UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group (CCWG)

3RD MEETING DRAFT SUMMARY (and Meeting Materials)January 20, 2012

CCWG Participating Members and Other Participants (in bold)

Bob Jones, FSU, FCRC Consensus Center, Work Group Lead Mary Lou Addor, NC State, Raleigh, Natural Resource Leadership Institute Marci DuPraw, SRA & NOVA Southeastern University, Kirk Emerson, Univ. of Arizona Catherine Gerard, Syracuse University, PARCC, Maxwell School William Logue, U Mass Boston Office of Public Collaboration Tina Nabatchi, Syracuse University, PARCC, Maxwell School Maria Placht, USACE, Institute for Water Resources, CPC Charlie Pou, Advisor to Administrative Conference of U.S. Shari Schaftlein, USDOT FHWA, Office of Project Development and

Environmental Review Laurel Singer, National Policy Consensus Center, PSU John Stephens, UNC, Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, Public Dispute

Resolution Program (NO) Debra Whitall, Ph.D., Social Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Region Ruth Rentch, FHA, USDOT Mary Frye, FHA HQ, USDOT

Bob Jones welcomed and introduced the members, reviewed the proposed agenda, the CCWG’s charge and the project’s “wiki space” http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/ created for easy access to various documents. He noted several members had written to say they would not be able to participate in the call but offered ideas and suggestions. (Members and others participating are in bold above)

1. CCWG Work Plan and Timeline. Bob noted the CCWG has been forming over the fall of 2011, meeting on September 15 and November 28 by conference call. He noted the goal is to complete and circulate a guidance document by the Fall of 2012 under the auspices of UNCG. A set of conference call dates was established after checking with member availability through June, 2012, taking place from 2:00 -4:00 p.m. EST on: January 20, March 2, April 2, May 4, and June 22. In April, Bob will send around a scheduling tool to set the remaining 2012 conference call dates.

2. ECR 2012 Panel Proposal and Possible ACR EPP and UNCG Syracuse Panels. Bob shared with the participants that ECR proposal for a CCWG panel was not accepted. Given there will be several members of the CCWG members attending, Bob will check with USEICR and UNCG on options for getting together and for sharing the developing work product with others to get additional input.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 1

The dates for several conferences were noted: ACR Environmental and Public Policy Conference, May 21, 2012, Tucson

Arizona ECR 2012 May 22-24, 2012, Tucson Arizona UNCG Annual conference, June 10-12, Syracuse University

3. Guidance Document Scope, Organization and Format. The participants reviewed again the possible boundaries for the effort and agreed that the CCWG should seek to approach this effort focusing on practical guidance to public/private/NGO organizations and managers on developing collaborative capacity within their organizations. This should be viewed with an understanding that these become important for organizations due to drivers (partners, stakeholders) that are external to the organization. The participants agreed to keep an open mind as to both the internal and external conditions and opportunities and drivers to develop collaborative capacity within an organization or agency.

The participants on the last two conference call meetings agreed that the Guidance document should have a range of possible strategies, approaches and examples for addressing each of the collaborative capacity components. “The guide we are cooking up should include a range of strategies that an agency might choose to use in developing collaborative capacity in a more systematic way, i.e. one size doesn’t fit all.” They also suggested that there should be tools and guidance on both how to conduct collaborative capacity assessments and how to establish and implement evaluation and measurement of the efforts.

The participants agreed we should seek to consider different organizational circumstances and contexts. In the November meeting the CCWG participants suggested strategies might be framed in terms of challenges, impediments and opportunities for each of the components of the conceptual framework. The development of a literature review on developing collaborative capacity plus those drawn from professional experience and examples should inform these tested strategies. The NEPA Collaboration Handbook (posted on the wiki site) http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, might offer an approach to framing guidance on strategies. On the November conference call, the participants also discussed the importance of including examples of challenges and strategies throughout the guide (as part of the body or as sidebars).

In terms of a format for guidance, Shari Shaftlein FHA/USDOT, suggested we look at the online organization of Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/. TCAPP is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 2

to improve how transportation planners and decision makers develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects. “This represents the Transportation sector's effort to mainstream collaboration in all Planning and Project Development Decisions and incorporate several years and millions of dollars of research products produced via SHRPII http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx with a focus on capacity (in Transportation terms - new roads).”

4. Introductory Material and Definitions. On this call, the participants suggested that the introduction should make the point that agencies and organizations engage in assessing and enhancing collaborative capacity for mission purposes and to address specific organizational goals and in an applied context and setting.

