the

healthcare system. They think it’s got to touch multiple partners, or we don’t want to

touch it… They have three areas – does it relate to planning, leadership development,

intergovernmental cooperation, and they really stick to those.

The community is already fairly well-resourced, and has several direct connections to university

experts, so they seem to view Archway as a mechanism through which to complete projects. Due

to this approach, they focus less on capacity and more on community development.

Membership composition. The Glynn Executive Committee consists of 11 members,

representing the following sectors: business (4); county (3); education (2); city (1); and

healthcare (1).

Clayton County

Introduction. As part of the metro-Atlanta area, Clayton County is a densely populated

community and home to seven municipalities. The county’s population is 259,424, and the

poverty rate is 16.7% (U.S. Census, 2010). The county also includes the world’s largest airport,

Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, Clayton State University, and the state’s largest

convention center. Despite the strengths with the county, it has recently struggled with the loss of

80

accreditation of its public schools and a declining economy. It is these challenges that promoted

partnership with Archway in 2008, and the identification of the following priorities: education,

economic development, and public image. Recent accomplishments include code enforcement

standardization and training; several educational programs, including an Annual Youth Summit;

and efforts to obtain designation as a Health Professional Shortage Area in order to receive funds

for a federally qualified health center (Archway Annual Report, 2011).

History. When asked about the history of collaboration in Clayton County, one focus

group participant shared the story of an informal group, comprised of business leaders, who met

regularly in the 1960s. He said:

We decided we needed to determine what others, the metro area, thought of us. And so

we, um, got the county to agree to pay for a study. And that study pointed out several

things to us. We were perceived… that we were not cultured. And, during that period,

they, um, there were a lot of abandoned babies over at the airport. And there was

discussion about how are we going to prevent that. And um, we even, though I never

drank a drop of liquor in my life, one of the things was that we could not attract class one

restaurants unless we could allow them to serve alcohol. So we went to the commissioner

and got them to pass a liquor referendum.

That group eventually dissolved, and recent collaboration has been sporadic, and most often

between two or three community members, centered on a specific project. Archway is perceived

as an opportunity to improve collaboration. One focus group member noted:

So Archway really becomes the catalyst, or the tool, or the mechanism, or the method to

bring the collaboration into focus. And set goals and objectives, and then subcommittees

to do actually the work with the resources of the University of Georgia to move these

81

projects and these initiatives forward. To achieve the overall Archway objectives for

Clayton county. So it goes from a loose affiliation, informal process, to a very structured,

formalized process.

Goal. When asked to describe the goal of the group, one participant said, “I think you can

sum it up in one word: hope.” After being prompted, he continued, “Hope for a better

community. And, and that, you know, that’s everything from employment to housing,

transportation to security, you know, to health, you know, all those things that are necessary to

make a good community.” Clayton County has several strong leaders, and the focus group

indicated that they are primarily interested in building capacity within the county in order to be

self-sufficient.

Phase of development. Clayton County is in the direction-setting and implementation

phases, with large projects currently underway in each of the priority areas. The interventions

have been selected, such as code enforcement standardization, youth workshops, and steps

towards receiving a federally qualified health center. The group is also in the process of

determining future projects in order to strengthen the success of the partnership.

Successes. The group identified success primarily in terms of increased and improved

collaboration. This is especially significant in a large county with a history of division and turf

wars. One participant explained:

We want to see a better community. We know we can be better, but we’ve got to work

together in order to make that happen. We can’t continue being in our silos and think like

we did before. We have collaboration in this community, so I definitely want to make

sure. There was collaboration, there still is collaboration, but by being together with

Archway, we’re all together, and we can talk about these things on a regular basis, versus

82

working in separate groups. And also, each other not knowing what the other was doing.

We’re able to bring those things to the table so that we can come together on those

various issues. All of us are doing things, but sometimes we don’t know what the other is

doing, and how can we complement one another and enhance that? And I think this

partnership has allowed us to be able to do that.

The participants also commented on several specific projects, including the designation of a

Healthcare Professional Shortage Area; the creation of the Clayton Magazine in order to improve

public image; and several landscape projects.

Membership composition. Clayton County has the largest Executive Committee with 23

members. They represent six sectors, including city officials (12); education (3); county officials

(2) and employees (2); health (2); private business (1); and extension (1).

Hart County

Introduction. Hart County partnered with Archway in 2008. The county is rural, with a

population of 25,213, and a high poverty rate, currently at 22.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

As a county that has long relied on the textile and agricultural industries for economic growth,

Hart is experiences a decline in economic opportunities, and has prioritized economic

development. Other priorities include education, tourism, and leadership development. Recent

accomplishments include a community asset inventory; the creation of a historic downtown

Hartwell walking tour in order to attract tourists; the creation of an educational advisory council;

and expansion of the Leadership Hart program in order to transition responsibility for leadership

support from Archway to the county.

History. Hart County has a long history of collaboration led by industry. Early in the 20th

century, the textile industry provided many of the community needs in order to maintain an

83

efficient workforce. As that industry has eroded, city and county officials took on the role of

collaboration. One focus group member explained:

These collaborative efforts came when there was a new industry. And sometimes the

collaboration wasn’t good or wasn’t successful, but, if there was word out there in the

community that XYZ Company was looking to relocate in the community, than you had

city people and county people who seemed to be able to collaborate a little bit to try to

work towards getting that.

Most recently, community leaders united in order to obtain the Governor’s Work Ready

certification, a program that designates communities as possessing assets needed for economic

growth. Archway entered the county by joining with the leaders involved in the Work Ready

certification process, and utilized that momentum to broaden the focus to other community

concerns. A majority of the Archway community partners were members of the Work Ready

initiative.

Goal. The primary goal of Hart County is to build the capacity of the community, with

the emphasis on the collaborative process. When asked about the goal for the partnership, Hart

County focus group participants emphasized the need for economic development. They

identified collaboration and community-wide support for problem-solving as the way in which to

achieve this. One focus group member stated:

When the textile industry kind of fell apart, we all realized that the community as a whole

needed to come together and build an environment here that would attract the types of

industries, the types of businesses, the types of companies that would provide those

opportunities. And realized that in order to diversify and do that, what, we have to have a

good school system. I represent healthcare, and in order for me to be able to recruit good

84

physicians, and the skill set, I got to be able to offer them a good school system. In

addition to that, I’ve got to be able to offer them you know, the governmental structure

that would support it.

The EC members have used collaboration to enhance their ability to holistically share and solve

problems, and have therefore increased community ownership and responsibility for cross-sector

problem-solving.

Phase of development. Hart is primarily in the implementation phase. Several projects

have already been implemented, such as the walking tour and Leadership Hart, and are in the

process of transitioning responsibility to the community. However, due to the completion of

these projects, the group is cycling back to direction-setting in order select new interventions.

The AP spoke of this impending transition, referring to phases familiar to organizers, Tuckman’s

(1965) forming, storming, norming, and performing. She stated:

I feel like we are probably at the early part of norming. But it just depends. Like, we’re

about to probably go into another form of storming because we are sort of done with

leadership as one of our priorities, so we talked about it a little bit at our last month’s

meeting and they tabled it because not everybody was there.

Successes. The primary success identified by the focus group is broad, unilateral

collaboration around community-identified concerns. One participant stated:

I think the bigger picture thing is probably the most important. Because we’ve all got our

missions, we’ve got our job descriptions and what we are supposed to do. Chamber’s got

theirs, board of education has theirs, and city has theirs, and the county has ours. We all

have our individual, but having this collaborative effort is what it is going to take. It’s

taking a lot longer than I would have wanted, and it’s going to take some time. It took

85

generations for us to get to this point, and hopefully it won’t take us as long as it’s going

to take us to get to where we need to be.

Membership composition. Hart County’s Executive Committee has ten members,

comprised of six sectors, including county (4); business (2); health (1); education (1); city (1);

and extension (1).

Sumter County

Introduction. Sumter County partnered with Archway in 2008. A rural county located in

the southern half of the state, Sumter is known for being the birthplace of former President

Jimmy Carter. The county has a population of just over 30,000 people, and a poverty rate of

26.9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The population is almost equally divided between African-

Americans and Caucasians, with a small population of Latinos (5.2%) (U.S. Census Bureau,

2010.) During the initiation of Archway, the citizens of Sumter County prioritized education,

leadership development, and public health. Home to two institutions of higher education, Sumter

residents also rallied around the goal of adopting college town characteristics in order to better

serve the needs of current students and attract new students. Recently, the county has partnered

with several UGA institutions, including the Masters of Public Administration program at UGA

to develop training packets for citizens engaged in leadership positions for 30 entities; UGA’s

Fanning Institute to create designs for revitalization of a primary corridor in the largest city in

Sumter; UGA College of Environment and Design to redesign public space for a farmers market

and park; and the Housing and Demographic Research Center at UGA to conduct a housing

needs assessment and develop an Urban Redevelopment Plan (Archway Annual Report, 2011).

History. Sumter County has experience with cross-sector problem-solving. One

collaborative, Citizens Effecting Change (CEC), gathered local leaders and identified important

86

issues, but was ultimately unsuccessful in implementation and sustainability. Sumter also has a

history of racial separation and tension. These pre-existing factors provided Archway with both

an advantage of a motivated citizenry, and a challenge in tackling a tenuous unity. One focus

group member elaborated on the previous collaborative effort:

Prior to Archway, though, I think, the community for the most part came together in the

CEC, the Citizens Effecting Change. Um, but the problem there is that they identified

issues that we needed to work on, but there was nobody to coordinate those issues. There

was nobody that stepped forward and said, ok, we’re going to move forward. There was

nobody really to keep us moving. No momentum. So those issues were addressed, but

nothing ever happened with them… I think everybody was so busy doing their normal

jobs, there was nobody really that had the time to head it up and to keep people moving

and on track.

Another participant addressed the issue of race when asked what challenges were impeding

progress:

Racism. And then we don’t touch it. We have already, the first meeting, everyone that

talked and pulled it out. Now it’s in the air. And one day it will pull down. But the idea is

that we are focused on trying to make Americus Sumter County strong. We are still going

to move on. Now, this is happening in all counties, all over. It’s not just us. But we know

that there are certain things that we are not ever going to be able to walk across, but

we’ve got to make sure that our county takes care of our children, our elderly, our health.

Goal. Sumter County residents identified their overarching goal of the partnership as

community development. While capacity is likely to be increased through the activities of the

87

collaborative, participants agreed that the focus is on the final outcomes more than the process.

One member stated:

Speaking from somewhat of a personal organizational perspective, and what I think kind

of the overall goal of this, is really to attract people to this community. And you know,

two of us at the table, you know, education, and want to see people come, you know, and

study here and stay, so some of our projects have been directly designed to make this area

more attractive, whether that is aesthetically, or infrastructure, and that’s, I think that is

the overall goal.

Phase of development. Sumter County’s coalition began a little over three years ago in

2008. As a relatively young collaborative, the group is transitioning from direction-setting to

implementation. They are still identifying and selecting solutions for several of the identified

concerns, and have begun taking steps to implement other projects, such as acquiring funding for

city- and landscape designs. One member voiced this during the focus group:

There’s some projects, a lot of the bigger projects that have been in the works are not

done yet. When they are done, then we’ll see results. So I think it’s, you know, like Bob

said, these groups probably wouldn’t come together otherwise on a regular basis.

Successes. Sumter County focus group participants shared several successes of the

partnership. When asked in what way their county has been improved by Archway, group

members primarily spoke of the increase in collaboration, and how that has laid the foundation

for implementation of several big projects. One focus group member stated, “I think that one

benefit of Archway is that it gives this group an opportunity to meet, and without Archway, this

meeting would not be happening.” A second participant followed this up by saying:

88

Yeah, that’s the point that I was going to raise. Archway, the first thing that I noticed, the

first thing that comes to mind when I think of Archway at the beginning was we had that

room right there full of people talking about the issues in the community, and like Jay

said, Barbara brings people together on a regular basis. There’s consistency there.

There’s some projects, a lot of the bigger projects that have been in the works are not

done yet. When they are done, then we’ll see results. So I think it’s, you know, like Bob

said, these groups probably wouldn’t come together otherwise on a regular basis.

Membership composition. Sumter County has one of the largest Executive Committees

with 16 members, representing five different sectors. A majority work for the county (7). Others

include those within education (4), city officials (2), health (2), and County Extension (1). The

full list of below:

Pulaski County

Introduction. Pulaski, a rural county located in the middle of the state of Georgia,

partnered with the Archway in 2009. The county is known as the Harness Horse Racing Capital

of the World due to the presence of a large training facility. Pulaski’s population is just over

12,000 people, and the poverty rate is 11.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). During the initial

listening session, Pulaski citizens identified the following priorities: community health,

economic development, government service delivery, housing, leadership development, and

public education. Recently, the county has developed an issue work group to focus on

community health, and implemented programs targeted at reducing teen pregnancy and increased

efforts to recruit physicians. The county also partnered with UGA’s College of Environment and

Design to conduct an inventory of the city of Hawkinsville’s historic downtown business district

(Archway Partnership Annual Report, 2011).

89

History. In 1986, several leaders of Pulaski County came together to address the issue of

economic stagnation. As a county that had relied on textiles and agriculture, the erosion of these

industries in the 1980s presented a challenge to those in the community who wanted to see it

sustain and grow. The result was a collaboration called United Pulaski, comprised of both public

and private sector partners. As the fourth county identified by Archway for partnership, United

Pulaski presented a preexisting entity with which to partner. As stated by one focus group

member, the experience with and commitment to collaboration contributed to support of

Archway:

So I feel like what we’ve done for the last, what I’d say, 20, 25 years, is, works very well

and I think that is one reason, uh, because this community has worked that closely, that

well together is because people having that foresight to see and put this thing together.

Now since then, I mean, I can go on too long, what’s kind of tuned that up and helped

that out is Archway coming into place… I think we have done very well as far as our size

community over the years. Archway has come in and, and shown us areas what we need

to improve, and brings a lot of good resources in and it has kept me very busy.

Goal. As the development of United Pulaski indicates, the community is primarily

concerned with economic development and improved opportunities, which will in turn attract

new residents. However, when asked to describe successes (see below), focus group members

primarily spoke of increased capacity through collaboration and skill building. This indicates a

goal of capacity development, with attention currently on the process rather than the outcome.

One focus group member explained:

You need steady growth. You need new people coming into the community and new

ideas and you need some jobs. I think the role all of us have in this room as far as I can

90

see is we are trying to do something to improve the quality of life for those that are here

already, for us to attract good people to come be with us. I mean, you know, uh, we’ve

had a lot of good influential people come from this county that have been involved in the

state government, local government and all kind of things, but you got to keep that

rolling, you got to keep that going. Keep building that, building those relationships. So

that’s, that’s, the key for me, that’s what I think about, is how can we improve the quality

of life for all the people we serve?

The AP defined the goal as improving the image of the community to the outside world:

I think, um, probably one thing that has been a common theme is that the community has

persistently kind of undersold itself to other places, and I don’t know if that is the right

way to put it, but there are a lot of good things there. I’ve never been in a small town like

that, and people have just gone out of their way to include me, to make me feel welcome.

You know, on any given day, six or seven of them will be in my office, coming by to say

hi, make a cup of coffee, check on you. Um, so I think they, they did undersell a lot of

good things for a while, and they are starting to see that, from some of the external

conversations that they have, that they do have a lot of good.

Phase of development. Pulaski is a fairly young Archway partnership, and has

experienced turnover of the AP position. Due to these factors, the county is primary in the

direction-setting phase. They have identified large issues, and are in the process of narrowing

those down into specific projects and taking steps towards implementation.

Successes. As a young collaborative, Pulaski County predictably identified success

primary in terms of initial tasks, such as relationship-building, both within the community and

91

with external entities. When asked to define success, focus group members provided the

following comments:

But Archway has come in and really defined for us, I guess, the allocations we need to, to

use to go about the business of making this a better community. Kind of making

everything gel together. In that process, too, they have created some interest, a lot of

people in the city and county and going to leadership classes and learning what

government is all about and getting involved in the process. That is one of the things we

were lacking in my mind. Was like, well, ok, everything is fine, we got these elected

guys, they are good guys, we’re not concerned. You don’t need me to do anything. You

need to be involved and find out what is happening in your community and so that is kind

of what Archway is doing, and I really, I think this is one of the best things that has ever

happened to us, is having this Archway program. And we, uh, we see a lot of things down

the road. (Focus group member)

There is a flaw in your thing when you said we had a common goal. That is something

that we suffer from. We’ve had sporadic, uncommon goals and a lack of unity. Doesn’t

mean we didn’t do things. Some things we did well, some things we just fluttered and

whatnot. One of the things Archway had done for us is sort of bring those goals to be

common goals. That includes many of the strong things we have been doing in terms of

economic development and those kinds of things… One of the things Archway has done

for us is let us group them all together so we can present them as ones that not only does

just the few that are directly involved with it, but it’s becoming more of a community-

wide operation type stuff. And also, as we look at some of the struggles we are still

facing forward, that when they appear now, they do appear as common goals, with

92

possible solutions and directions to take, and it is almost instead of being a bunch of

strings, we are more like a twisted rope now. We have to push it up hill sometimes and

have a problem with it, but it is still a stronger type thing. That is one of the more

significant things that Archway itself has done that is not really project specific so to

speak. (Focus group member)

Just to add on what he just said, I think he is right. I think one of the main things

Archway has done for us is brought a lot of people to the table. People and resources that

we didn’t know previously. (Focus group member)

One of the main things too, is, uh, if you can look around the table and see that, you

know, we link in with education and the hospital, and government, and you can’t do this

without Archway. You can have your meetings, but all these people not going to be at the

table. I know what the education problems are, and we can kind of help what we can do

that. (Focus group member)

Education has always been another little world. Kind of like Dan and the hospital, they’re

little another world. And, I knew about instructional methodology, I knew all that kind of

thing, but I knew very little about economic development. I still am no expert, but I have

learned so much sitting at this table. And I hope that also the folks sitting at this table

have learned some things about the education community. And, I think that that is very

valuable. When we understand the needs that each of us has than we can work together to

do that. (Focus group member)

By bringing all the players to the table, we might hear a problem. You know, I might

think, well, school’s probably going to handle that, I don’t know, or the county’s

probably going to do that, I don’t know, the city doesn’t need to bother with it. And they

93

are probably thinking, well, maybe the city will do that. And this puts us all together to

decide, I’ll take this part of it, you take that part of it, and get something done. (Focus

group member)

These comments illustrate the recognition of the community members of an increase in

collaboration, and an optimism of improved community well-being as a result.

The AP reiterated this with her response, noting:

I would define success as they recognize the ability now that they can collaborate and

move the community forward. And while there might be some thought or credit that it is

Archway or the Archway professional, I think it is truly not. I think it is truly, they have

been given an opportunity to have a clean start at community problem-solving and

they’ve embraced it… But, that group will have a candid, frank, open, respectful

discussion. And they’ll disagree… The fact that you’ve got those people that have the

capability to lead groups in the community having those discussions and working their

problems out is, I mean, to me, it is magical. I mean, it is very rewarding for me, to be

included and see it happen.

Finally, the focus group members did mention the success of a few specific projects, including

the leadership training class and the consolidation of the police force.

Membership composition. The Pulaski County Executive Committee has eight

members. Three represent the private business sector; two are city officials; and there is one each

from education, health, and extension.

Whitfield County

Introduction. Whitfield County, located in north Georgia, is known as the carpet capital

of the world due to the presence of numerous carpet manufacturing and distribution companies.

94

The county has a population of over 100,000 people, and a poverty rate of 19.2%. It is

predominantly white (76.6%), with a large Latino population (31.6%) (U.S. Census Bureau,

2010). At the time of this study, Whitfield was the most recent partnership, starting in 2009.

