|
      Local Human
Resource Development Partnerships
In July 1996, Human
Resources Development Canada (HRDC) released a study
of innovative examples of local partnerships in Canada
and elsewhere. The following pages provide a detailed
overview of this study, conducted by New Economy
Development Group Inc. of Ottawa. Copies can be
obtained by contacting:
Ken Donnelly
Human Resources Development Canada
Telephone: (613) 994-6701
ken.donnelly@hrdc-drhc.gc.ca
The study's objectives were to highlight the features of
partnerships geared to developing local human resources.
A better understanding of these features should enable
decision-makers and their partners to establish mutually
beneficial structures.
Navigation Guide
You may turn directly to the main sections of the
document:
- the major features of partnerships, specifically:
- tools for evaluating existing partnerships or
establishing new ones, such as:
- innovative examples of local partnerships:
- the major lessons learned
from this exhaustive study of local partnerships,
including a few general observations.
A Definition of Partnership
The concept of partnership is currently receiving
considerable attention in both public and private sector
discourse. The reason for their popularity: local
partnerships are perceived as a hopeful answer to the
profound social and economic upheavals encountered by
many Canadian communities.
In the current climate of budget restraint and
reorganization, government must examine how public funds
are used and maximize their impact on its clients. The
move toward partnership relates directly to these
concerns.
However, we must concede that there is no generally
accepted definition of the concept. Nonetheless, in terms
of local-level public/private-sector partnerships, we can
put forward the following definition:
Partnership refers to a relationship in which
government and other agents work co-operatively to
achieve a specific objective at the community level. It
requires the sharing of resources, responsibilities,
decision-making, risks and benefits, according to a
mutually agreed-upon formal or information arrangement.
This definition sets the following boundaries for
analysing partnerships:
- the partners in question are Government and other
agents operating at the local level;
- the emphasis is placed on shared human resources
development objectives;
- the partnership aims to achieve community
objectives.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Common Types of Partnership
A host of reasons prompt social and economic agents to
enter partnerships, but they generally hinge on two
unavoidable imperatives:
- the growing scarcity of resources (especially
financial) and
- the need for communities to adapt to an
increasingly complex environment in constant
change.
Just as the reasons which foster the emergence of
partnerships vary, the types of partnership also vary
according to the objectives, the nature of the parties
concerned and the scope of power exercised by the
partners.
In regard to partnerships involving the public sector, we
note four types of partnership based on a rising scale of
decision-power sharing.
1) Consultative Partnerships
The primary objective of this type of partnership is
consultation. Control, ownership and risks are usually
the public-sector's responsibility. Round tables on the
economy or the environment, established by the federal
government, are good examples of this type of
partnership.
2) Contributory Partnerships
This type of partnership includes a government
organization which provides support usually financial for
a project or an activity in which it has no direct,
operational involvement. In such cases, the government
retains control over the objectives to be reached and the
clientele targeted. The purchase of courses by the
federal government from provincial or local professional
training organizations belong to this category.
3) Operational Partnerships
Under this form of partnership, the sharing extends
further to include costs and activities per se. The
government often retains control over the objectives and
the terms and conditions of operations, but the other
partners are able to influence the decision-making
process. Federal-provincial agreements on economic
development illustrate this type of partnership.
4) Collaborative Partnerships
Here we refer to agreements by which decision-making
authority, ownership, risks and benefits are shared. This
type of arrangement forces the government to surrender
some power to third parties. The creation of the Employment
Leadership Council for Youth in Calgary is a good
example of this new trend in partnerships. The Council
includes approximately twenty agencies dedicated to
helping young people in difficulty. It receives support
(financial or otherwise) from these non-profit agencies
and from the three levels of government. All of these
stakeholders are involved in decision making or service
delivery.
Many people consider collaborative partnerships as the
best model and the way of the future. Others have noted
that partnerships often shift from one category to
another as the partners get to know and to trust one
another.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Government's Role
A review of the partnership literature suggests that
the local situation and the inherent abilities of
communities largely determine the specific role which
government is asked to play. That said, there is general
agreement that government should play a more extensive
role in the formative stage than in the operating stage
of local partnerships.
More specifically, many observers attribute the following
roles to government:
- take the lead in developing partnerships;
- provide tools and launch the process at the right
time;
- help fund the basic partnership structure;
- act as facilitator and leader when the community
is not mobilized;
- ensure good communication between partners; and
- coordinate efforts to establish and support the
partnership.
This view of the government's role harmonizes with the
opinion that government should play a highly active role
in creating partnerships, since the communities in need
may sometimes lack the necessary resources to launch and
sustain the process.