The participants did not review again the definitions (#1) regarding collaborative capacity, competency and governance. At the last meeting (November) Bob Jones noted the intent was to sketch this now for guidance but to refine it through the drafting process and develop it as an introduction to the overall guide at a later point.

At the November meeting, the WG agreed that the introduction should make the case for the benefits of collaborative capacity development efforts to those agencies or organizations considering an initiative. These benefits should reference, wherever possible, supporting empirical evidence.

5. Conceptual Framework. Marci DuPraw provided an overview of the proposed components of the conceptual framework for collaborative capacity drawing on her work with the Corps and the Forest Service. The participants discussed what was intended by the “relationship” component and agreed to retitle this “networks and relationships” to reflect the importance of networks, connections and relationships in effective collaborative work and establishing capacity. In the Forest Service this was helpful in addressing the challenge of periodic leadership and management transitions.

The participants agreed going forward there needs to be:

Further clarification of the relationships and distinctions between and among the various components. For example how do networks and relationships factor into political leadership, authority and empowerment? Or how do “networking and relationships” connect with institutional procedures (related to staff turnover, overlaps and cross training).

Ideally, each component should be capable of formulating guidance on meeting challenges with tested strategies that can be illustrated with examples.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 3

In order to build collaborative capacity in an organization, is it necessary to focus on all or each of the 6 components and/or is there a sequence of steps/components for an agency or organization to consider in addressing and building capacity?

Guidance might be provided on how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an organizations networks and relationships.

Collaborative capacity in terms of networks and relationships may be something to draw upon even after you transition to another organization or another part of the organization.

Consider how organizational learning fits in the concept of collaborative capacity. It was suggested it might fit within each component. Bill Logue offered to circulate a recent Stanford study on the topic http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning

Marci agreed to reflect on these comments and produce the next draft which might be posted as a google document that all could add to (John Stephens will set this up).

6. Project Examples. The CCWG participants reviewed and Bob thanked the authors of the 5 examples of collaborative capacity efforts captured to date. These are being developed for possible use as strategy examples in the text and possibly as an appendix to the guidance document. Bob agreed to solicit more examples from the UNCG centers. Maria agreed to see if there could be a write up of an USACE/NOAA collaborative leadership workshop in a coastal community. Shari presented the TCAPP effort (see #3 above) as a potential collaborative capacity effort or to demonstrate some collaborative capacity strategies. Bob agreed to share the template with Shari, Ruth and Mary to see if they can document it as a collaborative capacity initiative.

7. Literature Review. Tina Nabatchi, in advance of the January 20 call, agreed to work on and compile and circulate an informal literature review building on and updating the 2008 literature review in the “State of Collaboration in the Corps” USACE. http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents

8. Assignments.1. Bob Jones will draft, circulate and post a draft meeting summary. 2. Bob will check with ERC 2012 folks and UNCG to see if there might be

opportunities for informal input on the CCWG’s draft in Tucson.3. Bob will ask John Stephens to set up a google doc.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 4

4. All members will be invited to comment on, suggest refinements or additions the set of organizational components for collaborative capacity based on the January 20 meeting discussion as well as other parts of the draft document.

5. Maria Placht will follow up with ACR EPP regarding a panel at their session for the CCWG to get some practitioner feedback.

6. Deb will forward a description of the Forest Service collaborative capacity effort for posting on the wiki site.

7. Maria will see if the USACE/NOAA/Coastal Community workshop might be written up.

8. Bob, John Stephens and Mary Lou will solicit additional collaborative capacity project efforts related to collaborative governance from the UNCG network centers. (preferably organization wide).

9. Tina Nabatchi will circulate an informal literature review focusing on developing collaborative capacity (with an assist from Kirk, Mary Lou and Marci), building on and updating the 2008 literature review in the ACOE report.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 5

UNCG Collaborative Capacity Guidance Work Group Meeting #3

Agenda PacketJanuary 20, 2012

2:00-4:00 p.m. EST

Agenda Packet ContentsAgenda Page/Work Group Members p. 1

Work Group Charge, pp. 2Working Draft Outline pp. 3-5

2:00 Opening (Bob) and Introductions (All)2:05 Review of Work Group Charge and Membership2:10 Review of Meeting #1 & #2 Summary Results and Assignments2:15 Review of 2012 Conference Panel Presentations and Planning2:25 Review of Project Descriptions (using template)2:40 Review Draft Set of Organizational Components for the WG Paper3:30 Review of Literature Review Update3:50 Assignments/Next Steps, Scheduling Next Meeting/Agenda Items4:00 Adjourn