Residents identified the following priorities: education, economic development, and

environmental sustainability. Whitfield has experienced several accomplishments, most recently

promoting the revitalization of a young professional coalition; the development and

implementation of several greenways, parks, and trails; and an online community database

(Archway Annual Report, 2011).

History. The AP stated that Whitfield has a long history of working together. She

referenced one specific initiative, stating:

I guess most notably, back in 1995, maybe, they did something called Target Tomorrow.

Which they may have brought in a consultant to help them initially with it, but it was all

them. It was all up to community volunteers to do everything. And, target tomorrow, I

think, I want to say it finally accomplished some things, but the word on the street is that

it failed.

She explained that the group was run entirely by volunteers, and as most volunteer-based

collaboratives, was unable to sustain due to the lack of fulltime management.

Membership composition. The Whitefield Executive Committee is large with 16

members. They come from seven different sectors, including private business (5); education (4);

county officials (2); city officials (2); health (1); media (1); and a citizen volunteer (1).

95

Table 4

Individual Case Descriptions

Colquitt Hart Pulaski Clayton Washington Glynn Sumter Whitfield GA

Population 45,498 25,213 12,010 259,424 21,187 79,626 32,819 102,599 9,687,653

Density (persons per sq mile)

83.6 108.5 48.2 1,832.5 31.2 189.7 68.0 353.2 168.4

Median household income

$32,902 $36,109 $36,262 $43,311 $31,382 $50,337 $32,430 $42,345 $49,347

Persons below poverty

23.4%* 22.4% 11.6% 16.7% 27.6%* 15.2% 26.9%* 19.2% 15.7%

White 64.7% 77.4% 63.9% 18.9% 45.0% 67.6% 42.2% 76.6% 59.7% Black 22.4% 18.7% 31.8% 66.1% 52.7% 26.0% 51.8% 3.7% 30.5%

Latino 17.1% 3.1% 3.9% 13.7% 1.9% 6.4% 5.2% 31.6% 8.8%

History Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Negative Negative Positive Goal Development Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Developm

ent Development

Capacity

Start Date 2005 2008 2009 2008 2007 2008 2008 2009

Phase 4 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 EC (members/ sectors)

12/7 10/6 8/5 23/6 14/5

11/5 16/5 16/7

*Persistently poor

Data compiled from U.S. Census Bureau 2010

96

Community Organizer Roles

The following section provides descriptions of the roles identified by the professional

organizers. It is assumed as the person serving in the organizer role, the APs will possess the

most comprehensive and insightful perspective. Coding of the interviews resulted in eight

primary roles: resource broker, relationship builder, process designer, facilitator, community

insider, visionary, conflict resolver, and ego manager. The roles are described in an order that

denotes importance according to the consistency across participants. Therefore, the first role

described, resource broker, was identified by all nine of the participants, and the final role, ego

manager, was identified by only three of the participants. Please see Appendix E for a summary

of the frequency of each role.

Resource Broker. The mission of the Archway Partnership is to connect communities

with resources external to the community, primarily within the university system, and 100% of

the APs identified this as a primary role. The professionals articulated a great deal of respect for

their communities and recognition of internal assets. The brokerage for external resources is

envisioned to complement the community’s strengths. Articulating a common perception of the

communities, Marie stated:

And that by me being here, that’s the linkage that they wouldn’t otherwise have. It’s not

necessarily, because personally, I think that this community is a very connected one for a

small town its size, and so I think there are a lot of ways that local people who sit on my

committee could get things done in one form or fashion. So I don’t know that really

capacity building is their focus as much as just having that person, having that linkage.

The professionals see themselves less as teachers or people who are building skills and expertise

within the community, and more as a link to fill gaps with specific technical expertise that does

97

not exist, especially in small communities. As Nicole said, “We are the liaison. We are not

supposed to provide the resources ourselves.” One example is a nascent partnership with UGA’s

new engineering school. Engineer students and faculty will provide communities with technical

plans and recommendations rather than train community members how to conduct such projects

independently.

The APs recognized the importance of being a UGA faculty member in accessing the

university system resources. A position located within the university system gives them

credibility with other university employees and entities, as well as knowledge of university

resources. Leigh stated:

[I have] a better chance of getting a response than just somebody in the community, so I

guess knowing like if you need something, you probably need to go through the

community coordinator for that college, that school, and they would be more receptive to

work with you. And knowing who those individuals are.

Affiliation with the university provides legitimacy when the APs ask university partners for help

or resources, and the ongoing effort to learn the university system fortifies the ability of the AP

to quickly and accurately identify the appropriate resource as requested by the community.

The professionals not only respond to the community’s requests for resources; at times,

they take the lead in proposing the use of a resource based upon their knowledge of available

resources and observations of the community’s need. Helen explains:

Um, I do attend a lot of community meetings, and I hesitate to say that because you don’t

want to just be one of those meeting goers. Like all you do is go to meetings, but it really

is imperative that I be there, because then I always have an idea of what each different

group kind of has going on, and some of the challenges, because there are a lot of times

98

they would never think that UGA could help with their particular problem, so it would

never occur to them to ask us, but with me being in the loop, I can share resources.

Marie shared a similar strategy:

Everything that I do is, is being a part of a meeting, or, I’m not leading all these meetings,

but I’m in them to know what is going on, or to be the resource, you know. A lot of times

I’m just sitting there trying to think, well, how can this plug in, and how can I be a

resource that they don’t have on their own?

By being members of both the university system and the host community, the APs

simultaneously possess knowledge of what is available and what is needed, are able to bridge

available resources and community needs.

The interviews provided insight into the complexity of resource brokering. One such

challenge is aligning the appropriate resources to the needs of the community. This can break

down at several stages of the process. If the community members are unable to clearly articulate

what they need and their expectations of the outcome, the resource provided may not fulfill the

need. Leslie shared this frustration, noting that for some projects, it is much more difficult to

identify and articulate the appropriate resources:

I feel like I send in resource requests, and um, we have to type them out and that sort of

thing, which it works real well if I need a logo. That translates really well. But um, I had,

sometimes I will just get a resource thrown back at me that doesn’t match.

The university partners have also contributed to miscommunication. The APs shared examples of

students and faculty who may eagerly overpromise, or not fully anticipate the complexity of

working within the realities of a specific community, and therefore fail in delivering the expected

outcome. Leslie shared:

99

And so then, I mean, like, you have a student, and you want to give them, especially

graduate level, you want to say, here’s what we are dealing with, can you help me? This

is where I almost always start out with students. Here’s our situation, I know you have a

limited time. Help me figure out what piece of this you can assist us with, and keep it

reasonable because I can manage the expectations, we can set a schedule. But I find that a

lot of times students can’t frame problems, you know what I mean? Don’t know what to

do, don’t have a clue.

The AP must also deal with the challenge of declining a community request when the university

either does not have the requested resource, or the community is unable to provide the required

compensation. Helen expressed this frustration:

I hesitate sometimes to make offers for assistance because sometimes, it just doesn’t

happen. We don’t have enough students that are interested, or this happens, um, we can

do this, but it’s gonna cost you. And the reality is they don’t have the money to do that.

And so that makes it somewhat difficult.

One final challenge is the process of learning what resources are available at the

university. It is this knowledge that enables the AP to match community needs to university

resources, but it takes time on the job to really learn what is available, especially given the size

of the university system and its disjointed structure. Estelle spoke of this challenge and her

efforts to resolve it:

Um, but you know I really feel like in selling myself to the community, what I said was

I’m going to learn what is available, so that when you need something I can help you go

get it. And now I really have to rely on Matt [Archway Coordinator of Operations] a lot

for that. So the learning curve is hard for me… So, um, I guess I constantly, from my

100

standpoint, trying to build a library of resources from the universities, or even from the

government arena, from the available opportunities to be able to have a starting point to,

if something is desired from, you know, a member of the community.

Resource broker is the role most closely aligned with the mission of Archway. In order to be

successful at this role, APs must commit a great deal of time to developing their knowledge of

the community’s needs and the university’s resources. The APs’ comments indicate the

importance of this role and the challenge of managing expectations and communication between

community members and university partners

Relationship Builder. Relationship building is perhaps the most nuanced role of

professional organizers within the Archway Partnership. Fulfilling this role requires

professionals to build and expand networks among key stakeholders. At times this involves

bringing together community members who have never collaborated, or linking oppositional

people together to work for a common goal. Equally important, a breakdown in relationships

impedes progress, and can even lead to deterioration of community well-being. 89% of the

Archway Professionals identified this role, and often spoke of it in terms of convening

community members. Estelle shared:

You can make a difference. And maybe I don’t have skills to make a difference as a

hospital administrator, or a school superintendent, but maybe I can bring them all

together and have a conversation that they wouldn’t otherwise have…You talk to people

and you listen to people, and you try to, I think, identify people with passions and

interests that haven’t been matched up with maybe something that they know is available.

And anytime you have somebody who is a passionate leader about something, or a core

group of people who are passionate about something, then they really take on the work

101

and you are just there to pull them together or provide the resources or give them a place

to meet or whatever it is.

When asked what her job is and how she is able to achieve objectives, Helen immediately

acknowledged the importance of relationship building, stating:

I mean a lot of it, it sounds very old school, but it is just genuine relationships. It’s, um,

joining the Rotary Club and actually having lunch once a week with this CEO or that

CEO and going to meetings and not just showing up once a year, but actually going on a

regular basis so that they think or feel that you’ve got a dog in the fight, too. Um, so just,

the real networking and asking what can we do to help.

APs often connect people and entities who would otherwise rarely or never interact. This entails

building or bolstering relationships, which then serve as the mechanism for collaboration.

Elizabeth reiterated this need for connection:

I think a lot of times the perception is that communities needs technical assistance. And I

think the longer I am there, the more I realize they don’t really need as much technical

assistance as we think that they need. I really think it is more having the person pull them

together and getting people together to talk about things, just having a forum.

As the comments indicate, the APs invest time and energy into bringing people together in order

to facilitate the synergistic outcome of collaboration. Estelle elaborated:

But I really think what you can do is, try to be a good listener and maybe have a good

system in your head or on paper or whatever it is for kind of cataloging what assets are

out there. Because a lot of times, they are just not connected. So you know, there is a

great artist over here who is working on the Harvest Festival but knows nothing about

102

this other project, that could be a huge resource in the layout and design and, you know,

the logo. So you, you say hey, I know somebody who can do that.

By sharing experiences and opinions, community members’ understanding of problems is more

fully developed, and they are then able to help each other. This enables access to resources and

assets that are already present within the community.

One of the findings across all communities was the enhanced ability of the APs to build

relationships due to the knowledge they posses from attending a wide breadth of meetings and

events. This enables them make connections that would not otherwise occur. Helen describes her

role in relationship building as follows:

A lot of it is there is not one person that goes to all those meetings, interacts with all of

them and can link one to the other… So, I think that would be the gaping hole, is that

there is nobody that is kind of a clearinghouse… if I can’t, if there is not a UGA solution

to it, not somebody at UGA that can help, I can sometimes direct them to somebody in

the community. I happen to know that the Rotary Club has a grant that they are looking to

fund to do something like this. Or I know that the art center is really trying to break in to

that particular segment of the population, so if y'all are wanting to do a project like this,

you guys should get together.

Through increased interconnectedness, community members can better support each other and

gain access to internal resources.

Building relationships not only improves access to resources; it also provides community

members support in taking risks. Leslie explained:

I mean, they’re taking personal gambles when they do this, and someone will sound

really confident, but then you get under the scene they don’t really know if what they are

103

doing is right. I mean, you know, that’s the scary part is they don’t know if what they are

doing is right, and it takes a lot to do these things. You end up having to take risks as a

leader, and I think it’s part of what you are doing, is you are trying to give people

confidence and the network that they can take those risks a little more comfortably.

Within the relationship building role, APs also function as intermediaries between those in power

and groups that are often disenfranchised. Community members may feel more at ease

approaching the APs, and therefore are able to express opinions and assert needs to local officials

and other decision-makers through the AP. Estelle noted:

In my opinion, I think that the Executive Committee members, and people in leadership

in general, can be pretty intimidating to regular people. And you serve as bridge or an

arch to them. And, they know you have the respect of the people who are in the position

to make decisions, and there are some good ideas, but some of these people just are afraid

to step out in front of somebody who is pretty powerful and, yeah. So I think you provide

the opportunity to people who might not otherwise have it.

Elizabeth also shared an example of broadening community participation by using Archway

activities to integrate people in minority groups. She shared:

Because when we go through and we make lists of groups, people always talk about how

important it is, and they try so hard, but I think that maybe what has happened in that

community is there are like several prominent African American people in the African

American community that are known as like the go-to people. And they are so

overwhelmed. And those are the names that continuously come up. So what we’ve started

to try to do to Leadership [County Name], but that is a slow process, is to make that more

diverse. And that helps because the planning committee is not the people on the

104

Executive Committee. And so we’ve been able to pull in some younger people and not

the usual suspects. Which is, and so what we, what the Executive Committee suggested

and what we’re committed to is starting to pull alumni from Leadership [County Name],

which is good because for the past two years has been a lot more representative of the

community.

Relationship building is critical to the success of collaboration. Relationships are the mechanism

through which information is exchanged, ideas are developed, and resources and responsibilities

are shared. APs identified their role in bringing together key stakeholders from a variety of

sectors, broadening the participation of disenfranchised community members, and informing

community members of internal assets.

Process Designer. Professional organizers must invest a great deal of time and thought

into the process of collaboration. Many experts argue that the process of collaboration is just as

important as the outcome (Kegler, Norton, & Aronson, 2008; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). Gray

(2008) claims, “Explicit consideration of the principles by which the deliberations will be

conducted and decisions will be undertaken can mean the difference between a well-managed

process and one in which the various parties feel ‘used’ by others” (p. 676).This is because the

process itself directly influences the outcomes, as well as potentially builds capacity as members

learn leadership and conflict resolution skills. In fact, one of the most frequency identified causes

of failure within collaborative partnership is poor implementation of the process (Wandersman et

al., 2005). For the APs, who are mindful of their eventual departure, attending to the process is a

critical role for both immediate success as well as long-term sustainability, and 78% identified

this role. Specific tasks associated with this role are facilitating decision-making, conducting or

supporting meetings, observing patterns of interactions, keeping the group focused, ensuring

105

accountability, facilitating communication among all partners, and intervening to prevent failure.

Helen observed, “I mean really, it is about having someone in an office whose daily job is to

make sure that we don’t just talk about ideas; that we’re actually coming up with ways to work

on some of these issues.” Elizabeth provided a glimpse of typical tasks:

Sending this information to this person, following up with this person on this, pulling the

pieces together, working with the students, doing the interviews to get the right interns,

meeting with faculty over here from the ones that wanted to do class projects, stuff like

that.

She also spoke of her community’s gratitude for this role:

And so the things that they have talked about that they like is having a person that

follows up and keeps it on the forefront. Like it’s something they know they should do,

but it’s bigger than wherever they are, and so I think they just appreciate that.

Marie shared an experience of guiding community leaders through the tedious process of

problem identification. She said:

And so just kind of whittling that down and just getting them to agree that that [social

problems] were more the issue, not the education system. We initially never said the

education system, but we always had education as a priority, and then we would start

conversations and say, ok, you guys put this on the list. What did you mean? What were

you talking about? Well, we were talking about the fact that people can’t, don’t have a

work ethic. That people can’t pass a drug screen. That girls are getting pregnant and so.

And there wasn’t you know, kids can’t do the test, it wasn’t a curriculum issue. It was

more the social problems.

Leslie provided insight into the attention to detail that is involved in this role:

106

Well, I had a planning meeting on Monday with my chair and co-chair, but we just kind

of vaguely talked about things, so, then I had to figure out what the agenda was going to

look like. And that is more than just repeating what we talked about in our meeting, that’s

you know, figuring out, what do you put on the agenda, how do you streamline it so you

get something done, how do you, I know the talkers, I know what will get us in trouble

and what won’t.

A major component of process design is communication. Elizabeth spoke of her various methods

to reach a broad sector of the community:

Like some of their boards I go visit and provide updates, some of them, you know, I have

a Facebook page that I did for us, so some of the elected officials have liked Archway

and so they get updates that way. And some of them, like, whoever the committee

member is shares information and I won’t go visit directly.

In this role, organizers are mindful of interactions between members, how meetings are

conducted, and how decisions are made (Gray, 2008). Elizabeth explained:

So it is just figuring out everyone’s personality style. When they are digging their heels in

because they are opposed, or when they are just dragging their heels because they have

other stuff going on. Or when they are, like, still thinking about it. So, I mean, that is one

of the things that has been interesting and challenging is just figuring out like, the norms.

When to pick up some of those cues.

This role also involves delimiting what the group discusses so as to stay on task. Kathryn noted:

We are a collaborative body. We are not out to save the world, and we cannot save the

world. So there are just some things that can happen around our table, and some things

that cannot and should not happen around our table. So that’s really where, that is what I

107

feel like is one of my roles as the AP of making sure the community has the right

understanding, and keeps the proper expectations of what Archway could and should

accomplish.

With a focus on the process of partnership, the APs handle logistical needs and arrange for

opportunities for collaboration. This then keeps the partnership moving forward.

For all of the APs, the ultimate goal is to identify and nurture leadership within the

community so as to prepare partnerships for sustainability. Community leaders are often already

overwhelmed, so the APs’ role is to seek out and cajole often reluctant leaders to take on

responsibility for partnership projects. Because of this, one frequent task for the professionals is

to prepare community leaders before meetings and other events. This enables a balance of

leadership from the community member while still instilling a level of efficiency and

productiveness. Leslie explained:

You help put them in the leadership role, publically, which unfortunately that results in

the administrative work of me having to behind the scenes, like, make sure they are

ready, you know, because you don’t want anybody to fall on their face.

The organizer does not tell the community leader what to say, but rather provides the community

member with direction and focus. When asked how she achieves this, Elizabeth answered, “Get

schedules together, bring them together, do pre-meetings telling them what is going on, what

they should think about beforehand, and what to expect.” Just as importantly, the professionals

engage in facilitation after meetings. Helen described it as “the meeting after the meeting,” and

Elizabeth elaborated, “For the Archway communities, attention to process regularly provides

opportunities to intervene, often in subtle ways, in order to encourage community leadership.”

Leigh provided an example of this from her work with one of the smaller committees:

108

It took me a minute to say, hey, I’ve got to work with the education committee to let them

understand that this is their committee, and they are in charge in making sure that they

identify what is important and what needs to be done, and that they work together to get

it. And just working with those chairs to support them. And, me just stepping back, here

is a resource, just even just repositioning myself in the meetings.

The APs’ description of the role of process designer demonstrates the complexity of the

collaborative process. Within this role, they are keeping track of projects, pushing and prodding

when needed, managing communication so as to ensure access to information as well as

opportunity for input, and encouraging community members to elevate their leadership and take

ownership of the partnership’s projects.

Facilitator. Several of the professional organizers (67%) spoke frequently of the role of

facilitator. The essence of this role is doing the tasks required to move an idea into action. Rubin

and Rubin (2001) note:

Some of the facilitator's tasks are mundane; anyone can do them, but people rarely have

the time. Someone has to arrive at a meeting early to set up chairs in their proper place.

Other tasks require some technical knowledge and concern for detail: making sure an

audit is done and appropriate reports are sent to foundations or government organizations

that might provide funding for the group.” (p. 128-129)

In other words, APs fill in gaps by completing tasks that community members lack either the

time or expertise to accomplish. They arrange for refreshments at meetings, type up minutes, and

pull together agendas. They also use technical skills to do things such as write grant applications

and conduct needs assessments.