It is important to bear in mind that by sharing the
political and financial risks and responsibilities, a
government agency involved in a local partnership may
sometimes engage in activities in which it may not
otherwise have participated. The example of the
"Going to Work" pilot project in the Waterloo
Region shows that it is possible to take calculated risks
and to use public funds in innovative ways--in this case
by recruiting social assistance recipients to design an
innovation loan fund--without jeopardizing the agency's
mission.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Role of Other Partners
Obviously, the role of non-governmental partners in
local partnerships varies according to the objectives,
the nature of the partners and available resources. In
the case of partnerships geared to local human resources
development, we note the following general roles:
Private Sector Role
- share its experiences; and
- work with the community to ensure it remains
competitive.
Role of the Community at Large
- determine strategic initiatives enabling
non-profit organizations to improve their
services;
- supply funds and skills;
- transfer knowledge to community members, mobilize
and stimulate people; and
- enlist the community's resources: people, their
skills, ideas and leadership.
Above and beyond these guiding principles, a review of
the partnership literature reveals a wide diversity of
tasks performed by non-governmental partners through
local partnerships. This review shows that effective
partnerships are not necessarily those in which
role-sharing is equal. In fact, partnerships are often
established on the basis that the partners can play
complementary, but separate roles. Good examples in this
regard are the Relance économique et sociale du
sud-ouest (RESO) in Montreal, and the East-Central
Development Corporation in Saskatchewan.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Partnership Analysis Grid
A systematic study of partnerships enables a better
understanding of its mechanisms and hence the possibility
of guiding the creation of partnerships in a concrete,
effective way. We can examine partnerships from different
angles, in particular: the nature of the partners
involved; activities and functions; organizational and
operational structures; and the obstacles to and
conditions for the success of partnerships.
To include a degree of order and clarity in the analysis
of examples of local partnerships, we suggest an analysis
grid. In the left-hand column, the grid specifies the key
components of partnerships to be evaluated, and in the
upper row, a scale based on the degree of sharing between
partners. The grid thus enables an evaluation of
partnerships based on the extent of role-sharing.
The key aspects of partnerships to be evaluated are
divided into two groups. The first concerns the
organizational aspects of partnerships, and the second,
their operational aspects:
Organizational Aspects to be Analysed
- initial design of the partnership;
- decision-making over objectives;
- communications;
- funding of the partnership structure;
- bringing of other resources;
- political risk and liability;
- legal risk and liability;
- financial risk and liability;
- accountability.
Operational Aspects to be Analysed
- development of policy;
- decision-making over staffing;
- design of programs and services;
- funding of programs and services;
- management of programs and services;
- delivery of programs and services;
- decision over evaluation criteria;
- evaluation of programs and services.
The purpose of applying this grid is to show the
degree to which the partnerships examined are geared to
collaboration. Examples of applications of this grid can
be found in the study by New Economy Development Group
Inc.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Guidelines for Establishing Partnerships
For organizations and communities ready to develop
local partnerships, it may be useful to review the
guidelines for establishing partnerships and the stages
to follow.
Guiding Principles
- pay attention to maintaining relationships and
keeping partners involved;
- balance decision-making power and work in an
atmosphere of cooperation;
- staff the partnership with the best persons
possible;
- maintain the partners' interest by describing
future benefits and areas of interdependence;
- pay attention to feedback and communication to
sustain the partners' interest;
- take your time;
- let the partners get to know and to trust each
other;
- provide as much information as possible on the
issues and problems to be addressed;
- do not expect too much and bear in mind the
limitations of partnership.
Steps for Establishing Partnerships
There are four major stages involved in developing and
monitoring partnerships:
- Before entering into negotiations;
- Negotiations;
- Management;
- Evaluation.
A number of activities can be ascribed to each of
these stages. The most critical stage, negotiations,
includes the largest number of activities. The general
approach to negotiations is described as follows:
- Specify the objectives to be attained;
- Determine the means of attaining these
objectives;
- Identify the necessary resources;
- Draw up the timetable;
- Determine the budget, cost-sharing and terms and
conditions of financial participation;
- Define roles and responsibilities;
- Establish mechanisms for exchanging and
disseminating information;
- Specify the tasks to be performed independently
and inter-dependently;
- Determine the decision-making procedure;
- Determine the rights of ownership, use and
distribution;
- Specify the conditions governing admission or
withdrawal by a partner
- Seal the partnership (contract, agreement)
As these guidelines suggest, the success of partnerships
invariably demands careful, systematic planning.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Innovative Examples of Local Partnerships
A review of local partnerships would be incomplete
without a description of innovative partnership
experiences at the local level. The following comments
focus on five case studies, each featuring some
innovative partnership component.
