|
Recommendations for Implementation
|
a.
|
|
Charge an
individual with maintaining the vision of the collaborative effort and managing
on a day-to-day basis communication among staff working for each of the various
collaborating organizations.
|
| |
Interactions between separate
organizations - each with its own goals, policies, jargon, and organizational
structures - tend to be extremely complicated.
Successful collaboration often requires communication between multiple
individuals across organizational lines.
Many successful partnerships can be traced to the establishment of a
position, sometimes referred to as a "boundary spanner" position,
whose responsibility it is to be the traffic cop for the various people
responsible for managing this communication on a day-to-day basis.
The organization employing the
boundary spanner often depends on a variety of factors, such as local politics,
history, economics, and personalities in each community. Nevertheless, researchers have found some
common aspects of successful boundary spanners. A clear conceptualization of the functions of a boundary spanner
position is often more important than the exact location of the position. In addition, it is important to find
experienced, well-respected individuals to staff these positions; these
individuals are often veteran staffers who are familiar with the formal and
informal norms of multiple systems.
Boundary spanners should be well compensated and given a title that
appreciates the importance of their cross-systems work.
Example:
Court Monitor, Mental Health Court,
King County (WA)
The court monitor in the King County Mental
Health Court serves as the link between the criminal justice and mental health
systems. The court monitor first
interviews candidates for the Mental Health Court in an effort to understand
the defendant's mental health issues.
She then requests approval for the release of information from the
defendant and communicates with the case manager who handled the defendant's
past treatment. Next, the court monitor
prepares a report of the defendant's history and a proposed treatment plan to
the court while explaining the workings of the court to the defendant. Finally, the court monitor meets with the
public defender and prosecutor to discuss the case.
|
b.
|
|
Determine how
to share responsibility for positive and negative outcomes.
|
| |
Partnerships are often severely
tested when the joint initiative draws bad publicity or suffers an unfortunate
turn of events. For example, joint
ventures are typically dissolved (sometimes appropriately) when a program
participant commits a high-visibility crime.
In other cases, a lawsuit involving a person working on the initiative
can threaten the sustainability of a partnership.
Partners should establish a
plan, in advance, to respond to incidents that attract negative publicity in
order to ensure that each does not simply engage in finger-pointing. This plan should include an agreement on how
to respond to inquiries from the legislature, other state or local governing
bodies, the media, or attorneys representing a plaintiff.
Officials working together as
part of a collaborative venture should develop a similar plan to respond to
positive news trumpeting the success of an initiative. In some cases, failing to share credit or to
recognize the value of the partnership publicly can be as destructive as an
uncoordinated response to negative publicity.
|
c.
|
|
Prepare
contracts or memoranda of understanding defining the terms of the partnership.
|
| |
Documents that describe the
nature and scope of collaboration between distinct agencies or organizations
can be crucial to solidifying a partnership.
Contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOU) also provide a guiding
document to which partners can turn to resolve confusion or disagreement. The structure of any such agreement will
vary depending on the partners involved, the goal and scope of the
collaboration, local policies and regulations, and many other
jurisdiction-specific issues. Despite
these necessary variations, certain elements are consistent across such
agreements, and criminal justice and mental health partners should consider
referring to the following list when developing written agreements.
Elements of a successful
memorandum of understanding:
- Well-defined target population
- Overarching purpose that underlies the agreement
- Discussion of any relevant legislation or regulations
- Elaboration of specific goals, both shared and germane
to a particular partner
- Definition of any new responsibilities
- Time lines for the implementation of new initiatives
and for review of the implementation process
- Provision for the resolution of disputes
|