109

One professional spoke of a large program that engages many community members who

take ownership of several important tasks. Even in a case such as this with a great deal of

community involvement, she still has to handle the details. She said, “The primary other logistics

that are required, it has to be somebody else, it cannot be those guys. So that is what I do.” Leslie

shared an example of completing a complicated situational analysis, relying on her technical

expertise that very few people involved in the collaboration would have had the skills to

accomplish. Helen also spoke of her support with technical tasks:

Um, some people, or some groups may have an idea or a project, but they really need

help defining the scope and what the focus is, and one of the things we have learned is

when you are doing these projects, you need to have a very clear, defined expectation,

what the result is and what the real need it. You can’t kind of go in blurry, or they are

going to usually be disappointed with the students’ work. So, a lot of that work, walking

or holding the hand of the partner to try to create that job description or internship

description to make sure it’s sufficient.

In these instances, the APs took a role in completing essential tasks that the community was

incapable of managing, due to either time constraints or lack of expertise.

One of the most frequently referenced examples of facilitation was in relation to student

projects. Specific tasks range from matching students to organizations or projects, overseeing

follow through, and arranging for accommodation for students who stay in the community. At

times, especially for the communities that are geographically separated from the university, the

professionals even had to step in and advise students on the specifics of the project, or support a

student who was unable to complete the assignment. As Leslie explained:

110

But, I mean, some of these student projects, it’s a full time job to manage those projects.

So suddenly, like, you may not have expertise in some of them, but you’re going to get it

because you’ve got to make that project successful.

A couple of the professionals shared experiences of learning the hard way that it is critical to

clarify expectations of students, faculty, and community members in order to prevent

disappointment or even anger if a project does not come to fruition. Rita provided insight into

why it may be necessary for the AP to take a more hands-on role within student projects:

I think that it the biggest weakness in what we do. When we start seeing some of the

student projects going wrong, we really have no recourse. The student may get a bad

grade, but the community is left with a failed project, or maybe not even a project. And

then there is the mark it leaves for Archway. Um, so I do what I can when I can.

Student interns require supervision and guidance, and the experience of the APs was that this

responsibility was often neglected, and therefore they stepped in as needed. As facilitators, the

APs often feel pressure to take an active approach to task completion in order to meet

expectations or prevent failure.

Finally, as expected with a role that can be tedious and time-consuming, several of the

professionals expressed frustration in regards to facilitation. Leslie spoke of the challenge of

balancing facilitation with other roles:

Um, certainly, I mean, like I just, certainly there is a lot of administration… something is

going to fall because either I can spend all day typing minutes, which is very important to

making things go. But I go to six or seven meetings a week, so either I’m going to type

minutes all the time, or I am going to invite people to meetings and schedule things, or

111

I’m going to do the strategy, bring in resources, you know what I mean. But I can’t do

both.

As facilitators, the APs often take responsibility for essential tasks that are imperative to the

success of the partnership. Specific examples of facilitation were most commonly made in

reference to meetings and student projects.

Community Insider. With the exception of two APs, all of the professionals have

partnered with communities with which they have no previous history; yet both the literature and

the experience of many organizers indicate the importance of possessing the trust of community

members and being seen as an insider. There is also privileged knowledge that comes with an

inside perspective, such as who has power, who has grudges, and who is reliable in follow

through. The critical function of this knowledge necessitates a substantial investment on the part

of the AP to learn about the community and its members, ideally becoming an insider herself.

Estelle stated that in her experience, establishing a relationship with community members

precedes all other tasks because without that relationship, APs are unable to identify community

needs. She said:

But, you know, you have to pace yourself because really the goal is to build that

relationship with the community first, and get some exposure to what is available to

facilitate the process, but without that relationship to the community, I can’t do really, do

anything with that. But it is a fun challenge.

Marie articulated why knowledge of community members is a valuable asset:

A big part of getting a lot of this done is being able to identify the right players at the

table. You know, I have the players at my Executive Committee table, but a lot of those

people are at that table because of the nature of their job, or because of the nature of the

112

office that they hold. They are not necessarily the people who are going to be in the

weeds working on the project. Working on making things happen. So it’s just a matter of,

of just having that knowledge. Whether it’s, like you said, you know, whether it’s being

involved in those meetings and knowing who, who has an interest in what… And so, how

you gain the knowledge, it could probably come from anywhere. But it is, I think a big

part is just being able to identify the appropriate people to be involved in each individual

thing. Because you want to make sure that you are getting people who are involved

because they care about something and not just because that is the role they play in the

community. Um, and then you want to have the people that you know are going to do the

work, and not just the people that are going to sit there because of the title and need a

good name.

Helen concurred, stating, “If they don’t trust you, they’re not going to let you in, and you are

never really going to figure out what the true problem is.”

Elizabeth recognized the frustration that often accompanies the nuanced nature of this

role:

And I think that was the hardest part in the beginning. Is like getting used to everyone’s

personalities. Knowing what normal is to them. Like, some people normal is waiting a

week and then responding. Some people don’t like email, and you have to call them. So it

is just figuring out everyone’s personality style.

Many of the APs (67%) commented on the importance of nurturing a community insider role. By

integrating into the community and becoming accepted as a trusted member, APs are more likely

to gain valuable knowledge, such as how to best communicate with specific community

113

members, how pre-existing relationships may impact the partnership, and more accurately

identify the community’s needs.

Conflict Resolver. As an intervention strategy that engages a multitude of people,

conflict is inevitable within collaboration. Therefore, the AP is often confronted with contentious

situations, and must decide whether or not to intervene, and if so, how to best negotiate the

conflict. The professionals most often choose to approach conflict resolution in subtle,

unobtrusive ways. Estelle shared her strategy of building unity for a small group that has a

history of conflict. She stated:

So I really tried to tap into the university resources to bring some common ground, like

what you heard tonight with the education subcommittee is that we are going to bring

somebody to talk about having difficult conversations, who’s a trained mediator and

arbitrator to give a common experience to the group before they have the dialogue. So

hopefully that will one, give us more utilization of resources from the university which is

key to these problems. I mean, beneficial in this problem-solving process. And also give

people a better starting point where they have some commonality and understanding of

each other.

This also demonstrates a common strategy of the APs to prevent intensification of conflict by

addressing it before it escalates.

The APs’ success in navigating controversial issues was often credited to their

objectivity. While the APs live in the communities, as employees of the university, they are not

aligned with any specific sector in the community. Helen stated:

And what’s interesting is that is really not our goal. It’s not one of the things, but it’s

been one of the, I don’t know if blessing is the right word, but it’s been one of the

114

positive things has come from it. Is you do have somebody that kind of touches base with

a lot of different people. And because I’m not wearing, you know, a chamber hat or a

hospital hat, none of those groups look at me funny when I walk in, which they might.

When discussing a divisive community leader and her efforts to neutralize his power over the

Archway Partnership, one AP spoke of recruiting and encouraging a breadth of leadership in

order to balance the power within the group. She said:

It was totally, I’m pretty sure it was completely relationship-building. I mean, my whole,

I don’t think Archway and what we do is rocket science at all. At least I don’t think it is

because I don’t feel like I am a rocket scientist. But I really think it is building that trust

and being about to have the conversations, and there is something to being the neutral, or

the objective party, to just kind to sit back and watch stuff.

Leslie shared of her intentional efforts to build connection among members to resolve conflict:

Yeah, and to me that is capacity building because you’re building their relationships with

each other, and sometimes it’s a matter of getting people that you know, like I’ve seen

them fight, they would fight in my committee meeting, they just needed some common

ground, so you would have to orchestrate a situation where they came together to talk

about something they had common ground on just to get over…

A majority of the APs indicated that they tend to stay out of conflict-ridden situations in

order to maintain neutrality. The most common strategies shared were utilizing an outside

mediator; letting the community resolve the matter on their own; and subtly navigating the

discussion by clarifying and encouraging participants to fully state their viewpoint. Estelle

described:

115

My inclination, and so far it has played out very well, is just let it go. I mean, you would

never want anybody to be in a situation where they felt threatened or opposed on, but

these are strong people. I mean, you look around at the table, you don’t see a lot of

people who are going to back down from their position on things… I do a lot of listening.

I really think I was a good listener in my other job, and I think those listening skills

helped me get this job. And I think, or I always try to think about using those skills to

move the discussion forward. So I may clarify, if somebody is saying something, you

know, like so what you are really trying to say is that it makes you mad… and we really

need to find out if that is what is going on or not. So I do a lot of clarifying and a lot of

clarifying with questions, but as far as stopping or halting or changing the tone of the

discussion, my best instinct is to let it go. Let them resolve it, because they will.

Conflict resolution is a natural component of collaboration due to the engagement of a variety of

people with varying perspectives. However, this role was not discussed by several of the APs,

and those that did address it utilized subtle tactics of mediation. This points to the desire of the

APs to remain neutral partners and a hesitancy to engage in controversial issues.

Visionary. Because of their cross-sector engagement, APs are often able to see and

articulate a vision for the community. This big-picture perspective results in opportunities for the

professionals to take on the role of visionary. Leslie expressed, “Like I am good at going to these

meetings and pulling the information together that eighteen different people said and making a

point of it.” They often serve as a sounding board and repository of community ideas, enabling

them to make well-informed suggestions as well as appropriately frame a problem or debate.

Through this role, they create a common awareness of the important issues. Leigh provided an

illustrative example of how she approaches community members to express a vision:

116

Let’s look at our role, let’s look at your role, and why we are here. And let’s revisit that,

because that’s really important for us to understand it’s for the greater good. And

everything we do will not benefit everyone. But if it benefits the majority, we need to

move forward.

Kathryn also discussed the importance of this role. She said:

I literally try to look at the big picture of everything that happens. Whether it is an

Executive Committee meeting, or another meeting. I try to see, ok, where is this direction

going. Where is this decision, where is this going to take us in the big picture.

The APs utilize their access to a variety of stakeholders and information to form a

comprehensive assessment of community issues, which then facilitates the collaborative process

by encouraging community members to look at the big picture.

Ego Manager. Considering the powerful and influential people involved with Archway,

it is not surprising that a few of APs brought up the role of ego management. At times this role

involved addressing hurt feelings or a sense of exclusion, and at times the professionals must

utilize flattery to convenience a leader to take ownership of a specific project. It most often

occurs when a community leader either feels left out by not being placed in a leadership position,

or a member is at odds with the others. Leslie shared an example of her efforts to reign in an

outspoken EC member by flattering his intelligence. She said:

There’s much better understanding of him [outspoken EC member] now, but he used to

just drive everybody crazy in our meetings, and I learned some things about him. I

learned that like he sometimes brings up really controversial things and wants you to

argue with him. People don’t know that… so everybody is afraid to engage, so we had.

One day, after one of these meetings, with his phone call, we had to have a heart-to-heart

117

about that. And it was just, you know. I had to tell him he reminded me of my friends…

and I appreciated that… but I was afraid not everybody knows… and that’s because he is

so smart and so articulate…. He’s very intimating to people. It’s almost like you have to

talk him up, just some relationship coaching along with ego soothing.

Leigh also shared of an experience in which she approached a community member who

disagreed with a majority of the EC and felt excluded in the decision-making process. She met

with him one-on-one and said, “Look, you know, I value your opinion, we’ll keep you updated,

definitely you are a leader in the community.” In these instances, the APs chose flattery to

engage the community member and keep project momentum, as well as avoid future escalation

of conflict.

Role Contradictions

One of the primary functions of community organizers within collaborative partnerships

is navigating fine lines. The demands and expectations of the job often force difficult decisions

for which there is no guidance. All of the APs spoke of such situations often in terms of a

paradox of roles. The tension exists between the job description and what the APs are supposed

to do, and the expectations of multiple stakeholders of what will actually be accomplished. The

following section elucidates four of the most common paradoxes.

Leading or managing the community? The most common paradoxical challenge for the

APs (100% of participants) is supporting a community-led effort, yet feeling compelled to

intervene in an assertive manner to ensure success. As one AP stated, “there is a fine line

between making sure things happen and manipulating it” and another one said, “I hope that I am

not a manipulative person, but, um, I feel like it does take a certain level of manipulation to make

this stuff work.” Archway is highly committed to community leadership, as evinced by the

118

listening sessions to identify community needs, the funding contribution of community members,

the decision-making of the executive committees, and the eventual goal of self-sustainability.

Despite this commitment to community leadership, at times the APs acknowledge the need to

influence a situation. Often referred to as “planting seeds,” the APs must keep forward

momentum, which may require stimulating others to take action. For one AP, stepping back to

allow a completely community-led process resulted in a loss of momentum. She said, “We gave

them too much room, and they got lost.” As visionaries, the APs are often the only community

member with a big picture perspective, and this privileged knowledge means at times they are

the only ones who see the importance of certain action. Leslie explained, “And that is what my

role should be because I am going to so much stuff and I know what is happening.” The

challenge lies in making a decision about how to steer a community when the community itself is

not taking initiative.

Marie spoke of the frustrating balance of letting the community take a lead in direction-

setting, which can be a lengthy process, or giving them a push, which they often expect from her.

She said:

I mean, when I’m represented at something, it’s generally as the University of Georgia,

the Archway person. I think they kind of just sit there and look at me, like, what are you

going to do to help, instead of telling me what they need help with. I’m like, I’m here to

help, but I need to know what you want… A lot of time it’s not fast. Um, a lot of the

times, it’s. You know, sometimes I feel like I am trying to, I’m trying to come up with

something to do to meet the things that I know they want to work on. But they’re not

defining those things. I’m having to define them.

119

Leigh encountered resistance among community members to take ownership, and pressure to be

an assertive leader. She shared:

Showing some validity as to ok, we’re providing financial resources to this partnership.

What are we getting out of the partnership? And just having people see the value of

Archway. Um, I think that they tell us that we should come into these communities and

we should wait and be led by the community, and I agree with that to a certain extent. I

think what’s failing is they don’t give you clear direction on how to do that. Because if

you are a person who is getting paid, and the community is saying, what is she doing,

now it depends on your community. And this community, they want to know. You’re

getting paid, what are you doing, what are you producing, and you just can’t sit and wait

for that process to come to fruition. You’ve got to be out in the community, and you’ve

got to make something happen.

Leslie shared her experience of coaching community members who lead small groups in order to

assist them in focusing the meeting. In her experience, the community members are not always

prepared to lead those conversations without her help. She said:

But the steering committee was supposed to sit there and talk about you know, how do

we make those things happen. If SPLOST [special-purpose local-option sales tax] is that

thing, if SPLOST is that tool, then they are supposed to be talking about that and bringing

it to the executive committee. But, I found that, unfortunately, they don’t think about any

of that unless I tell them to. I can’t be at three different meetings at once. And I can’t

figure out who needs to be, then I got to figure out who needs to be at the steering

committee meetings. Because even though I have chairs at the meetings, they’re not

doing what they need to do. Because, that is not a criticism. It’s just, they are volunteers.

120

So you know, I am on the phone. Like I get a phone call with one of my steering

committee people and I’m basically talking with her about how can you better use your

time. You know, not as a criticism, just as a, everybody needs to be pulled out, and let’s

think this through together.

She also utilizes discussions that help guide community members in thinking through the issues

more acutely. For example, she will say to a community member, “here’s some examples of

things that you might try to do. I don’t know what works for you, you tell me. You know. But let

me help you think through this.” Elizabeth also described using this subtle tactic of planting an

idea, but ultimately letting the community decide. She stated:

Or we’ll see something and I might just say to one of the committee members, you know

what would be cool, and then I wait to see if they think it is cool or not, and if they don’t

think it’s cool then, I might float it one more time, but no one thinks it’s cool, I just drop

it.

The most common methods identified by the APs of resolving this paradox was to

support, or even push, community members into leadership positions from which they will likely

feel more urgency to be engaged. Leigh spoke of a time when she had a direct conversation with

a community member:

She never attended any of the meetings. And I was like, yeah, you really need to be there

because you need to step up and lead the group, and I need to step all the way back. So I

took her to breakfast, and I said, look I really want you to come to the meetings, be

committed to come to the meetings. I need you to be a bigger part of the decisions that

are being made. I want you to provide an update at every executive committee meeting,

121

and after I did that, she did. I, even though she volunteered to be the liaison, it wasn’t

clear to her what the responsibilities are, and that’s why we need to talk about the roles.

Leslie talked about supporting that shift within her community:

I would say one of the things that makes me I guess, the proudest, is the difference

between, it’s just intangible stuff, but it’s what you saw today versus what you would

have seen at the beginning. Yeah, I mean, you know, and it’s because they are working

together and they are working together outside of that room, and really that was, I really

struggled you know, my first six months, I felt like everybody sat there and I reported for

an hour. And that was terrible. And it wasn’t until we got them to kind of engage and take

ownership and start doing the work themselves, and started putting their names on the

agenda. And, you know, then they took ownership of it.

These APs have learned that community members may not step into a leadership position

without encouragement or even subtle manipulation, and therefore employ strategies that result

in greater long-term community ownership.

Kathryn shared an example of her own efforts to control a situation by planting seeds in

order to prevent a conflict centered on an unpopular community leader. She recounted

conversations when she first started the job of animosity towards this particular person, and plans

to oust him from his position of power. She recognized the need to keep Archway out of heated

and political maneuvers, especially at the beginning, and also envisioned more long-term

consequences for the community of gridlock if this person was publically challenged. She

suggested an alternative to the group in order to provide another option. She explained:

And there are loads of politics. So, that’s when the conversations of we’ve got to do

something to get rid of him, we want to have, well, we need to do something to intervene

122

with him… I was like, I’m not getting into that crossfire. I mean, I’m new, and Archway

is new, I’m not quite sure. And so, you know. That was a, I remember the conversation, I

remember, and I was trying to say, where am I going to go, how am I going to respond to

this in the next thirty seconds. So, there was that, and um, so eventually I just massaged

the conversation in some form or fashion, I don’t really remember how. But I said,

essentially, we cannot do that. Um, it is never going to happen… So, I eventually said

that cannot and will not happen around the Archway table. So, and, so let’s look at it in a

different light.

As a result of the AP’s control of the situation, the community opted for a more productive

strategy and the situation was resolved without conflict.

Professional organizers experience a great deal of pressure to motivate the community

and make progress on objectives. At times, they must take a leadership role and control a

situation. The challenge is in doing so without subjugating the leadership of the community. The

APs expressed the challenge and various strategies of negotiating it through planting ideas and

pushing community members into leadership positions.

Taking Credit. Another paradox acknowledged by many of the APs is the challenge of

when and how to take credit for success. As ardent supporters of the community-led process, the

APs realize how critical it is that the community members feel responsible for making a

difference. The more responsible they feel, the more they will engage, and the more prepared

they will be to take over the process. However, APs also feel pressure to demonstrate their

competence and the need for their position in the community. As employees of the University,

they want to show their bosses at UGA that they are doing their job, and as one AP noted, this “is

not the kind of stuff you can document too well.” They also feel the need to justify to community

123

members the need for the program in order to receive continued funding. Leslie articulated the

challenge of achieving this balance:

I think that what frustrated me was that, to do your job well, if you are doing this job, you

need to be invisible. Like, you need to plant ideas, you need to, you orchestrate so much,

but you need to do it in such a way that nobody feels like you orchestrated because there

is a fine line between making sure things happen and manipulating it. I don’t think I tend

on the manipulation side, but, because you are doing it, and you are planning it, and you

are doing these things, if you do them well, than nobody knows you did them. So that is

where I wonder, do people even know that?

Leigh also discussed the dilemma of empowering the community, but also claiming her own

contributions to success:

Things, so they can continue to fund this program.

Marie concurred, stating:

It kind of goes back to having to not really justify, but you know, anything that has, that

I’m working on is going to have the Archway name on it… that goes to a whole nother

dynamic of how do we publicize our involvement if it is supposed to be the community’s

triumph.