Community Education Initiative, Port au Port
(Newfoundland)
The Port au Port peninsula was severely affected by
the collapse of the cod fishery. In response to this
crisis, communities on the peninsula decided to launch a
vast community education initiative. As a result of
direct involvement by many partners, including the
Economic Recovery Commission, the county school board,
the local economic development association, and the
Community Futures Committee representative, the Community
Education Initiative (CEI) was legally incorporated as a
non-profit agency.
The agency's primary goal is to foster changes in
education through an integrated community support system.
CEI's achievements include:
- organization of quarterly community meetings and
conferences;
- establishment of a community education centre;
- creation of a parallel school for teenagers at
risk; and
- development of an adult education program.
Everyone agrees that these activities have helped
focus available resources on shared goals by coordinating
available budgets to serve common objectives.
The partnership structure is unique: the organization's
board of directors consists of members from a wide
variety of community and government organizations. A
Working Group comprising the most active partners meets
frequently. One coordinator is the only salaried
employee, and the funds earmarked for this item have been
gathered from various sources at various times. Current
core funding is provided under the Strategic Regional
Diversification Agreement.
The CEI can best be described as a partnership with a
fluid structure given that the partners and funding
sources are constantly changing. However, this fluidity
is anchored in a shared concern for the challenges that
the peninsula communities must confront.
CEI is proof that partnerships can be established without
the need to create costly new institutions or programs.
The importance of government support is also clearly
demonstrated in this example. Direct access to local
government authorities has helped free local initiatives
from bureaucratic constraints.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Relance économique et sociale du sud-ouest, Montreal
(Quebec)
Between 1967 and 1988, in Pointe St. Charles alone,
16,000 jobs were lost. As early as 1965, however, area
residents tentatively began the first steps of a long
community renewal process. In 1984, the Programme
Économique de Pointe St-Charles (PEP) was created,
combining nine local organizations and supported by
hundreds of local residents. PEP set itself the
objectives of lasting job creation, training and economic
revitalization of the community.
The broadening of PEP's decision-making base and its
geographic area led in 1990 to the Relance économique et
sociale du sud-ouest (RESO). RESO's objective is to
promote the area's economic and social development. As a
not-profit corporation, RESO relies on financial support
from the three levels of government, along with its many
other supporters. Its activities range from strategic
sectoral planning to the creation of a job bank, as well
as training for the unemployed.
RESO's operating structure is innovative: buoyed by its
vast experience in the community development field and
aware of the importance of sharing responsibility, the
corporation has developed a decision-making process based
on the notion of an electoral college . The
government's role has changed substantially over the
years: from its initial role as a financial backer, it is
now directly involved in designing projects, as shown by
the investment funds and industrial development planning.
RESO's results are impressive: more than 4,000 unemployed
individuals assisted over more than five years; hundreds
of people trained; dozens of companies attracted to the
region, and so on. This experience highlights the
importance of establishing a long-term vision based on a
sound analysis of the situation.
In comparing the nature of activities in the early years
(PEP period) to RESO's recent activities, we note that
the partnership, first geared to local issues and
involvement by local stakeholders, has developed to take
account of the complexity of community economic
development within a sub-region of Montreal. The nature
of activities has also changed, shifting from social
organizing and the application of emergency measures to
sectoral actions and service delivery.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Going to Work, Waterloo Region (Ontario)
The "Going to Work" pilot project sponsored
by the Community Opportunities Development Association
(CODA) was established in 1992 under the Opportunities
Planning experimental program of the Government of
Ontario. This project aims to provide help and support to
social assistance recipients who want to find employment
or create their own job. It was made possible through
close collaboration with neighbourhood coalitions and
community centres in the Waterloo Region. In all,
thirteen organizations, twelve social assistance
recipients and the Ontario Ministry of Community and
Social Services spearheaded the project.
The partnership structure of "Going to Work"
aims to promote the autonomy of participating
organizations while ensuring the achievement of shared
objectives. This structure includes a coordinating team
supported by four complementary teams of partners:
- the sponsoring partners team;
- the participant team;
- the key stakeholders team;
- the staff team.
The Ontario Ministry provides full funding for the
program under a transfer agreement with CODA. Service
contracts are then signed by CODA and the various
sponsoring partners for the delivery of specific
resources and services.
Among the project's achievements, we note that in its
three years of operation it has helped more than 2,600
clients; of that number, 600 found employment, 154
started a business and 800 enrolled in a training
program. An in-house evaluation found that the program
enabled participants to reenter the job market, to get
off social assistance and to pay taxes ten months sooner
than had there been no intervention at all.