Leslie provided an example of her ability to utilize her knowledge of the individuals within the

community, and the complexity of walking that line. She became aware of an important tax

increase that would impact funding for many of the Archway projects. Because it was a political

issue, she felt the need and urgency to have the group take a stand on supporting the upcoming

legislation. She initially brought the issue to the attention of her EC leadership, as she described,

“but what I emailed them was, I say this is a really, I’m hearing a lot about this, I know it is an

124

important issue to a lot of people, I think we better have a special meeting called.” The response

she received was to wait until the next regularly scheduled EC meeting. She described the

process of her next actions as follows:

And I know that that is too late to wait because it is one of those things that politically, it

just gets away from you, and that is essentially what has happened, it has gotten away

from us. But I knew it was very important for us to have it, but, I can’t do more than, you

know. In fact I sent them emails almost daily kind of updating them about it, trying to get

the message across… Um, what, I did have a couple of Executive Committee members

who are passionate about it… but I say, you might want to, if you think it is really

important, you should go [to an Archway work group meeting]. And so, then I call the

chair of my work group and just give him the heads up and say he’s coming, I think he

will probably bring this up, you know, I don’t know how you want to handle, I just want

to give you the heads up that that might happen. But in that way, he moves the ball on his

own… and he says what he wants to say, and they react how they react, but, that

conversation needs to take place, and you know it needs to take place, come what may.

In addition to bringing the issue to the attention of the EC, Leslie also worked behind the scenes

to gain the support of the chairs of the committee. In this instance, she identified other

community leaders within a sector that would benefit from the tax revenue, and suggested they

meet with the EC chair. She explained:

So I say to them, because they are passionate guys who have invested a lot in this, so I

just kind of talk with them off the record, I trust them, and I say I just don’t think he

understands, and it’s not, he’s not that guy, but he has no grasp how important this is…

They’re like, well, what can we do, and I was like, well, maybe you’d like to call and

125

meet with him, and just talk about it with him, about how important it is to you. So they

do that. And they don’t include me, they do it off to the side. So then he comes to our

next planning meeting, fired up about this and you know really burning with like how,

you know, how important this is, you know, and he is still, he’s really impacted by that

conversation, and it’s funny because it took him like three different meetings before he

told me who it was that talked to him, but I knew, you know…. He doesn’t need to know

I did that, because, again that’s not manipulation, I’m not there, I don’t know what they

are saying, but I, people hear things differently from different people, and I knew he

would hear it from them, and he did.

This AP was able to discreetly talk with community members who had the right balance of

passion and power in order to build interest in the topic. As she points out, she did not make the

decisions, but rather encouraged the conversations between the pertinent players. However, due

to her strategy of subtle tactics, she does not get recognized for moving the issue forward.

Multiple stakeholders. The APs have multiple stakeholders invested in the Archway

Partnership, including university administrators, faculty, students, community partners, and

funders. As one AP articulated, “you are caught as an Archway Professional, you are caught

between what UGA wants and what their standards are and what they are expecting, and what

the community wants, what they expect.” The community members look to the professionals to

broker resources and make things happen within the community. The higher level administration

at the university also wants to see that progress is being made, in addition to capacity

development and community ownership. Marie conveyed this tension in her statement:

They don’t see necessarily see me as University of Georgia person in the community. I

don’t think that is negative, other than, it, other than maybe different perceptions of how

126

this program is supposed to operate. Because I think from the university level they would

think more you know, the person is just supposed to be there, you’re not supposed to be

as deeply rooted… One of my Executive Community members who said during the

interview, he said the AP needs to be an advocate for our community, and the, somebody

from the university, during the interview said, no, you’re not. They’re not an advocate for

your community. They are there to help you with your issues, but they are not necessarily

a local person advocating for your community.

Community members and university partners are both critical to the success of Archway, and by

trying to please the various stakeholders, APs may have to prioritize the objectives of one group

over the other.

Additionally, students and faculty rely on the AP to offer and support educative

experiences within the community. At times, the expectations and needs of these various

stakeholders are at odds. For example, the goal of a student is to learn from a hands-on

experience, and the actual impact may be secondary. However, for the community, it is the

promised outcome that is most important. In speaking of a difficult class project that failed to

achieve its intended outcome, Leslie observed:

But for him [faculty member], it was like, oh it’s just a class… He cares about what they

are getting out of it. Even though they fail, they learn something. I have people who paid

for it is some way, I’m spending my time on it, so.

Kathryn has experienced this as well, and as a result is very cautious of student involvement. She

addresses it upfront by explicitly stating the expectations and importance of follow through. She

shared:

127

That is the one thing I harp on. Do not even email me if you are not serious. And do not

do this if you don’t realize that you are in a business deal. This is not something that we

put on the refrigerator when you are done. We use it. And so, I’m a little bit, they think,

who is this person, because I’m like, don’t waste my time. Please. You do not care but

everybody else does. And I’m very skeptical of students. I was recently one, and I love

them, and they are wonderful. But I’m very skeptical for the most.

A final point of contention the APs experience is how much time they should spend on the

University’s campus. It is currently the policy as mandated by university administration that the

APs visit the campus two days per month in order to build and grow relations with campus

resources; yet, several of the APs shared this is a frustration for the community members who

prefer to have the APs in the communities, and feel that is the best use of their time. Leslie

stated:

I understand, like I can agree, I can agree with why we should be there. Because that

should be, for me it has been, sometimes it’s more helpful than others. But we have been

heavy, the first two years have been heavy in community organization and development,

and we are transitioning into these more action oriented groups where we need those

resources, so now it’s really good for me to come and see. I need to come and have

meetings with people who are doing things for me on campus. That is important, um, but

it gets very hard to… because when you are out of your community for a couple of days,

things pile up.

The Iron Rule. Another common challenge is balancing community capacity and

community development. In other words, investing time in the process in order to prepare

community members to take over, or in outcomes in order to garner buy-in through success.

128

Ideally, these roles are simultaneous, but the reality is APs often have to choose which one to

prioritize at the expense of the other. When truly implementing a capacity-building process,

results take a long time to come to fruition, and this may frustrate stakeholders and funders.

Community organizers refer to this as “the iron rule,” which states never do for someone what

they can do for themselves. Unfortunately, this requires more patience than most funders and

stakeholders possess, and requires a willingness let community members fail as they almost

certainly will do while learning new skills and taking on new responsibilities. Yet the cost of

failure may result in disengagement of community members as they lose hope or a sense of

efficacy, and funders as they do not see the outcomes. As one AP recognized, “Ok, Archway got

this thing started, but it turns out they weren’t really able to transfer it over, so it kind of makes

us look like we failed, too. We didn’t build capacity enough.” When deciding if and how to

intervene in order to prevent a failure, another AP described her thought process as:

I gauge the interest of this group, and how important this is to them, and then you also

look at it from the university perspective, if this fails, does it make UGA look bad? Does

it make that faculty member or that department look bad? And we don’t want that to

happen either. So then you, you step in, and try to re-guide that student or that student

group in their work.

For most of the APs, during the initial stages of collaboration, they have chosen to take a more

active role in ensuring quality outcomes. Elizabeth described it this way:

And that is a challenge because part of it, in the beginning is to establish credibility you

are a doer. You’re like, oh, I’m a doer, I’m a doer. And so now it’s like very gently

shifting out of the doer role. And that is hard because it’s fun to be the doer.

Kathryn similarly explained:

129

I totally buy into, appreciate, believe in capacity building. But the bottom line of our

situations and reality in general is that every one of those people has full-time jobs. Every

single one of the them thinks this is great. But maybe not the most important thing in the

world ever. And so, you know, if they like it, and especially our people, they don’t want

to the be responsible for much as far as outside of their primary jobs.

Leigh also experienced the limitations of a volunteer-based community group, most of whom

have other commitments. She said:

But you can’t work in a community without doing some hand holding. It’s just not, these,

the individuals that we work with are volunteers. They have real jobs, and they run real

organizations, and we might say to them, we want an update at every Executive

Committee meeting, and they are saying, I don’t have anything to update at this meeting.

So, I’m not giving an update.

Part of the community’s resistance to acquiring the leadership position is it will likely increase

the workload. Rita spoke of the misperception of many community members that Archway will

decrease the workload, and the reality is by bringing in extra resources, many new projects will

be initiated, and therefore community members, as the eventual leaders of projects, will likely

have additional tasks for which they are responsible. Leigh also encountered this resistance:

Because, as being a community volunteer, um, it’s a very touchy situation, because they

are like, well, you know, so we’ve got so many things going on that I have to attend to

urgently. This is an extra load to what I am already doing, and what they try to do is they

try to pass it off.

Helen is also wary of placing additional responsibilities on community members. She noted:

130

In my opinion, if you ask folks in this group to chair a committee that is going to meet

monthly, in addition to the Archway meeting they’ve already got, and you put them in a

leadership role where they are having to check up on people and make stuff happen,

they’re not interested any more.

Kathryn’s approach to handling these conflicting messages of building capacity while

demonstrating tangible results has been to initially take an active leadership role in order to

establish programs and projects, gain community approval and buy-in, and then look for the

appropriate people and entities to gradually shift responsibility. She described one example as

follows:

So, I knew we needed to do it two to three years just to get it going and make sure that

the area agency will stay engaged in it because they are a crucial part to it from the

content. But we have to make sure that it is familiar enough throughout the community to

make sure that it will continue on. So this year was a good, I just, you just kind of wait

and watch for those opportunities, and say, ok, now, here’s our time. We’ve owned it and

we’ve been pushing it up to this point. Now so-and-so is involved, or so-and-so gets it

enough, we can say, ok hey guys, what about this, or what about you taking it on now.

Because I constantly remind them as much as I can, or as much as is appropriate, that

everything we do, we do with the idea that it will be absorbed, transferred over. And so, I

bring that up periodically and when it is appropriate, and so, it, I just, you just have to. In

balancing the pushing, or the, I handle it with a stance of stepping back. You just really

have to wait for the right opportunity. You have to know who is involved, and you really

have to know, ok, they’re at a point to where they will actually buy in to it, and actually

commit to it.

131

Elizabeth takes an assertive stance by directly asking people to take over a project once success

has been established and the needed resources are in place. She said:

They almost never volunteer. If you are lucky, you have a conversation and you say, I

think you would be great at this. You know, would you mind, would you be willing to do

it? And if you have a good enough relationship, and you put it in those terms, like that

bluntly, most people won’t say no unless they have a really good reason. But like, I made

sure we had the money and that we are having a train-the-trainer workshop so that we

have a bunch of instructors, so part of that was like, helping hand-pick people who would

be really good instructors and then asking them for some like, I know it’s two days, and

you’re busy, but would you mind doing it?

For Leigh, resolving this paradox has required a shift in her perception of her role. She said:

It’s being able to step back and just understanding that I am doing my job by stepping

back. And I think that was the hardest thing for me, it’s like you were saying, well, if I’m

not doing it, am I doing my job? And it took me a while to understand stepping back is

your job.

Estelle even acknowledged the positive aspect of letting the community fail, and how this may

eliminate projects that are not really a priority. She said:

Well, I think as a, I mean as the kind of person who naturally would get involved in this,

you want to be helpful and facilitate. You know, you just want to say, I’ll do it, you

know. Like when the receptionist was out in the commissioner’s office, I was like, I’ll

answer the phone. You know. They said no, but, I mean that is just the nature you have to

have in order to do this kind of job. But I don’t think a project failing is necessarily a bad

thing. It might just not be the right thing, so… while I would do what I could to facilitate

132

a meeting to say solve a problem, if they don’t solve a problem and something breaks

down, I don’t know that maybe it’s not, it wasn’t the right thing at the right time for the

community. Do you want to let things get out of hand and let somebody be destructive

and interfere with the process, no, because I mean that goes back to you’ve got to respect

everybody’s opinion and if you are willing to come and disagree with what’s going on,

but still be open to having a dialogue about how to change things, that’s good.

As these dilemmas demonstrate, professional organizers not only assume a variety of roles, but

also face contradictory demands from varying stakeholders, and as a result, must make difficult

decisions. The most common predicaments for the APs include the level of assertive leadership

and hands-on tasks in order to move an objective forward, and how to take credit without

minimizing the achievements of the community.

Community Perceptions

Community members reiterated four of the roles identified by the organizers: resource

broker, relationship builder, process designer, and facilitator. This section provides details of the

community’s assessment of those roles. It concludes with findings of how the perceptions of the

community members and the organizers differ from each other.

Resource Broker. The communities unanimously recognized the organizers ability to

access resources from the university system as the most prominent role. With a university system

as large and disconnected as the one in Georgia, identifying and contacting the right person for a

specific need is a daunting task. One focus group member noted, “It is just nice to say, pick up

the phone and call Laura. She is like the conduit right up Highway 15 to all of that, resources.

And not just Athens, but the whole university system.”

Another participant explained:

133

And we, we realized early on that we could not, as a group of volunteers, get anything

close to what we had gotten done prior to this without an Emily. There had to be an

Emily, and it had to have a connection. I think it was pretty unanimous that we needed to

have that professional connection, and we needed, we couldn’t call up the right person as

quickly as Emily could.

Hart County explicitly indentified the Archway Partnership as the mechanism through which a

relationship with the university exists. One participant said:

One thing that is interesting is that I don’t know that any of us really realized the assets

that the University of Georgia has brought to the table. I mean that’s, that’s. Here, the

flagship state university is 40 miles away, a one hour drive away, and you know, we

didn’t, we just didn’t have much of a relationship with them.

Pulaski also identified increased access to university resources as a major change within the

community. One member said, “I don’t think we even knew what all they had available. It

wouldn’t even occur to us, hey, I bet there is somebody up there that can do.”

Many community members recognized the importance of having a person located within

the community to supervise the resource exchange, especially those provided by students. A

Colquitt participant said:

Well, Emily creates, I think that’s the comfort zone that she creates for the university, is

there is a university staff person down here who is going to make sure this intern is not

doing Mickey Mouse office work. They are doing something that is really vital to their

education, and I think without that link that they might not see it the same way.

In Pulaski, one participant commented on the benefit of a person who is knowledgeable of

resources and therefore able to guide the group in acquisition. He said:

134

Yeah, I think it’s important just that she has those resources. She knows what’s available,

like if there is a need. Um, for a particular project, obviously there’s student research

help, various institutions within the university, she knows the resources that are there, and

she brings them to the table.

As these comments demonstrate, the community members highly value the role of resource

broker. They pointed out the increase in knowledge of what is available through the university,

as well as the benefit of a person with direct access. This point of contact and information greatly

increases the community’s ability to utilize university resources to solve problems.

Process Designer. Much of the work associated with the process of collaboration, such

as conducting meetings, ensuring accountability, and keeping people focused are taken for

granted by community members due to subtle nature of such work. However, communities were

mindful of the importance of having a person in this role, and 100% of the focus groups

mentioned this role. Washington County participants described their AP in the following ways:

And I think that the Archway Professional has really been the glue there to keep us

focused, stick on the topic. (Focus group participant)

They coordinate everything, but without that head, you know, it doesn’t go anywhere.

Because you are going to be all out doing different things. You’ve got to have some

direction. (Focus group participant)

If I’ve got an idea brewing, I say what can you help us do right here? Do you have time?

Or what would give you some ideas, that kind of thing. Or point me in a direction. And

that, that’s how I use them. (Focus group participant)

A Pulaski participant expressed a similar appreciation for the ability of the AP to take an idea

from conception to implementation. He said:

135

What you pretty much find out, is an idea comes up, and somebody says let’s do this, and

it’s all thrown to Archway. Any idea anybody’s got, you throw it to Archway… Michelle

pretty much grabs that ball, takes it.

Another participant elaborated further:

She doesn’t make the decision, but she is the driver that makes it happen. We are all busy

doing all our own stuff, and we may forget, but she is the one that keeps reminding us

and scheduling us, putting us on track, and making the connections with UGA as we

need, that we don’t have time to do.

Others recognized the efficiency of having a person mange the process. A participant from

Pulaski explained, “They will put in the expertise to guide us on what we ought to be doing and

how we might be successful in getting it done. So that lets us spend more time doing things

rather than hunting something to do.”

Other participants commented on the importance of a person to coordinate communication, as

illustrated by the following Clayton County quote:

It’s the communication. Because she equally, throughout the year, I think she meets with

us, probably individually, to touch base, to make sure this partnership is working for you.

If it’s not working, where is that missing link. So she keeps that connectivity.

Community members highlighted several benefits of having a professional within the community

focus on the process of problem-solving. By serving this role, the APs are able to keep focus,

facilitate communication, and provide a convenient point person to track and pursue community

members’ ideas.

Relationship Builder. From the community members’ perspectives, Archway serves as

an impetus for collaboration that otherwise would not occur, and 86% of the focus groups

136

commented on the importance of building relationships. As a Sumter County resident stated, “I

think that one benefit of Archway is that it gives this group an opportunity to meet, and without

Archway, this meeting would not be happening.” Similarly to the APs’ assessment of their

ability to increase community participation, the focus group members recognized the impact of

having a person who reaches out to people who are otherwise not engaged or even excluded. A

Pulaski participant also commented in an increase in community engagement due to Archway:

I think that when people feel that they are being listened to, then they are more willing to

step up, and I do think that this, the additional people wanted to reach out and help in all

the areas. We see the same thing in education, is directly related to Archway.

In Washington County, the Public Health partnership members credited the AP’s ability to

communicate with a variety of people with increasing community participation. One participant

explained:

Well, I think that she has brought the community together to solve some of the issues that

we have, well, not solve, but bring them to the community’s attention. She is excellent.

When she is on our campus, the students are involved with her. She talks to the students.

I mean, she’s just, I just love her because she establishes relationships not only with

professionals, but also with people, other people in the community. It’s not just about, it’s

about the entire community.

In Hart County, participants spoke of previous relationships which were most often dyads or

triads. They recognized the influence of Archway in fostering a comprehensive collaborative:

I don’t know of another time when we sat around the table with the school

superintendent and the county manager, the city manager, the head of the hospital, the

137

head of the economic, the industrial development, all in the same room talking, just

generally talking about issues, and problems.

Another Hart participant described the result of this unity as an increase in shared responsibility

of community concerns:

I think, and again, this goes back to something Jerry said, John said, prior to Archway, I

think we all lived in our own silos. Education was Jerry and the board’s responsibility.

Economic development was, you know, John’s, it was their responsibility. And I think

what, you know, it’s just been more of an awareness because of the communication

between this group and the community. It’s, education is all our responsibilities. That’s

just, they’re just the tool by which we get the education to the students, but it’s our

responsibility.

In Pulaski, a participant shared a similar increase in cohesion of purpose:

One of the things Archway has done for us is let us group them all together so we can

present them as ones that not only does just the few that are directly involved with it, but

it’s becoming more of a community-wide operation, type stuff. And also, as we look at

some of the struggles we are still facing forward, that when they appear now, they do

appear as common goals, with possible solutions and directions to take, and it is almost

instead of being a bunch of strings, we are more like a twisted rope now.

In Washington County, the focus group members pointed out the importance of bringing people

together in order to create energy and build a constituency. One member said:

They also, once they get those ideas, they coordinate, see. They put you in touch with,

this is what, um, they are trying to do over there, and maybe if that’s the case, if you can

get another power behind it, you can say, well, maybe we’re gonna get some money for

138

that. Or maybe, or maybe, if everybody else thinks it a good idea over here and over here,

it must be a pretty good idea over there. So, that’s, let’s bring it all together.

The focus group participants valued the ability of the APs to bring together people and provide a

space and time for discussion. As a result, they are more informed of their colleagues’ struggles,

and better able to offer assistance. The community members also feel an increase in the shared

responsibility of the well-being of the community.

Facilitator. The community members appreciated the role of the AP to step in and fill a

gap when needed. When speaking of the Colquitt’s efforts to increase Census participation, one

focus group member explained:

Emily put her feet on the ground with that. She did some of the actual work that had to be

done, and so did some of the other members of this committee, put up posters, and

talking to people or whatever we needed to do because we knew that was that important

to the future, for our community.

The role of facilitation was often associated with student management. Many of the projects

within the communities involve students, and community members identified the advantage of

having a person to oversee the process. A Hart participant explained:

The first group of internships, the first wave of internships, we realized, there has to be

somebody to stay on top of them and manage. Especially because they are students with

student minds. And that is something Ilka learned early on, was with the next wave,

somebody’s got to kind of gel that, keep it going. It hasn’t been that way with every

single project. But with some of our projects, Ilka has been that glue that’s kept these

pieces together, moving things forward.

139

Differences between Communities and Organizers

Role identification. The perceptions of organizer roles did seem to differ between the

communities and the APs. Several of the roles were rarely or never mentioned by the

communities, but identified by the APs as essential to their job. These roles were visionary,

conflict resolution, ego management, and community insider. This indicates the APs possess a

more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the job of organizing, and at times,

community members may not fully recognize all that takes place within the community (see

Table 5).

Table 5

Summary of Identified Organizer Roles

Role Organizer Community

Resource broker 9 (100%) 7 (100%)

Relationship builder 8 (89%) 6 (86%)

Process designer 7 (78%) 7 (100%)

Facilitator 6 (67%) 6 (86%)

Community insider 6 (67%) 1 (14%)

Conflict resolver 6 (67%) 1 (14%)

Visionary 4 (44%) 0

Ego manager 3 (33%) 0

Reciprocity. Another primary difference between the community groups’ data and that

of the organizers was the community’s recognition of reciprocity between the university and

community. While organizers recognized their role in arranging educational opportunities, and

140

even hosting and supervising students, the communities explicitly acknowledged their role equal

partners in terms of contributing to the collaboration. One Colquitt participant noted:

Um, and in addition to that, in the early days, when we started talking about how

Archway would function, we talked about the fact that when you have a relationship, it

can’t be all give and all take, you know, from one way. It’s got to be give and take. If

you’re not asking the other party to do something for you, the relationship ain’t going to

work over time. We wanted the university ask us, how can we be helpful to you, and the

answer was provide functions for our students to learn service to develop service skills.

A Hart County participant voiced a similar perspective:

And kind of like a symbiotic relationship where they’ll be able to plug into the real world

needs in this community, students will be able to solve real world problems. Professors

will be able to get their real world stuff so they can continue their research in their

particular areas. They’ll shine when it comes to getting grants and you know, a lot of us

here are really excited about the potential for them to plug into the engineering stuff.

This finding indicates that communities take pride in offering the university benefits, and value

equilibrium between partners.

Role of UGA. Another difference between the focus groups and the interviews was the

community members’ frequent acknowledgement of the role of the university. While the AP

provided tangible benefits through facilitation and resource brokering, it was the credibility,

objectivity, and expertise of the university that originally brought people to the table, and this

enabled the AP to be effective within the community. The community members tend to see

Archway as a partnership with the University System of Georgia, and the AP is the mediating

mechanism. The importance of the role of the university is so substantial that it cannot be fully

141

distinguished from the role of the AP. This section delineates the specific contributions

accredited to the university. Three primary characteristics were found: credibility, objectivity,

and trusted expertise.

Expertise. It is the promise of expertise to improve problem-solving that motivates

communities to partner with UGA. As on focus group member stated, “I mean this, they are our

resource. Reach out and touch. That’s where they’ve helped us the most.” A Pulaski participant

pointed out the value of expertise in resolving politically contentious issues:

One of the roles that Archway plays, with the backing of the University of Georgia, the

whole University System of Georgia. And actually a bunch of other resources that aren’t

directly related, uh, is they are the outside experts that sometimes when we get

competitive ideas amongst ourselves, competing, you know, we get focused on the

competition. One of the dynamics they bring to the table is that gives us something else

to focus on and to sit down and understand, in that sort of an outside expert role.

A Clayton County participant also acknowledged the value of expertise in decision-making:

And we all have great ideas; however, I think it is so important to use the best practices,

and use well established, evidence-based information to drive the decision-making

process, and I think by having that connection with the university, that’s what we do. You

know, it’s great to have antidotal things, but that will not get things done. It’s really

validating that this is a best practice, that it is evidence-based, that it has worked, and so it

will work. So I think that continuation is key.

The university system generates cutting-edge knowledge, and employs leading experts. The

resources support communities in making well-informed decisions, and implementing programs

that are more likely to be effective by using evidence-based best practices.

142

Credibility. Many of the community members expressed an appreciation of the credibility

that they gain by associating with the university. The Colquitt participants shared the story of an

early and substantial success. During the initial phase of partnership, the county appealed to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be able to implement a new waste

water infrastructure in order to accommodate a recent growth in population. While other

municipalities were turned down by the EPA, Colquitt was able to work with experts at UGA in

order to propose a plan that was approved. One of the community members involved in the

process noted:

We also had an issue with waste water treatment within the city of Moultrie… and the

university worked with us on plans, went with us to the EPA and got the deal done. And

having university sitting there side-by-side with you, it, you know, that just really

worked… And we had all these state representatives and state senators with us, and all

these experts we needed politically, but we had Dennis [Archway employee], and he was

the last one introduced, and we went around the room and everybody told who they were

and what their interest was and so forth, and Carol Couch [EPA Director] wasn’t blinking

an eye. Didn’t impress her a bit. Did not make a difference if it was the governor there.

She didn’t care. Until we got to Dennis. And, after he introduced himself as being a part

of the Archway program, which is a liaison and conduit between our community and the

university and all of this research, all of this education, that was all she talked about. She

said, thank y’all all for being here. By the way, I’m familiar with what your needs are,

and you are not going to get it. She said, it’s not going into Oak Cove, I’m just telling

you, it’s not going to go in there because you don’t have enough of the head waters

filtering into the Oak Cove to make it work, so we’re not going to approve it. But I know

143

what you are doing with the Archway program, and she said, as a result of that, I know

that you’ve got the best expertise that you can have, we had the credibility, and she said

what we are going let you do is double the capacity in your existing plant.

A Clayton County participant also recognizes the value of aligning with an institution as well-

respected as the university:

Well, and that’s, I would imagine, one of the beauties of a collaboration like this, and

when you can have something behind it like UGA or any major recognized institution,

you go from being a small player out there all by yourself, to part of something that is

going to promote you. And you can’t help but to have sort of a more, you know,

momentum.

By collaborating with the university, Georgia counties gain instant credibility. Due to the

political nature of many social problems, aligning with a reputable institution is often just as

important as an expert-guided, quality plan. Credibility results in acceptance and support in order

to move projects from an idea to implementation.

Objectivity. Community members also acknowledged the importance of the perception of

objectivity. As an entity that resides outside of the community, the university is less likely to

align with internal organizations or have a political agenda, and therefore community members

are more likely to trust and accept information from the university. It also serves as a catalyst for

bringing together factions who have previously been divided. As an objective facilitator, the

university can engage people from all sides of an issue. As a Pulaski member explained,

“Archway puts everybody on a level playing field, too. We’re not meeting at the county office,

we’re not meeting at the city office. Nobody has home field advantage. We all kind of come to a

144

mutual point.” When discussing an acrimonious issue within Pulaski, one participant credited

UGA with moving the group beyond conflict:

Two and a half years ago, that wouldn’t have happened. The competition would have just

been, you know, everybody taking over, they want to do it like this, they want to do it

like that. And it would just, batted the ball around more than actually find something to

focus on. And this is going to give us something to focus on.

Community members are able to utilize UGA’s image of neutrality to bring together opposing

parties, and mediate discussions in order to resolve conflict and make decisions.

The Influence of Additional Variables

As anticipated, the roles of the professional organizers appear to be related to contextual

factors. The literature review indicated the potential influence of several variables, including the

history of collaboration within the community, the partnership’s goal, member and community

composition, and phase of collaboration. The findings for this section were determined by

creating and analyzing data summary tables. These tables are a tool for compiling participants’

responses and statements for each category. For each table, the participants are listed in the

vertical axis, and the descriptors are listed in the horizontal axis. Each intersection is marked,

providing a summary of the data according to participant and category. As Bloomberg and Volpe

(2008) state, these tables:

provide a way to highlight the evidence to support what the researcher says she or he has

found… Although qualitative research is not essentially about quantifying data, and

although the intent is not to reduce the data to numeric representations, tallies and

frequencies in qualitative research are essentially a supplement to the narrative. Data

145

summary tables are working tools that crease a record of who said what and how many

times a participant response occurs. (p. 103-104)

A table was completed for each category, and then tables were created to aid in the comparison

of categories. I then looked for patterns that seem to indicate a relationship between categories,

and the searched the data for evidence. There was no distinguishable relationship between the

role and phase of collaboration or goal of the partnership; however, history and community

composition do seem to influence the role of the organizer.

Roles Related to History. Research indicates that the role of a community organizer will

be directly related to the history of the community (Butterfoss, 2007). Those groups with a

positive experience from which to build will be more likely to engage in collaboration initially,

and achieve success more quickly due to the experience and efficacy of participants. On the other

hand, communities with a history of division or failure of past attempts of collaboration are much

more resistant to collective efforts. The community’s enthusiasm to partner, or distrust of the

process, will likely influence the role of the organizers. This study found that several roles seem

to be important regardless of history: resource broker, relationship builder, process designer,

facilitator and ego manager.

All of these roles with the exception of the latter were equally important for communities

with both a positive and divisive history. Ego management was referenced by only 33% of those

with a positive history and 33% of those with an acrimonious history. On the other hand, the role

of visionary, defined as a person who possesses a big-picture perspective of the community and

its needs, was indicated to be important primarily by those with a history of conflict (67%), and

came up only once for those with a positive history, and that was the issue-based partnership.

Not surprisingly, conflict resolution was important to 100% of those with a divisive history, and

146

less frequently among those with a positive history (67%). Finally, the role of community insider

was said to be important by 83% of those communities with a positive history, and only 33% of

those with a negative history (see Appendix F).

Role Related to Community Size. As anticipated, organizers located within larger, more

diverse communities adopted different roles than those within rural communities. Once again,

the roles of facilitator, resource broker, relationship builder, and process designer were

considered valuable regardless of size. Visionaries were important in 100% of the large and

medium communities, and for only one of the rural communities, and this was the issue-based

partnership. Conflict resolution was mentioned across large and small communities; however, it

was considered essential in 100% of the large and medium communities, and only 67% of the

rural counties. Ego management was much more important for the large communities (100%),

and community insider was mentioned by 100% of the rural counties and none of the urban or

moderately large communities.

The data summary tables provide a mechanism for looking at the occurrence of variables

in relation to each other. In this study, the findings indicate that certain organizer roles are more

applicable to communities with various attributes. Communities with a positive history of

collaboration seem to value the role of a community insider, while communities with a history of

conflict are more likely to need a visionary and conflict resolver. Larger communities value

visionary, conflict resolution, and ego management, and smaller communities more often

referenced appreciation for a community insider (see Appendix G).

Unique Contributions

One final strategy to assess the role of professional organizers within collaboration was to

identify their unique contributions, i.e. what do they currently provide within the community that

147

no one else does. Participants were asked share their predictions of what would happen to the

partnership if the organizer position was removed, and what gaps would exist in the community

due to the loss of the professional. The findings are from both interviews and focus groups.

One of the most telling indicators of the importance of the community organizer was the

insistence of all seven groups that without that person, the collaboration would dissolve. Several

groups optimistically speculated collaborative efforts would continue for a short time, largely

driven by the experience of success thus far, but eventually the partnerships would succumb to

inertia. Colquitt County, who recently graduated the program and has since made arrangements

to continue to fund the AP, was particularly insightful due to their experience of contemplating

the loss of the AP. One member stated:

It wouldn’t last two, three years. Two to three years, and we would start going off the

committee, retire from the committee, whatever, and then there would be no

replacements that had any history with it and there is no continuity and within two to

three years, Archway would be gone. And we realized, I think that is what we realized

when we went through the process of, how do we graduate? Was, if left to this group by

itself, we would do as much as we could for a very short period of time and after that,

everyone would go their separate ways and it would no longer function.

Hart County also predicted the demise of the partnership once the professional leaves. One

participant explained:

There wouldn’t be an Archway… we’re going to go back to our missions. You know,

we’ll still see each other. We’ll take Jerry out to dinner periodically and touch base, but

we’ll go back to our missions. And the whole thing will collapse.

Another Hart participant further explained:

148

I just don’t buy into the graduation. I mean, how do you graduate from that kind of

relationship? I mean, this is just, in my opinion, I keep going back to it. It is a symbiotic

relationship. Do, will we survive without Archway? Absolutely. We’ve survived a couple

hundred of years, and we’ll be fine without them when they go. Will they survive without

us? Yes. Will we both be better by having this Archway relationship? Yes. You don’t

graduate, in my opinion… We won’t graduate, it will be the end of that relationship…

Because that is the thing about the university and what the university is doing. They’ve

got new students every four years… Plus, by nature, what are you working on? I mean,

you are working on the new stuff. Developing that base of knowledge, developing that

new whatever, and that is part of what we’re wanting to do.

When asked what would happen if the AP role is eliminated, the participants in Pulaski also

stated that people would return to their primary focus and the collaborative effort would

deteriorate. Participants said it would “fade away”, and “I’d hate to see that day when that goes

away because I really want to be positive and think that we will still meet and do, but, I don’t

really think that will happen with this person gone.” Another participant followed this by stating:

Everybody is busy, and everybody would be running their own little direction. We

wouldn’t be talking together. Collaborating, there wouldn’t be any of that. It’d be me

doing my little thing, and Brooks taking care of the government, and everybody doing

their own thing. We wouldn’t be sharing with other people what we were doing and …

We wouldn’t intend to be like that, but it would become like that.

Participants in the Washington County Public Health partnership were also wary of sustainability

without a professional organizer. One member commented:

149

I don’t think it will make it. I think you always need somebody. I’ve seen things that just

fell down after the person that was in the leadership position had to be gone or away, or

something happened, they were there no longer. It kind of just sort of fell apart… I think

we would try to meet because we know it is the right thing to do, and we have seen

success, but nobody is going to be willing to put the time and effort in as a volunteer that

Laura has.

Process Designer. A great deal of the success of the groups was credited with having a

person focused on the goals, and reigning in community members to insist upon collaborative

focus. A Colquitt County focus group member explained:

I think Emily provides us with continuity for things to keep going. And I think you saw

this morning, she also keeps us on task. Sometimes we’ve tended in some of our

meetings, each one of us to have our own little rabbit we wanted to chase, which is

perfectly all right. Sometimes you find things while you are chasing that rabbit, but she

brings us back to whatever our focus needs to be and can look at past, present, future and

give that continuity that will keep everything going. And I don’t think without a person

who has that as their chief focus, I don’t think any volunteer, no matter how committed

they were, would be able to provide that.

A Hart participant expressed a similar sentiment:

It takes that person or that group that is going to take charge and keep this thing going.

Ilka is kind of that glue that keeps this process going. Without Ilka, we’d all be focused

on our individual goals. And you know, we’d commit, but we wouldn’t get the progress.

This was further corroborated by Clayton County. One participant there stated:

150

That role would have to be backfilled by someone. Because if you didn’t have somebody

to package all this stuff and filter it, you would revert back to chaos. You know, it’s kind

of like having one of these, what do you call these people that go to these meetings and

they are there, what do you call them? Facilitators. A facilitator. You still have to have a

facilitator, whether it is paid by the funding partners, or paid from some other source.

You still have to have a facilitator to work with the committees to get work done.

These comments suggest a community appreciation of the logistical tasks and the focus of the

organizer on the details. There was consensus among the community members that without such

a person, the effort would stumble and likely fall apart, and that currently there are few people

within the community with either the time or capability to fulfill this role.

Resource Broker. The second and likely more challenging to replace role is that of

resource broker. As one participant articulated, “and there is also another important aspect, and

that’s continue to have kind of university connection because the resources that come through the

university are tremendous.” This was the most often referenced role of the AP, with specific

focus on the connection to the university system and therefore a wide range of expertise. One

participant in Pulaski described it this way, “There is a big cog at UGA, and a big cog down

here, and she is that little cog in the middle that makes those two wheels roll.” In this sense, the

AP not only fills gaps and provides her own expertise; she is a link to experts on almost every

topic a community made identify as a concern. A Colquitt participant said:

And what Archway brings to the table, is you can hire a consultant. If we hired you, we

hired you as a consultant, we are going to have your brain power and your expertise.

What Dennis also brought to the table was, he had the power to be a facilitator, and he

could go in and be neutral, but he also could call that, that person. Who did they bring to

151

the table when they got to meet with the EPA? They bring university. That’s, there’s

other resources there, not just the consultant themselves. It’s the whole university, and

everything that they have access to that, if you need somebody in this area, they can

broker that for you, not just provide it themselves. There is a limit to what they can do.

He doesn’t have that limit. He has access to every school at the university, and so does

Emily, have access to every college at the University of Georgia. And that’s, that’s a

whole lot more that you bring to the table than just a portfolio as a consultant.

The Hart participants also acknowledged the increased opportunities by accessing the entire

university system. They also identified the AP’s unique role in managing what could be an

overwhelming task of finding the right resource:

I know, I just love planting seeds in her head, because I am an idea person, and I love just

throwing ideas at her, and those seeds go in, and as time progresses, she is trying to figure

out all these facets that the university offers because there are all these vast resources, and

they’re all in individual departments themselves, they’re individual sub departments

within the departments, and the sub-sub-departments. And she’s been able to kind of drill

into these different areas, and then recognizes the different areas that we need to work on.

And that, I think it probably one of the most challenging things is trying to figure out,

you need that person, like her, who is able to do that. Who is able to take the idea from

the community, and kind of be that glue because the community and the… because if she

wasn’t doing what she does, we’d have this relationship with UGA, but we wouldn’t have

that back-and-forth, without her being that conduit by which we can plug into all these

different resources. So she is taking it all in on this side in the community, and

channeling it and figuring where it needs to go to, so she can make those connections.

152

Another Colquitt participant further explained that no one in the community has this knowledge

or ability to access resources at the university. He shared how this became clear when the

community was hiring an AP:

It can’t be the people, the people around this table come from all different walks of life,

and none have expertise in governmental services out of Athens or advisory services out

of Athens, so we thought, well, we just find someone local that would be the one to go up

to Athens and that was our plan. The folks at the university were much wiser, though, and

said, no you need somebody that understands what Athens can do for a community rather

than what the community can, send up to Athens and say these are our needs. It worked

much better for us to have a professional that was connected to the university. Much,

much better.

Due to their affiliation with the university, and consistent efforts to learn about the resources it

has to offer, the APs are able to offer communities an efficient and knowledge method to access

resources. This role of resource broker would be very difficult for most of the communities to

replicate without the support of Archway.

Visionary. One final unique contribution, visionary, was identified by only the APs.

They spoke of the advantage of their involvement in a broad cross-section in community

meetings and events. Nicole noted:

The biggest thing I do, is I am the eyes and ears as many places as I can be. Go to

meetings, wherever they are, that are relevant. Anywhere that seems like a likely partner,

good strong community partner. I try to plug in, even if I am just a face in the crowd.

It is this presence of a variety of events that provides the AP with a great deal of information and

insight into the community’s needs and resources. They are able to connect disparate parts of the

153

community in order to create a holistic approach to problem-solving and reduce the tendency of

groups to work in isolation on the same problems. Kathryn expressed the value of her ability to

see the big picture and how this helps with the collaborative process:

I feel like the fact that I am able to kind of step back and see certain dynamics and how

things play together. I’m not a political person, I really hate politics, I hate following

politics, but I understand personalities and how people’s agendas all happen, so being

able to do that… And that makes me a great fit for this job. I can handle details.