In the final analysis, the decentralized service delivery
model made possible through this partnership emerged as a
key success factor. Because employees of the program work
from locations based in all the many the neighbourhoods
and associations, they have access to an established
clientele base. This example also shows the importance of
a main partner - in this case, CODA. Through its
coordination of the partnership's activities, its
financial accountability by law, its constant employee
supervision and its evaluation of results, this main
partner fostered the achievement of shared objectives and
the delivery of services to a relatively scattered
clientele.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
East-Central Development Corporation (Northern
Saskatchewan)
The East-Central Development Corporation (ECDC) was
founded in February 1987, eighteen months after the
creation of the CLE corporation which it recently
replaced (CLE corporations were created to provide
business loans and offer economic development services to
rural Canadian communities). In addition to its loans
portfolio, ECDC offers counselling, technical and
information services to its clients. In 1994, the
corporation provided almost 1,200 hours of such services
to 274 clients. The organization is unique in that it has
always strived to achieve financial self-sufficiency.
At the outset, government's role was to launch the
partnership through an initial investment of funds. Of
the $220,000 originally invested under the CLE program,
the federal contribution climbed to $1.55 million when
the loan fund was created. From the start of the loan
fund until 1994, 156 loans were issued in a total amount
of $3.38 million. ECDC currently maintains its own
financial independence through the small business loans
fund and is now linked to the federal government only
through a service agreement.
ECDC's current structure revolves around a partnership in
which activities and decision making are shared:
government organizations refer clients to the
corporation, while the participating communities
contribute to the decision-making process and help
establish priorities through the directors they appoint.
ECDC has also entered informal ties and joint funding
agreements with other community organizations such as the
Saskatchewan Department of Economic Development, local
governments and First Nations.
This development corporation is an example of a community
partnership originally created under a federal program.
It illustrates the difficulty of reconciling financial
self-sufficiency with the pursuit of both community and
government objectives. The corporation succeeded in
achieving its objectives and maintaining communications
with its partners by relying much more on informal
dealings than official relationships. Sometimes, a
flexible, informal structure is well suited to a
partnership.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
YMC Management Corporation, Ladysmith (British
Columbia)
Following the announcement by the Government of
British Columbia of a $1.3 billion road construction
project, nine communities and three Native organizations
representing twenty-five other Native communities created
the YMC Management Corporation to ensure Native
involvement in the project. This partnership is unique in
that it is based on three separate, complementary
structures:
- a funding arrangement between the YMC Corporation
and the British Columbia Department of Native
Affairs;
- an agreement between the YMC Corporation and the
provincial transportation funding corporation;
and
- a business agreement between the YMC Corporation
and two transportation companies.
Each of these agreements affects some aspect of Native
participation in this major construction project: the
first arrangement targets overall management of Native
involvement in the project; the second concerns training
and political components, while the business agreement
covers the implementation of work.
Among the impacts of this partnership we should note:
three full-time jobs created to operate the YMC
Corporation; ten employees hired for the construction
work; 82 people trained; and the YMC Corporation was able
to lease with the option to buy eight pieces of heavy
construction equipment. Furthermore, the participating
Native communities and organizations have access to the
profits generated by the business side of the project.
The innovation of this experience concerns the fact that
the partners used various operating structures to achieve
a common goal. Significantly, the YMC Management
Corporation is at the core of these structures. The
creation of this non-profit, jointly-managed corporation
enabled many participating communities to actively and
effectively share in the economic spinoffs of a
mega-project.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Lessons Learned from the Study
Conditions for Partnership Success
A review of the literature allows certain conclusions
concerning the conditions required for local partnerships
to succeed:
- joint development of structures, joint
decision-making and shared responsibility;
- pooling of resources;
- long-term commitment that translates into
detailed, long-term planning;
- limited, precise objectives;
- careful selection of the issues addressed by the
partnership
- adequate staff and other resources;
- ability to alter the structure as relationships
evolve;
- clear definition of roles and responsibilities;
- ability to blend ideas, leadership and resources
in a planned way;
- inclusion of a training component.
General Conclusions
This study of innovative examples of local
partnerships allows for a definition of government's
general role in community partnerships. First, we are
correct to assume that government must play a more
significant role in the creation stage than in the
operation stage of the partnership. Once the partnership
is established, the government's primary duty is to
ensure the conditions whereby the partnership structure
is self-sufficient.
The study also shows that the success of partnerships is
often based on the involvement of one partner that plays
a more extensive role than the others, or that
accomplishes specific functions. The most successful
partnerships are not necessarily those in which all tasks
and decision making are shared equally. In the final
analysis, there are many reasons for government to enter
local partnerships, apart from unloading its
responsibilities. This study shows that the benefits to
be gained from productive partnerships far exceed their
costs.
RETURN TO NAVIGATION
GUIDE
Copyright © 1997
Human Resources Development Canada
Last Updated - 16 February 98
ref# 21,811
|