The APs are often one of a very small group of community members who attend several

functions across sectors. The access to information and people through this role provide the APs

with a broad perspective, allowing them to serve in a visionary role.

Conclusion

This chapter presented the major findings of the study. First and foremost, organizers are

likely to assume several complex and time-consuming roles, specifically resource broker,

relationship builder, process designer, facilitator, community insider, conflict resolver, visionary,

and ego manager. The second finding is that organizing within collaboration reflects the

complexity of this intervention, and organizers will often grapple with paradoxical roles and

competing demands. Thirdly, while community members will likely be grateful and

acknowledge the need for an organizer, they will not fully understand and observe all the roles

that an organizer serves. Also, the community’s perspective included the role of the university

and its critical attributes of expertise, credibility, and objectivity as interrelated to the ability of

the organizer to be successful. The fourth finding is that these roles may be influenced by the

context of the collaborative as organizers adapt to best serve the needs of each unique

community. Within the confines of this study, the two most influential factors appear to be the

154

community’s history and its demographics. Finally, professional organizers provide necessary

contributions to collaborative problem-solving, very often filling in gaps that no other

community member has the time or expertise to assume, making the organizer an essential

component of successful collaboration. Communities members speculated the loss of the AP

would result in the demise of the partnership, and the two most prominent roles that would leave

gaping holes are process designer and resource broker.

155

CHAPTER 5

Discussion and Implications

The findings of this qualitative study were obtained from nine in-depth interviews with

professional organizers; seven focus groups with community coalition members; and document

analysis. Constant comparative analysis was utilized to code the data into themes and core

categories within and across cases. This chapter will present an overview of the findings;

discussion and conclusions based upon the findings; implications for practice; and

recommendations for future research.

The findings of this multiple case study shed light on the particular roles of professional

organizers within a collaborative problem-solving framework. The first primary finding indicates

that within collaborative community organizations, professionals are likely to assume four

complex and time-consuming roles, specifically resource broker, relationship builder, process

designer, and facilitator, regardless of the context of the partnership. Secondly, four other roles,

community insider, conflict resolver, visionary, and ego manager, appear to be pertinent within

specific contexts as organizers adapt to best serve the needs of each unique community. The third

finding is that community members will not fully understand and observe all the roles that an

organizer serves. Fourthly, organizing within collaboration reflects the complexity of this

intervention, and the roles filled by organizers can be interdependent, as well as contradictory,

and therefore professionals will often grapple with competing demands. Finally, professional

organizers provide necessary contributions to collaborative problem-solving, very often filling in

gaps that no other community member has the time or expertise to assume, making the organizer

156

an essential component of successful collaboration. And finally, the ability of the organizer to

fulfill certain roles is contingent upon the relationship with the lead agency.

Role Identification

This study found eight roles that were described in at least two or more cases, indicating

relevance for multiple study participants. Four (50%) of the roles were found to be important to a

majority of both organizers and community members: resource broker, relationship builder,

process coordinator, and facilitator. This gives credence to the importance of these roles

regardless of the context of the collaborative. The following section will discuss the

interpretation of the primary findings in relation to the literature.

Resource Broker. When analyzing the combined findings from both interviews and

focus groups, this study indicates the most widely recognized role of an organizer within the

Archway Partnership is that of resource broker. The importance of this role is understandable

within the context of a university-community partnership. As the literature suggests,

communities have much to gain from collaborating with universities, primarily resources such as

human capital, cutting-edge technology (Seifer, 2000), and expertise to aid in both decision-

making and solution implementation (Kegler et al., 2006). The importance of resource access is

supported by the community participants’ emphasize on the role of the university itself. All of

the counties who participated in focus groups explicitly stated that increased and improved

access to the university system was the primary motivation to partner and consistently identified

it as one of the principal benefits of partnership. An example of this comes from a Clayton

County participant, who said:

I think, too, beyond UGA, that’s a primary part of it, but the whole university system.

That enhances it, because you have this bigger, broader picture of these educational

157

institutions, plural, that’s a part of it. And you have the resources and the talents of those

institutions.

Previous research emphasizes the necessity of connecting communities to expertise and technical

assistance. In a study of coalition leaders, Mizrahi and Rosenthal (2001) found that organizations

participated in order to receive information, expertise and contacts, and the more members

invested in and received from the group, the more likely they would remain committed. McFall,

Norton, and McLeroy (2006) found that collabortives often fail due to lack of technical expertise

to assist a group from idea conception to task completion. This was reiterated by the experience

of the Archway community members. As a Clayton County focus group member stated:

We all have great ideas; however, I think it is so important to use the best practices, and

use well established, evidence-based information to drive the decision-making process,

and I think by having that connection with the university, that’s what we do.

Successful resource brokering is more than responding to community needs.

APs are also proactive in suggesting resources that community members may not even know

exist. When Sumter County was asked about the resource acquisition process, their responses

explicitly pointed to the value of this role. One participant said:

She brings it to us. She knows that you are in need of certain things, and so she says, I

have contacted the college of design, I have contacted the, this person’s coming, this

charette is available, and brings it in, and we get information.

This was immediately corroborated by a second participant, who said:

Yeah, I think it’s important just that she has those resources. She knows what’s available,

like if there is a need, um, for a particular project. Obviously there’s student research

158

help, various institutions within the university, she knows the resources that are there, and

she brings them to the table.

Research supports the need for proactive resource brokers within communities. Mitchell, Stone-

Wiggins, Stevenson, and Florin (2004) found that groups with low capacity not only had

difficulty implementing interventions; they also struggled with identifying their technical

assistance needs, and because they did not know what to ask for, they would not receive the

appropriate assistance. This finding is consistent with collaboration and UCP literature that

stipulate partnership is dependent upon the exchange of resources.

Relationship builder. The second most prevalent role according to the findings is that of

relationship builder. This role reflects the essence of collaboration. Bufferfoss (2007) claims,

“Building a coalition is really about building relationships” (p. 506). This is because

relationships are the mechanism through which a group creates a synergetic response to the

problem. Empirical research supports the importance of relationships. Nowell (2009) found that

quality relationships were positively correlated to both interorganizational coordination and

systems change. Wells, Ford, McClure, Holt, and Ford (2007) had similar findings, concluding

that relational structure affects capacity for effectiveness. In fact, in a large study of coalitions,

Chavis (2001) found that coalitions excelled at bringing people together to identify and coalesces

around solutions, and struggled with service-delivery, leading to his conclusion that relationship-

building is perhaps the best use of collaborative strengths.

Research has also found that participant motivation is closely linked to opportunities for

influence (Wells, Ward, Feinberg, and Alexander, 2008). In the process of building relationships,

APs increase such opportunities. A participant in Pulaski noted:

159

I think that when people feel that they are being listened to, then they are more willing to

step up, and I do think that this, the additional people wanted to reach out and help in all

the areas. We see the same thing in education, is directly related to Archway.

Hart participants expounded upon this, stating that strengthened relationships results in a broad-

base of ownership and “buy-in” throughout the community.

Both previous research and this study support the critical role of relationship

development within collaboration. Through this study, community members articulated an

appreciation for the role of relationships in sharing responsibility, improving solution generation

and implementation, recruiting new leadership for problem-solving and supporting members in

taking risks. These improved relationships were also recognized as one of the primary successes

of the partnership thus far for many communities (six out of seven, or 86%). The significance of

this cannot be overstated within communities who aim to impact system change, which can take

years to achieve. The recognition of relationship building as an outcome is important to keep

members satisfied and engaged through the long and arduous process of social and system-wide

change. As anticipated, this is one of the most widely recognized roles of the community

organizer, and central to the success of collaboration.

Process Designer. A great deal of research has been focused on the process of

collaboration, and its impact on outcomes. Kegler et al. (2005) found strong correlations between

process factors, such as staff competence, communication, influence in decision-making, and

coalition functioning, and short-term indicators of success, such as member satisfaction and

member participation. The current study supports this finding as evinced by the community’s

emphasis on process design, which was recognized as an important role for the AP by all of the

focus groups. As one Pulaski focus group member described:

160

She [the AP] doesn’t make the decisions, but she is the driver that makes it happen. We

are all busy doing all our own stuff, and we may forget… but she is the one that keeps

reminding us and scheduling us, putting us on track… that we don’t have the time to do.”

Many of the focus group members across the communities credited the AP in providing and

maintaining focus. As a Washington County participant said, “She [the AP] keeps us focused…

We all come up with great ideas, you know, and you think, oh, let’s do so-and-so, and it could

just as easily fall off the table.” A Colquitt participant referenced a common colloquialism,

“chasing rabbits,” which refers to the tendency of groups to get off track or distracted by a

tangential idea. The APs were credited with minimizing the distraction of “rabbits.” He

explained:

Sometimes we’ve tended in some of our meetings, each one of us to have our own little

rabbit we wanted to chase… She brings us back to whatever our focus needs to be… I

don’t think without a person who has that as their chief focus, I don’t think any volunteer,

no matter how committed they were, would be able to provide that.

In a recent study of 20 coalitions, Kegler and Swan (2011) found a correlation between

communication, task focus, and cohesion, which were then correlated to member participation

and satisfaction, indicating the strong relationship between process and the experience of

members. As this study and previous research indicate, members highly value a well managed

process.

Facilitator. Facilitation, defined as completing tasks that community members lack

either the time or expertise to do, is the fourth and final role identified by a majority of both

organizers and focus groups. The literature lacks investigations into this specific role and its

relevance to collaborative problem-solving. However, it is intuitively obvious why it is critical to

161

have a person knowledgeable of the gaps that exist within any group and available and

competent to step in as needed. As a Sumter County participant stated, “Someone has to be

responsible. Has to be able to make a phone call or just follow through.” Many of the groups

pointed out their voluntary status within Archway, and other responsibilities such as jobs and

personal commitments, and this seems to increase their reliance on the AP to step in and

complete tasks for which community members lack time.

The role of facilitation presented as a challenge for many of the organizers who

recognized its importance, but at times felt overwhelmed by the tedious nature of typing minutes

or preparing reports. As one AP shared, “I’m going to type minutes or invite people to meetings

and schedule things, or I’m going to do the strategy, bring in resources, but I can’t do both.” This

role was also commonly associated with student management, with APs speaking of their effort

in coordinating interviews between students and community partners, overseeing communication

during the project, and at times even stepping in to advise students on how to complete a project.

This indicates the value of having an organizer within the community to ensure quality

educational opportunities, but also the possible tendency of faculty and other university

personnel to abdicate duties, leaving the AP to take charge of tasks that are beyond their

responsibility.

One interesting observation is that six out of nine (67%) of the APs acknowledged the

necessity of facilitation while also recognizing it can be counter-productive to their goal of

building self-sustainability within the community. The challenge arises in determining what the

community can do on its own, and what is truly beyond the resources and abilities of partner

members. Ideally, organizers within a capacity development-focused collaborative should only

take on the role of process designer and utilize tasks associate with this role, such as leadership

162

development and improved communication, to support the community members in doing the

task-related work. However, as this study indicates, and other research has found (Vangen &

Huxham, 2004), the reality of community organizing is that at times the outcome supersedes the

process. The APs spoke of the potential costs of failure, such as an impaired reputation or a

disappointed community stakeholder, and at times chose to intervene with a facilitation role in

order to ensure successful completion of an activity. The implications of this are that even

collaboratives and organizers committed to capacity development will find likely face the need

to be more hands-on due to time constraints and pressure to demonstrate results.

The importance of both process design and facilitation is likely due to similar reasons.

The partnerships are designed to engage prominent community leaders as volunteers who

contribute time and expertise to the problem-solving process. As community leaders, and

employees of other organizations, the Archway members are generally busy even without the

addition of Archway related tasks. As one community member pointed out, the people who are

already busy are also the ones who are most likely to be leaders and doers within the community.

She said, “It’s the old 80/20 rule. I mean, it’s the same… 20% of the people doing 80% of the

work. If you look at our committee…, that’s the same people that are on all the other committees

in town.” One of the APs described a similar outlook, sharing her hesitation to overwhelm EC

members with tasks. She said:

In my opinion, if you ask folks in this group to chair a committee that is going to meet

monthly, in addition to the Archway meeting they’ve already got, and you put them in a

leadership role where they are having to check up on people and make stuff happen,

they’re not interested any more… I don’t mind making copies and checking in. It’s not

what I do all day long, but I don’t mind handling some of the managerial, secretarial,

163

whatever you want to call it, stuff, um, if I can get their guidance and input and when it

comes… I’m not entirely comfortable now going and sitting down with the hospital CEO

and making a big ask… So I would rather have a committee like this that doesn’t get as

hands-on and involved, but they can, very comfortable guiding me and helping me with

my big requests when I need them.

The challenge of fostering autonomy while achieving outcomes is found within the literature. In

a study of 20 coalitions, Kegler and Swan (2011) found that community participation decreased

as staff competence increased. It appears that the employment of component staff is a double-

edged sword, contributing to the effectiveness of the coalition and community members’

satisfaction, but also decreasing the need and sense of responsibility for community ownership.

The advantage of the Archway model is that by engaging community leaders, they are in

positions to understand and identify community concerns, as well as capable of taking action to

bring about change. However, their busy schedules require that the APs attend to the details of

the partnership, and at times, even take active roles within the projects.

Roles Influences by Context

The remaining four roles, and community insider, visionary, conflict resolver, and ego

manager, appear to be more highly influenced by contextual factors than the first four roles. Of

the hypothesized contextual factors, the most pertinent were found to be community size and

history of collaboration. The composition of the Executive Committee was hypothesized to

influence the roles; however, all of the groups had similar sector representation, allowing for

little distinction according to diversity, and the size of the committees was reflective of the

communities. In other words, large committees were located in large communities. Since the size

of the community precedes the size of the committee, it is assumed community size is the

164

primary variable, and therefore committee size and community size are collapsed into one

discussion. Additionally, no differences among roles could be determined for phase of

development or partnership goal; however, this is likely due to the similarity of the partnerships

in regards to phase and goal. With the exception of Colquitt County, all of the communities were

simultaneously engaged in direction-setting and implementation, and this homogeneity impaired

discernment between cases. Similarly, almost all of the communities prioritized capacity

development. These four roles are also distinguished by minimal acknowledgement from the

community members, highlighting the difference between the community members’ perceptions

and that of the APs. The influence of contextual factors will be addressed first, followed by a

discussion of how role identification differs between the APs and the community members.

Community insider. The most commonly referenced among the factor-influenced roles

was community insider. This role was not identified a priori, but emerged through the coding

process. Six (67%) of the APs specifically commented on the importance of being accepted by

the community, and the advantages of this insider position. It was observed that the three largest

counties, Clayton, Whitfield, and Glynn, were the ones not included, and therefore this role

appears to be most relevant for the smaller, more rural communities. This is likely due to the

inclusive and homogenous nature of smaller communities, and the value placed on personal

relationships. Such groups frequently spoke of trust and the importance of their cordial

relationships with other members, and it is likely that the organizer realized the need to be

perceived as a team player. Smaller communities are also more manageable in creating that

insider status. When speaking of her acceptance from community members, one AP said, “Yes,

so, see that’s easy to do here because they all know which church I’ve been going to, they see me

there, they see me, so they know I’m there because it’s small enough they can see me.” In a

165

study of rural coalitions, McFall, Norton, and McLeroy (2005), found groups that lacked

community-based staff were more likely to fail. It is difficult to discern if the insider status is

important because the community is small, or if the manageable size of the community facilitates

the sense of belonging. However, previous research and the current study indicate the importance

of an organizer who is perceived as part of the community. This is probably important because of

the role trust plays in fostering confidence in the organizer and the associated access to

information and support that accompanies insider status.

Conflict resolver. As expected, conflict resolution was an identified role. However, less

than half of the APs acknowledged this role (44%), and the emphasis on the likelihood of

conflict and its eventual and necessary resolution within the literature made this finding a little

surprising. One explanation may be the opinion of many APs to stay out of conflict in order to

maintain a neutral position, and to give a wide berth to the community-led process. As one AP

explained:

My inclination, and so far it has played out very well, is just let it go. I mean, you would

never want anybody to be in a situation where they felt threatened or opposed on, but

these are strong people. I mean, you look around at the table, you don’t see a lot of

people who are going to back down from their position on things. So, my experience is

just let it go. . I do a lot of listening. I really think I was a good listener in my other job,

and I think those listening skills helped me get this job. And I think, or I always try to

think about using those skills to move the discussion forward. So I may clarify, if

somebody is saying something, you know, like so what you are really trying to say is that

it makes you mad because you think that people use this bridge and we really need to find

out if that is what is going on or not. So I do a lot of clarifying and a lot of clarifying with

166

questions, but as far as stopping or halting or changing the tone of the discussion, my best

instinct is to let it go. Let them resolve it, because they will.

It is important to note that this AP, and the others who did not mention conflict resolution as a

key role, operate within communities that have a history of effective collaboration, and are small

communities. Therefore, the need for conflict resolution may be explained by the influence of

environmental factors. Gray (2008) points to history and community size, stating, “Conflict

handling is a critical skill for interveners and it becomes increasingly important when the number

of parties is large and when historical animosities among partners are imported into new

partnerships” (p. 678).” This study does seem to indicate that conflict resolution is particularly

important for those communities with a divisive history. In these situations, the APs often must

address and resolve the conflict before community members will work together. This can be an

on-going process for communities with negative history. Large communities are also more likely

to require conflict resolution. This is likely due to the increase in diversity that comes with size,

and the prevalence of turf and resources battles that also accompany larger communities.

Conflict resolution cannot be ignored or minimized due to its strong influence on the success of

collaboration (Huxham & Vangen, 2004; Lyles & Salk, 1996). The APs who spoke of conflict

resolution most often utilized mediation strategies, seeking opportunities for win-win situations

for opposing parties, or uniting them around a common goal.

Visionary. Another role that was also found to be relevant for large communities and

those with an unconstructive history of collaboration was visionary. This is not surprising given

the need for fostering unity within divided communities. Gray (2008) states, “visioning processes

are designed to build common awareness of domain issues among diverse stakeholders” (p. 670).

This becomes particularly important for communities that lack unity or a common vision, and the

167

professional organizer is well-positioned to imagine and convey a vision due to the breadth of

relationships and information obtained from participating in a cross-section of community

events. As Gray (2008) argues, “while any stakeholder can propose a collective appreciation for

the others, this task is usually performed by someone who knows the issues, has legitimacy (in

the eyes of the other stakeholders) and enough political clout to frame the collaborative vision in

a way that others cannot ignore” (p. 670). Backed by the credibility of the university, the

Archway APs have access to a wide range of community perspectives and information, and

therefore are often in a good position to articulate a vision with which diverse collaborative

partners can agree.

Ego Manager. One final role that was relevant for organizers within large communities

is that of ego manager. The literature lacked reference to this specific role. The findings of this

study imply due to the complexity of large groups, and for Archway specifically, the

involvement of strong leaders, the professional organizers will have to be mindful of bruised

egos and assuage hurt feelings of people who feel left out of the decision-making process, or take

a minority viewpoint.

Differences between Community Members and Organizers

The four roles of community insider, conflict resolver, visionary, and ego manager, also

seem to present differing perspectives between the organizers and the community members. Two

of the four, visionary and ego manager, were not brought up in any of the seven focus groups,

and the other two, conflict resolver and community insider, were mentioned in only one focus

group. These differences indicate the existence of roles that are important to the organizer, but

unknown or unappreciated by the community. In other words, the organizers’ jobs are likely

more complex than the community perceives them to be. The fact that the community members

168

would be unaware of the entirety of the organizers’ jobs and that the APs would articulate a more

comprehensive and complex description is not surprising. As the organizers, the APs are likely

the only ones who fully understand their jobs.

In trying to understand why these specific roles appear to be less known by community

members, two of the identified contradictions inherent within the job offer possible explanations.

The first is the struggle of the APs to do their job in a way that promotes community ownership

and pride. As one AP noted, “When I do my job well, I am invisible.” This works in conjunction

with the second possible explanation, which is that the APs at times engage in subtle maneuvers

in order to frame an issue or resolve a conflict. When done well, this manipulation goes

unnoticed and the community does not fully comprehend the efforts of the AP. When massaging

egos, the APs do so in a manner that does not feel contrived, and therefore does not draw

attention as a management issue. Conflict is also often handled with discreet maneuvers, such

leading a discussion towards common ground, or arranging for people with opposing viewpoints

to work together on a project of mutual interest. APs also do not overtly push their vision, but

rather share observations that come from their vantage point of cross-sector engagement and

frame issues, still allowing the community to be the final decision-maker, but with the advantage

of the organizers’ insight. Vangen and Huxham (2003) reported a similar finding in their

research on managers of collaborative partnerships. They found:

to overcome the inevitability of working with members who are not ‘on board’, have

different needs and varying levels of commitment, are ‘ill informed’, cannot mutually

communicate and so on, partnership managers general enact a part of their leadership role

through resorting to pragmatic approaches that, at face value, seem less consistent with

the spirit of collaboration. (p. S70)

169

They identified two primary ways in which managers achieve this: manipulating the

collaborative agenda, which involves shaping and framing the agenda in a way that the manager

prefers, and playing politics, which involves managing relationships and networking to utilize

political power to the partnership’s advantage. Managers are thus faced with the challenge of

balancing ideology and commitment to collaboration, and the reality of expectations and

demands to achieve outcomes. Vangen and Huxham (2004) conclude, “Our observation is that

those who seem to lead most successfully are those who can operate from both perspectives and

who are able to continually switch from one to the other” (p. S73).

One of the best examples of this process occurred in a community in relation to proposed

legislation for a special-purpose local-option sales tax (SPLOST). Because of her role as a

visionary, the AP saw the connection between the tax and the community’s ability to fund

Archway projects, and brought the upcoming SPLOST vote to the attention of Executive

Committee leaders. Initially, the leaders were unenthusiastic about the issue, and even dismissive

of it during a meeting, resulting in conflict for EC members who support the initiative. Because

of her insider knowledge, the AP was able to identify advocates of the sales tax who were also

well-respected community members, and suggested they meet with the EC leadership to discuss

SPLOST. This meeting resulted in a shift in the leadership’s perspective, and at the next meeting

the topic was a top priority, resolving the conflict of its previous dismissal, and engaging the EC

in a productive discussion of the issue. In this situation, the AP’s influence was subtle, taking

place primarily in informal conversations with only a few key stakeholders, and therefore is not

visible to the community at large. However, it was her vision of the possible outcomes of the tax

that raised the issue, and her ability to recognize the right people to involve, and how to best

position their interactions that moved the discussion forward and increased its importance. This

170

example provides insight into why some of the roles described by the AP are not fully within the

community’s perception. It also reveals the complexity of the job of a professional organizer in

terms of balancing community leadership and ownership, and keeps the momentum and focus on

important issues.

Unique Contributions

There is some evidence in the literature that a fulltime, paid, professional organizer

contributes to the ability of a collaborative partnership to sustain momentum and achieve

identified goals (Kegler, Norton, & Aronson, 2008; Kramer et al., 2005). This study provides

insight into the specific contributions of the organizer that seem to mitigate the challenges of

collaboration. Community members and organizers were asked to identify the roles of the APs

that would be most pertinent to fill should the AP position no longer be provided. The

community members primarily targeted the roles of resource broker and process designer. The

importance of these roles is also reflected in the literature which postulates that collaboratives

often fail due to poor implementation. This highlights the value of a person focused on the

process. A second common cause of failure is shortage of resources, which emphasizes the

importance of resources, and actually acquiring them in a way that meets the needs of the

community (Wandersman et al, 2005).

The APs identified an additional unique contribution, visionary, which is also a role that

was not acknowledged by the community members. The APs insight and knowledge that comes

from their access to a variety of community groups and stakeholders is likely to decrease the

possibility of a final source of collaborative failure, theoretical mismatch. According to the

literature, collaboration is an appropriate intervention method when a problem impacts a wide

range of people, and there is some willingness of stakeholders to work together (Gray, 1989;

171

Wandersman et al., 2005). As a professional with perhaps the broadest level of outreach and

engagement within the community, APs are particularly well placed to identify potential

collaborators and negotiate a common understanding of the problem.

Lead Agency

One final finding from the study is the importance of the role of the lead agency, the

University of Georgia. As discussed in chapter 4, community members are especially

appreciative of UGA’s expertise, legitimacy, and objectivity. The implications of these qualities

cannot be entirely distinguished from the roles of the APs, indicating interdependence between

the organizer and the lead agency that must be acknowledged when establishing collaboratives.

Within the context of the Archway Partnership, initial relationship-building through the

convening of community stakeholders occurs largely due to the credibility of the university. This

association allows the AP to gain access to powerful community members who might otherwise

decline an invitation to collaborate. After the initial convening, relationship building has less to

do with the university’s reputation, and is more dependent upon the APs’ skills in identifying

partners and taking steps to foster retention.

Community members identified two primary roles that would not be filled should

Archway leave the community. The first is that of resource broker, which indicates their reliance

on the resources from the university system, and the importance of the contributions from the

lead agency in terms of resources and expertise; the second is that of process design, which is

more closely associated to the work of the organizer within the community. The importance of

these two components of the partnership indicates that the success of the collaborative is

dependent upon both the lead agency and the organizer.

172

Implications for Practice

This study addresses a gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence of the role of

professional organizers within collaborative community problem-solving. The major findings

provide implications for social work practice, University-Community Partnerships, and

collaboration.

Coined by early social workers dedicated to the settlement house movement, the concept

of “community organization” has been a goal of social work since its inception (Minkler &

Wallerstein, 2005). This early stage of social work emphasized consensus and cooperation as

guiding principles for working within communities (Garvin & Cox, 2001). Yet much of social

work practice during this time was rife with paternalistic assumptions of the role of the social

worker and the abilities of communities (Fisher, 1994). As a discipline and profession

committed to improving the well-being of people, social work must be involved in creating and

implementing strategies for community improvement within a framework of collaboration with

the community. The roles identified within this study closely align with the skills and

competencies of professional social workers. Resource brokering is central to one of the core

tenets of social work, “to enhance the capacity of people to address their own needs. Social

workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social

institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems” (National Association of Social Workers

[NASW], 2008). By mediating resource acquisition in response to community-identified needs,

professional organizers improve the capacity of communities to improve well-being with respect

to self-determination. Social work also highly value relationships, which is indentified as one of

the seven core values of the profession. As stated in the NASW Code of Ethics:

173

Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important

vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process.

Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to

promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the wellbeing of individuals, families, social

groups, organizations, and communities.

The apparent correlation between collaboration and quality relationship development is further

evidence of the vital skill set social workers can offer community organization.

Despite the alignment of collaborative community organizing and social work skills,

there is a notable deficit of social workers serving in leadership roles within collaborative

community change efforts. The research comes primarily from public health and public

administration. The findings from this study suggest that social workers would be well prepared

for the demands of collaborative organizing, and would therefore have a great deal to contribute

to the success of such initiatives.

UCPs also have much to glean from this study. Institutions of higher education are

uniquely qualified to partner with communities, providing the resources of expertise and human

capital. Additionally, as well-respected institutions, they can offer legitimacy and objectivity

within the community as well as advocate to external entities. The communities in this study

were also eager to provide the university with benefits, such as service-learning and internship

opportunities for students, thus implying both communities and universities have much to

contribute to an equitable partnership. However, the anticipated challenges of negotiating

collaboration between partners with differing expectations and priorities can hinder good

intentions. This study suggests the employment of a university faculty member, placed within the

community, can mitigate some of the challenges. By straddling the worlds of both partners,

174

professional organizers are able to facilitate communication, frame expectations and goals, and

intervene to prevent failure. One person with intimate knowledge of the community as well as

the culture of the university and its available resources expedites the process of utilizing

partnership to achieve goals. The initial investment in hiring and employing a fulltime

professional appears to contribute to the success of the partnership, especially in terms of

sustainability and project implementation. One finding of this study, the unique contributions of

the organizers, implies the current Archway model of phasing out the support for an AP

necessitates a great deal of preparation in terms of capacity development, which is likely to

require several years. Additional questions were raised as to the challenge of how to sustain

access to university resources without a university employee who can advocate for the

community and possesses knowledge of university structures and cooperative personnel.

Finally, the findings of this study suggest the use of a professional organizer as an

intervention strategy to mitigate the possibility of failure for collaboration. This appears to be

particularly effective with the organizer is supported by an influential and resource-rich

institution. The common causes of failure for collaborations (theory failure, implementation

failure, and resource/institutional failure) discussed on chapter one can all be addressed by the

identified roles of the organizer. It is this person that can facilitate the process of transforming an

idea into action, adequately supported by the appropriate people and resources. The initial

investment of employing an organizer presents a promising strategy of preventing the long-term

and likely more substantial loss, of failure.

Limitations

The findings of this study are presented within the parameters of several limitations. Of

critical consideration is the lack of generalizibility and transferability of the findings to other

175

collaboratives due to the idiosyncratic nature of community-level intervention. All of the cases

presented here were designed to replicate a similar model, under the direction and with the

support of a very powerful lead agency. Very few community collaboratives would have the

influence and access to resources that accompanies this powerful partner. The findings may be

more broadly applied to UCPs. However, the model is unique within that context as well because

very few universities have the commitment or resources to hire and fund a fulltime organizer

within a community.

Another limitation is the small sample size. Some of the findings are corroborated by

only two or three study participants, and thus lack generalizability. The same findings may not

hold true under difference circumstances or with different participants.

The qualitative nature of inquiry was selected due to its ability to provide an authentic

and personal perspective, as well as provide participants a wide range of responses. However,

this form of research also presents limitations in terms of consistency. Because the study was

exploratory, participants were asked open-ended questions, and therefore may have chosen to not

discuss a role or experience even if it was relevant. For example, participants who did not

identify conflict resolution as a primary role may still engage in this function and have

experiences that were not captured within the confines of the study.

Another major limitation was the self-selection of participants. All nine of the community

Executive Committees (EC) were asked to participate in a focus group; however, two were not

included because of refusal and schedule conflicts. It is very likely the communities who refused

to participate would offer a unique perspective in terms of the difficulties of collaboration which

may have influenced the conclusions. The ECs who did participate were also voluntary, and for

176

several, only a portion of the group attended the session. One implication is that the people who

chose to not participate would have shared different experiences, thus influencing the findings.

Finally, the findings are based upon the recollections of the participants. This means they

are susceptible to incomplete or inaccurate memories, biases, and other changes that occur with

the passage of time and shifts in perspectives. This was mitigated in the focus groups due to the

corroboration or correction of other participants in order to capture an accurate depiction of the

topic of discussion. This concern is also less critical within an exploratory study such as this one

that prioritizes the perception of the participants over an exact description of reality. As

previously stated, the voices of the participants were deemed the most valuable source of data in

order to understand the phenomenon of collaboration from the perspective of participants.

Future Research

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, and the tentative findings, several areas of

future research can be identified. One major gap of this study is the perspective of university

partners, including faculty, students, and members of administration. It would be beneficial to

more fully understand the role of the organizers from those stakeholders, and how the identified

roles are either substantiated, modified, or what additional roles may be included. The inclusion

of faculty perspective is especially pertinent to the design and implementation of UCPs. Previous

research indicates the satisfaction and buy-in of faculty is directly related to the success of

partnerships (Aronson & Webster, 2006). This study also provides insight into the complicated

process of reciprocity from the community perspective, and the communities’ strong desire to be

treated and perceived as equal partners. Therefore, future research should investigate how the

organizer facilitates not only resource brokering from the university to the community, but also

sharing community resources with university stakeholders. Collaboration is predicated upon

177

shared and mutual benefits for all partners, so this would ostensibly be a critical element for

long-term sustainability of any partnership.

A second direction for future research would be a comparison between collaboratives

who have organizers and those that lack a central, fulltime professional. Due to the limitation of

this study that all of the cases have a professional organizer, claims of the importance of such a

position must be made cautiously. This study did ask communities to compare previous

experiences without an organizer, and the findings suggest a professional in that role does make

a difference, but without a more rigorous investigation comparing the presence and absence of an

organizer, it is difficult to fully discern the importance of such a person.

Future research of collaboration and UPCs must be longitudinal and inclusive of

quantitative methods in order to better understand the relationship between the process of

collaboration and long-term outcomes. Most partnerships strive to change systems and social

structures in order to improve the well-being of the entire community, and these changes take

several years before impact can be evaluated and measured. At this point, this study can only

speculate upon the role of the organizer in fostering sustainability in order to achieve long-term

goals. Additionally, in order to truly ascertain correlative and transferable relationships,

quantitative methods must be utilized. Future research would need to document and measure the

process of a collaborative over the course of many years in order to make substantiated claims as

to the true impact of collaboration.

One final area of research that is especially relevant for the discipline of social work is to

study collaboratives that lack access to powerful stakeholders and support systems. In this study,

all of the ECs included influential community members, such as leaders of business, healthcare

institutions, educational systems, and elected officials. It is very likely this influenced the role of

178

the organizer in terms of power brokering and access to stakeholders. Additionally, the

partnerships had the credibility and expertise that accompanies the university system. It is of

paramount importance to investigate groups that are not comprised of people with power, and

those that are challenging the power structure in order to better understand the contributions of a

professional within limited access to resources and power.

Conclusion

This chapter presented a summary of the major findings of this study, including the

identified roles of the professional organizers, the influence of contextual variables, varying

perceptions between community members and organizers, and the unique contributions of the

professionals to the process of collaboration. By integrating these findings with the literature,

several conclusions were made. First, organizers assume a variety of roles in order to meet the

demands of multiple stakeholders, and at times the diversity and variety of roles can lead to

contradictory demands and challenging predicaments. Secondly, several roles seem to be

influenced by the context of the community partnership, most obviously the history and

demographics of the community. a third conclusion is that the community members do not fully

comprehend the complexity and nuanced nature of this job, and therefore professional organizers

will not receive recognition for all they do. Finally, professional organizers provide a variety of

essential roles within collaboration, and would be difficult to replace or compensate for with

community resources. The findings were then used to describe implications for practice, as well

as future directions for research.

179

References

Alexander, M., Zakocs, R., Earp, J., & French, E. (2006). Community coalition project directors:

What makes them effective leaders? Journal of Public Health Management Practice,

12(2), 201-209.

Allen-Meares, P. (2008). Schools of social work contribution to community partnerships: The

renewal of the social compact in higher education. Journal of Human Behavior in Social

Environment, 18(2), pp. 77-100.

Archway Partnership. (2011). Annual Report. Retrieved on February 21, 2012, from

http://archwaypartnership.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AR2011final_reduced-

version.pdf

Aronson, K. & Webster, N. (2007). A model for creating engaged land-grant universities: Penn

State’s engagement ladder model. Innovative Higher Education, 31 (5), 265-277.

Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (1996). Interorganizational community-based collaboratives: A strategic

response to shape the social work agenda. Social Work, 41(6), 602-611.

Berkowitz, B. (2001). Studying the outcomes of community-based coalitions. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 29(2), 213.

Bloomberg, L. & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from

beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Boydell, K. & Volpe, T. (2004). A qualitative examination of the implementation of a

community-academic coalition. Journal of Community Psychology, 32 (4), 357-374.

180

Brown, L., Feinberg, M., & Greenberg, M. (2010). Determinants of Community Coalition

Ability to Support Evidence-Based Programs. Prevention Science, 11(3), 287-297.

Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector

collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 44-55.

Butterfoss, F. & Kegler, M. (2002). Toward a comprehensive understanding of community

coalitions. In R. DiClemente, R. Crosby, & M. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging Theories in

Health Promotion Practice and Research (155-193). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Butterfoss, F. (2004). The coalition technical assistance and training framework: Helping

community coalitions help themselves. Health Promotion Practice, 5(2), 118-126.

Butterfoss, F., Goodman, R., & Wandersman, A., (1993). Community coalitions for prevention

and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8 (3), 315-330.

Butterfoss. (2007). Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Buys, N. & Bursnall, S. (2007). Establishing university-community partnerships: Processes and

benefits. Journal of Higher Education and Policy and Management, 29 (1), 73-86.

Casey, M. (2008). Partnership – Success factors of interorganizational relationships. Journal of

Nursing Management, 16, 72-83.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chavis. D. (2001). The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 29(2), 309-320.

181

Cnaan, R. & Rothman, J. (1986). Conceptualizing community intervention: An empirical test of

“Three Models” of community organization. Administration in Social Work, 10(3), 41-

55.

Cnaan, R. & Rothman, J. (2001). Locality development and the building of community. In

Rothman, J., Erlich, J., & Tropman, J. (Eds), Strategies of community intervention (251-

266).Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Defilippis, J., Fisher, R., & Shragge, E. (2006). Neither romance nor regulation: Re-evaluating

community. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 30(3), 673-689.

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Smith, J. (2011). U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population

Reports, P60-239, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:

2010, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Dowling, B., Powell, M., & Glendinning, C. (2004). Conceptualizing successful partnerships.

Health & Social Care in the Community, 12(4), 309-317.

Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights.

Change, 40 (1), 38-40.

Dubb, S. (2007). Linking colleges to communities: Engaging the university for community

development. The Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland.

http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/07-07/report-linking.pdf

Dunlop, J. M., & Holosko, M. J. (2004). The Story Behind the Story of Collaborative Networks-

Relationships Do Matter!. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 19(3), 1-18.

182

Edelman, I. (2001). Participation and service integration in community-based initiatives. Journal

of Community Practice. 9 (1), 57-75.

El Ansari, W., & Oskrochi, R. R. (2006). What matters most? Predictors of student satisfaction

in public health educational courses. Public Health (Elsevier), 120(5), 463-473.

El Ansari, W., Oskrochi, R., & Phillips, C. (2009). Engagement and action for health: the

contribution of leaders' collaborative skills to partnership success. International Journal

Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 6(1), 361-381.

El Ansari, W., & Weiss, E. (2006). Quality of research on community partnerships: Developing

the evidence base. Health Education Research, 21 (2), 175-180.

Emshoff, J., Darnell, A., Darnell, D., Erickson, S., Schneider, S., & Hudgins, R. (2007). Systems

change as an outcome and a process in the work of community collaboratives for health.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3/4), 255-267.

Fawcett, S., Paine-Andrews, A., Francisco, V., Schultz, J., Richter, K., Lewis, R., Williams, E.,

Harris, K., Berkley, J., Fisher, J., & Lopez, C. (1995).Using empowerment theory in

collaborative partnership for community health and development. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 23(5), 677-697.

Feinberg, M., Bontempo, D., & Greenberg, M. (2008). Predictors and level of sustainability of

community prevention coalitions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(6), 495-

501.

Fisher, R. (1994). Let the People Decide. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Fisher, R. R., Fabricant, M. M., & Simmons, L. L. (2004). Understanding contemporary

university-community connections: context, practice, and challenges. Journal of

Community Practice, 12(3/4), 13-34.

183

Foster-Fisherman, P., Berkowitz, S., Lounsbury, D., Jacobson, S. & Allen, N. (2001). Building

collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241-261.

Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B., & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the system back into systems

change: a framework for understanding and changing organizational and community

systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3/4), 197-215.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, Seabury Press.

Gamble, D. & Weil, M. (2010). Community Practice Skills. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Garber, M., Creech, B., Epps, W., Bishop, M., & Chapman, S. (2010). The Archway Partnership:

A higher education outreach platform for community engagement. Journal of Higher

Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(3), 69-81.

Geddes, M. (2008). Inter-organizational relationships in local and regional development

partnerships. In Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. (Eds), Inter-

Organizational Relations (203-231).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. (2009). Georgia faces large deficits in FYs 2011 & 2012.

Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.gbpi.org/documents/20090409FS.pdf

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine.

Granner, M., & Sharpe, P. (2004). Evaluating community coalition characteristics and

functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Education Research, 19 (5), 514-

532.

184

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Gray, B. (2008). Intervening to improve inter-organizational partnerships. In Cropper, S., Ebers,

M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. (Eds), Inter-Organizational Relations (664-690).Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Habana-Hafner, S. & Reed, H. (1989). Partnerships for community development: Resources for

practitioners and trainers. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Center for

Organizational and Community Development.

Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against substance abuse:

Are community coalitions winning?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4),

237.

Hardina, D. (2002). Analytical skills for community organization practice. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Hawkins, J., Shapiro, V., & Fagan, A. (2010). Disseminating effective community prevention

practices: Opportunities for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 20

(5), 518-527.

Hibbert, P., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. (2008). Managing collaborative inter-organizational

relations. In Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. (Eds), Inter-Organizational

Relations (390-416).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunter, S. B., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2009).

Technical assistance as a prevention capacity-building tool: A demonstration using the

Getting to Outcomes® framework. Health Education & Behavior, 36(5), 810-828.

185

Huxham, C, and Vangen, S (2004) 'Doing things collaboratively: realizing the advantage or

succuming to inertia?', Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), pp. 190-201.

Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011, February 9). An Update on State Budget Cuts.

Retrieved November 25, 2011, from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-08sfp.pdf

Keating, L. and D. Sjoquist. 2000. The use of an external organization to facilitate university-

community partnerships. CityScape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research

5(1): 141-157.

Kegler, M., Lifflander, A., Buehler, J., Collins, D., Wells, J., Davidson, H., & Hishamuddin, P.

(2006). Multiple perspectives on collaboration between schools of public health and

public health agencies. Public Health Reports, 121(5), 634-639.

Kegler, M., Norton, B., & Aronson, R. (2008). Achieving organizational change: findings from

case studies of 20 California healthy cities and communities coalitions. Health Promotion

International, 23(2), 109-118.

Kegler, M., & Redmon, P. (2006). Using technical assistance to strengthen tobacco control

capacity: Evaluation findings from the Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium. Public

Health Reports, 121(5), 547-556.

Kegler, M., Rigler, J., & Honeycutt, S. (2010). How does community context influence

coalitions in the formation stage? a multiple case study based on the Community

Coalition Action Theory. BMC Public Health, 1090-100.

Kegler, M., Rigler, J., & Ravani, M. (2010). Using network analysis to assess the evolution of

organizational collaboration in response to a major environmental health threat. Health

Education Research, 25(3), 413-424.

186

Kegler, M., Steckler, A., Malek, S., & McLeroy, K. (1998). A multiple case study of

implementation in 10 local Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health

Education Research, 13(2), 225-238.

Kegler, M. & Swan, D. (2011). An initial attempt at operationalizing and testing the community

coalition action theory. Health Education & Behavior, 38(3), 261-270.

Kegler, M. & Wyatt, V. (2003). A multiple case study of neighborhood partnerships for positive

youth development. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(2), 156.

Kreuter, M., Lezin, N., & Young, L. (2000). Evaluating community-based collaborative

mechanism: Implications for practitioners. Health Promotion Practice ,1 (1), 49-63.

Lasker, R., Weiss, E., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for

studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179

Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J, and Gross, M. (2003). Building partnerships with college

campuses: Community perspectives. A Publication of the Consortium for the

Advancement of Private Higher Education’s Engaging Communities and Campuses

Grant Program. Washington, DC: The Council of Independent Colleges.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York:

Harper.

Mandell, M. & Keast, R.. (2008). Voluntary and community sector partnerships: Current inter-

organizational relations and future challenges. In Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., &

Ring, P. (Eds), Inter-Organizational Relations (175 - 202).Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Collaboration: what makes it work. St.

Paul, MN: The Wilder Foundation.

187

Maurrasse, D.J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships

with their communities. New York: Routledge.

McFall, S., Norton, B., and McLeroy, K. (2006) A qualitative evaluation of rural community

health planning initiatives. International Quarterly for Community Health Education,

23(4):311-326.

Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (2008) Improving health through community organization In:

Minkler, M. (ed) Community organizing and community building for health (2nd ed , pp

26-50) Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University.

Minkler, M. (2005). Introduction to community organizing and community building. In M.

Minkler (Ed.), Community Organization and Community Building for Health (1-22).

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Mizrahi, R. (2001). The status of community organizing in 2001: Community practice context,

complexities, contradictions, and contributions. Research on Social Work Practice, 11

(2), 176-189.

Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. (1993). Managing dynamic tensions in social change coalitions. In

T. Mizrahi & J. Morrison (Eds.), Community and social administration: Advances,

trends, and emerging principles. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (approved 1996, revised 2008). Code of Ethics of the

National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.

Nowell, B. (2009). Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: The relative

contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3/4), 196-212.

188

Ohmer, M. L., & Korr, W. S. (2006). The effectiveness of community practice interventions: a

review of the literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(2), 132-145.

Padgett, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Pathman D., Chuang E., & Weiner B. (2008). Effectiveness of a grant program’s efforts to

promote synergy within its funded initiatives: Perceptions of participants of the Southern

Rural Access Program. BMC Health Serv Res, 18, (8), 263.

Pilisuk, M., McAllister, J., Rothman, J., Larin, L. (2004). New Contexts of Organizing:

Functions, Challenges, and Solutions in Minkler, M. (Ed.) Community Organizing and

Community Building for Health. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Prestby, J., & Wandersman, A. (1985). An empirical exploration of a framework of

organizational viability: Maintaining block organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 21(3), 287-305.

Provan, K., Nakama, L., Veazie, M., Teufel-Shone, N., & Huddleston, C. (2003). Building

Community Capacity Around Chronic Disease Services Through a Collaborative

Interorganizational Network. Health Education & Behavior, 30(6), 646-666.

Reininger, B., Dinh-Zarr, T., Sincrope, P. S., & Martin, D. W. (1999). Dimensions of

participation and leadership: Implications for community-based health promotion for

youth. Family and Community Health, 22, 72-82.

Rogge, M.E., & Rocha, C.M. (2004). Community Partnership Centers: An Important Link for

Social Work Education. Journal of Community Practice, 12(3/4).

Rothman, J. (2008). Multi modes of intervention at the macro level. Journal of Community

Practice, 15(4), 11-40.

189

Rothman, J. (1968). Three models of community organization practice. Social Work Practice,

1968.

Rothman, J. (2001). Approaches to community intervention. In Rothman, J., Erlich, J., &

Tropman, J. (Eds), Strategies of community intervention (27-64).Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock

Publishers, Inc.

Roussos, S. & Fawcett, S. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for

improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402.

Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2001). Community Organizing and Development. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Sanchez, V. (1999). Capacity building coalitions from the inside out: A contextual analysis of

staff functions and skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill.

Seifer, S. (2006). Building and sustaining community-institutional partnerships for prevention

research: Findings from a national collaborative. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the

New York Academy of Medicine, 83 (6), 989-1003.

Sites, W., Chaskin, R. & Parks, V. (2007). Reframing community practice for the 21st century:

Multiple traditions, multiple challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(5), 519-541.

Specht, H. & Countey, M. (1994). Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work has Abandoned its

Mission. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Stake, R. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.

190

Stoecker, R. R. (1995). Community organizing and community-based redevelopment in Cedar-

Riverside and East Toledo: a comparative study. Journal of Community Practice, 2(3), 1-

23.

Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G., & Lewis, R. (2005). An interactive and contextual model of

community-university collaborations for research and action. Health Education &

Research, 32 (1), 84-101.

Taylor, R. R., Braveman, B., & Hammel, J. (2004). Developing and evaluating community-based

services through participatory action research: Two case examples. American Journal of

Occupation Therapy 58, 73–82.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State & county Quickfacts. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from

http://quickfacts.census.gov.

Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., & Romanik, C., (2002). Lessons from the

Community Outreach Partnership Center program. Washington, D.C.: The Urban

Institute.

Wagemakers, A.; Vaandrager, L.; Koelen, M.A.; Saan, H.; Leeuwis, C. (2010) Community

health promotion: A framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments

for health. Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (4), 428 - 435.

Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community interventions and effective prevention.

American Psychologist, 58, 441–448.

Wandersman, A., Goodman, R., & Butterfoss, F. (2005). Understanding coalitions and how they

operate as organizations. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community Organization and Community

Building for Health (292-313). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Weil, M. (1996). The Handbook of Community Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

191

Weiss, E., Anderson, R., & Lasker. R. (2002). Making the most of collaboration: Exploring the

relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health Education

& Behavior, 29 (6), 683-698.

Weiss, E. S., Taber, S. K., Breslau, E. S., Lillie, S. E., & Li, Y. (2010). The role of leadership

and management in six southern public health partnerships: A study of member

involvement and satisfaction. Health Education & Behavior, 37(5), 737-752.

Wells, R., Ford, E., McClure, J., Holt, M., & Ward, A. (2007). Community-Based Coalitions'

Capacity for Sustainable Action: The Role of Relationships. Health Education &

Behavior, 34(1), 124-139.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Zakocs, R. & Edwards, E. (2006). What explains community coalition effectiveness: A review of

the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (4), 351-361.

Zakocs, R. C., Tiwari, R., Vehige, T., & Dejong, W. (2008). Roles of organizers and champions

in building campus-community prevention partnerships. Journal of American College

Health, 57(2), 233-241.

192

APPENDICES

193

Appendix A: Executive Committee Focus Group

Demographics:

1. Size of group

2. Time partnered with Archway

3. Organizations represented

4. Sectors represented

5. County

6. Gender count

7. Race

8. Age

Questions:

1. What is the history of the community in collaborating before Archway?

2. Why did you join the partnership? (get at the importance, or lack of, of UGA)

3. How important was the influence of UGA?

4. What do you gain by being a part of the partnership?

5. What is the goal of your partnership (change community; empower community)? Does

this differ from your/your organization’s goals?

6. How would you describe the phase of your coalition? (List phases – formation,

implementation, maintenance, outcome)

7. What are the group’s strengths? Challenges?

8. How do you define success (both achieving a goal and overcoming an obstacle)?

Examples from the coalition.

9. What are the various roles of the AP?

194

10. What are the unique contributions of the AP (what does she do that no one else does?)

What do you value in the AP?

11. If the AP were not here, who would do her job? What would happen to the coalition?

195

Appendix B: AP Interview

Demographic information:

1. Length of time worked for Archway

2. Education (degree, and discipline)

3. Previous employment

Job information

1. What is the history of collaborating in the community?

2. What is the goal of your partnership?

3. How would you describe the phase of your coalition? (Formation, implementation,

maintenance, institutionalization)

4. How do you define success (both achieving a goal and overcoming an obstacle)?

Examples from the coalition.

5. What are the biggest challenges facing the partnership right now?

6. What are the greatest strengths of the partnership?

7. Please describe your job. Specific examples within contexts of projects, and what your

role was and tasks you assumed. How do you decide what to do (community directed,

your own professional expertise/experience, and the nature of the activity?)

8. What do you consider your professional strengths? What do you personally bring to this

job? What are your challenges?

9. What do you do that no one else does (why is intervention needed?) Is this dictated from

the group, or do you identify the need for it?

10. What environmental conditions impede your work?

11. What environmental conditions support your work?

196

12. How does large group management differ from project management?

13. What roles do you most often take on?

14. How do you handle conflict within the group?

15. What do you do when you disagree with a group decision?

16. How do you coordinate communication?

17. How do you ensure accountability of members and their commitments?

18. How do you know when to step up and be more directives and when to step back and let

the community take the lead?

19. How do you balance provision of TA and community’s ability to take responsibility?

197

Appendix C Archway Partnership

Community Member Focus Group Consent Form

I, ______________________________________, agree to participate in a research study titled, “Assessing the Role of the Professional Organizer within Collaborative Community Problem-Solving” conducted by Dr. Michelle Carney ([email protected]) and Meredith Tetloff ([email protected]), a faculty member and PhD student, respectively, in the School of Social Work at the University of Georgia. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I must be 18 years of age to participate in the focus group. I can refuse to participate or stop taking part at anytime without giving any reason, and without penalty or loss to benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. If I chose to participate, the duration of my participation will last approximately one hour on __ ___________. The reason for this study is to identify and document the role of the professional organizer within collaborative problem-solving. As an intermediary body between eight Georgian counties and the university system, Archway convenes community members to identify community concerns, and facilitates access to resources at the university. This focus group will engage the community members who are members of Archway in discussing successes of the partnership and the contributions of the professional organizer. Information gathered during the focus group will be kept confidential. Potential benefits of participation include an improved collaborative process due to clarification of the role of the professional organizer within collaborative problem-solving. Specifically, this study aims to provide an analysis for the participating partnership in terms of what the role of the professional organizer is and clarify expectations among community members. Additionally, this study will provide an outlet for members to voice what is both wanted and needed from the organizer. No risks are expected although I may experience some mild discomfort while speaking about my experience as a member of Archway with other colleagues. The researchers leading the focus group will be alert to any discomfort I might experience and take the necessary steps to soothe my discomfort or help me withdraw from the focus group site. I will be assigned a pseudonym at the time of data transcription, and no individually identifiable information about me, or provided by me during the research, will be shared with others. The researchers connected with this project will protect my private information, and will keep this confidential by storing all information connected to me in a locked file cabinet in the office of Meredith Tetloff, or on a password protected computer. All private information will be destroyed after the completion of the transcription, which will be will no later than February, 2012. If I agree, my participation in the focus group will be audio recorded as a means to capture the data. Even though the researchers will emphasize to everyone that comments made during the focus group should be kept confidential, it is possible that participants may repeat comments outside of the group at some time in the future. Upon completion of the data transcription for the research study, December 1, 2011, the recording will be destroyed. The focus group facilitator will answer any further questions about the research, now or during the course of the project.

198

I understand that I am agreeing by my signature on this form to take part in this research project and I will receive a signed copy for my records. _Meredith Tetloff_________ _______________________ ___________________ Name of researcher Signature Date ________________________ _______________________ ___________________ Name of Participant Signature Date Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to The Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, University of Georgia, 629 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone 706-542-3199; Email [email protected].

199

Appendix D

Professional Organizer Observations and Interview Consent Form

I, ______________________________________, agree to participate in a research study titled, “Assessing the Role of the Professional Organizer within Collaborative Community Problem-Solving,” conducted by Dr. Michelle Carney ([email protected]) and Meredith Tetloff ([email protected]), a faculty member and PhD student, respectively, in the School of Social Work at the University of Georgia. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I must be 18 years of age to participate. I can refuse to participate or stop taking part at anytime without giving any reason, and without penalty or loss to benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. If I chose to participate, the duration of my participation will last approximately two hours for the interview and five hours for the observations on __________. The reason for this study is to identify and document the role of the professional organizer within collaborative problem-solving. As an intermediary body between eight Georgian counties and the university system, Archway convenes community members to identify community concerns, and facilitates access to resources at the university. The interview will engage professionals in discussing successes of the partnership and the contributions of the professional organizer. The observations will document the specific roles and skills utilized by the professionals. Information gathered will be kept confidential. Potential benefits of participation include an improved process of collaborative problem-solving due to the documentation of the role of the professional organizer and clarified expectations among community members. It is hoped that this study will elucidate best practices among and for professional organizers in relation to the context of the partnership. Finally, this study will provide an analysis of your specific partnership in terms of what are the contributions of a professional organizer as well as what is wanted and needed in the future. No risks are expected although I may experience some mild discomfort while speaking about my experience as an Archway Professional. The researcher conducting the study will be alert to any discomfort I might experience and take the necessary steps to soothe my discomfort or help me withdraw from the study as needed. I will be assigned a pseudonym at the time of data transcription, and no individually identifiable information about me, or provided by me during the research, will be shared with others. The researchers connected with this project will protect my private information, and will keep this confidential by storing all information connected to me in a locked file cabinet in the office of Meredith Tetloff, or on a password protected computer. All private information will be destroyed after the completion of the transcription, which will be will no later than February, 2012. If I agree, my participation in the interview will be audio recorded as a means to capture the data. Upon completion of the data transcription for the research study, December 1, 2011, the recording will be destroyed. The researcher will answer any further questions about the research, now or during the course of the project.

200

I understand that I am agreeing by my signature on this form to take part in this research project and I will receive a signed copy for my records. _______________________ ____________________________ ___________________ Name of researcher Signature Date _______________________ ____________________________ ___________________ Name of Participant Signature Date Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to The Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, University of Georgia, 629 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone 706-542-3199; Email [email protected].

201

Appendix E. Data Summary Table: Role Prevalence

Roles Facilitator Resource

Broker Relationship Builder

Process designer

Visionary Conflict resolver

Ego Manager

Community insider

Total

Colquitt AP X X X X X 5

Colquitt Com

X X X X X 5

Washington AP

X X X X 4

Washington Com

X X X 3

Washington PH AP

X X X X X X X X 8

Washington PH Com

X X X X 4

Glynn AP X X X X X 5

Clayton AP X X X X X X 6 Clayton Com

X X X 3

Hart AP X X X X 4

Hart Com X X X X X 5

Sumter AP X X X X X X 6 Sumter Com

X X X X 4

Pulaski AP X X X X 4

Pulaski Com

X X X X 4

Whitfield AP

X X X X X X X 7

AP total 6 (67%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 4 (44%) 6 (67%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%) Ave = 5.4

Com total 6 (86%) 7 (100%) 6 (86%) 7 (100%) 0 1 (14%) 0 1 (14%) Ave = 4

TOTAL 12 16 14 14 4 7 3 7

202

Appendix F. Data Summary Table: Roles by History

History Roles

Facilitator Resource Broker

Relationship Builder

Process designer


Ego Manager

Community insider

Colquitt Positive X X X X X Washington Positive X X X X

Washington PH

Positive X X X X X X X X

Glynn Negative X X X X X

Clayton Negative X X X X X X Hart Positive X X X X X X

Sumter Negative X X X X X X Pulaski

Positive X X X X X X

Whitfield Positive X X X X X X X

Positive total

6 5 (83%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 5 (83%)

Negative total

3 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 2 (67%) 2 (67%) 2 (67%) 3 (100%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)

TOTAL 8 9 8 8 4 7 3 6

203

Appendix G. Data Summary Table: Role by Community Size

Community Size

Roles

Facilitator Resource Broker

Relationship Builder

Process designer


Ego Manager

Community insider

Colquitt Small X X X X X

Washington Small X X X X Washington PH

Small X X X X X X X X

Glynn Medium X X X X X

Clayton Large X X X X X X

Hart Small X X X X X X Sumter Small X X X X X X

Pulaski

Small X X X X X X

Whitfield Large X X X X X X X Large total 2 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 1 (50%) 6 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 0

Medium total

1 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0 0

Small total 6 5 (83%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 2 (33%) 1 (67%) 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 6 (100%)

TOTAL 8 9 8 8 4 7 3 6

CONTRIBUTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND CONTRADICTIONS: … · Multi-sector collaboration is an appealing...

Documents

Transcript of CONTRIBUTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND CONTRADICTIONS: … · Multi-sector collaboration is an appealing...