Call in instructions:Dial 866-906-9888Participant code – 6069426

Work Group Members

Bob Jones, FSU, FCRC Consensus Center, Working Group Lead Mary Lou Addor, NC State, Raleigh, Natural Resource Leadership

Institute Marci DuPraw, SRA & NOVA Southeastern University, Kirk Emerson, Univ. of Arizona, Catherine Gerard, Syracuse University, PARCC Bill Logue, U Mass Boston Office of Public Collaboration Tina Nabatchi, Syracuse University, PARCC Maria Placht, USACE, Institute for Water Resources, CPC Charlie Pou, Advisor to Administrative Conference of U.S.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 6

Shari Schaftlein, USDOT FHWA, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review

Laurel Singer, National Policy Consensus Center, PSU John Stephens, UNC, Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, Public

Dispute Resolution Program Debra Whitall, Ph.D., Social Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Region

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 7

UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group ChargeSeptember 22, 2011

Building on a session at the June, 2011 UNCG meeting in Portland, OR, a small group of UNCG members agreed to explore whether and then how to usefully expand upon the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies report to provide collaborative capacity guidance for those working within organizations in collaborative governance settings.

This should be explored in the context of the evolving understanding of collaborative governance,1 the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies,2 and recent efforts in implementing collaborative capacity assessments3

Initial Draft Study Questions to refine and explore include:

1. Definitional: What collaborative capacity? What is the relationship between collaborative governance and collaborative capacity? What is the relationship between collaborative competencies and collaborative capacity?

2. What are the benefits of developing collaborative capacities within agencies and organizations and among agencies and organizations involved in collaboration?

3. What are the benefits to UNCG members of developing tools and skills to provide collaborative organizational and agency assessments that can measure capacity and facilitate processes and training to help build collaborative capacity?

4. What is the best way to conceptualize the organizational components of collaborative capacity? Do we utilize the same component organization as the Guide to Collaborative Competencies? What are other ways collaborative capacity has been conceptualized? E.g. The SRA work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended the

1 “The (collaborative governance) framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or program-based intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collective action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross- boundary collaboration.” An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, by Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, Steve Balogh, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, First published online May 2, 2011  http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/02/jopart.mur011.abstract2 See, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html3 See, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective, Appendix B “Literature Review on Components of Collaborative Capacity in the Water Resources, Planning and Management Area, SRA, 2008

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 8

following elements: Political leadership/authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate; Knowledge, skills, and abilities; Time and resources; Institutional procedures that reward use of these strategies; and Organizational culture.

5. What are the range of collaborative capacity building strategies we should consider that target the organizational components of collaborative capacity?

6. What do we know about and what guidance can we offer about which work best under various circumstances?

UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group

WORKING DRAFT

January 20, 2012

NOTE: This is an initial rough working draft organized around the 6 assignment areas discussed at the September 15 initial meeting of the Work Group. A guidance document draft outline will be developed in advance of the April 2012 WG conference call.

“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”

-UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies

1. DEFINITIONAL: WHAT COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

What is collaborative capacity?

Collaborative capacity is the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared outcomes and goals.4

4 A capacity for collaboration enhances the probability of mission completion and goal achievement by leveraging dispersed and diverse networked resources. (Hansen & Nohria, 2004). Collaborative capacity, as it relates to interagency collaboration, resonates in the work of a number of academics and practitioners (e.g., Bardach, 1998; Huxham, 1996; Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996; Seidman, 1970).

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 9

What is the relationship between collaborative governance and collaborative capacity? Over the last two decades, a new strategy termed ‘‘collaborative governance’’ has developed. Collaborative governance takes as its starting point the idea that working together creates more lasting, effective solutions. "Governance" is the process by which public ends and means are identified, agreed upon, and pursued. This is different than "government," which relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised. "Governance" is a broader term and encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and networks for decision-making and problem solving.5

This mode of governance focuses on public issues and brings multiple stakeholders from different sectors together in common forum to engage in consensus-oriented solution seeking, problem solving and decision-making:

“Collaborative governance is therefore a type of governance in which public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways, using particular processes, to establish laws and rules for the provision of public goods… It is a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.”6

It has been described as a concept that addresses the process of establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sector organizational arrangements to address public policy problems that cannot be easily addressed by a single organization or the public sector alone. These arrangements are often characterized by “joint efforts with reciprocal expectations and voluntary participation among formally autonomous entities, from two or more sectors —public, for profit, and nonprofits —in order to leverage (build on) the unique attributes and resources of each.”7

5 6 Ansell and Gash JPART 18:543–571 2008

7

? Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, USC

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 10

What is the relationship between collaborative competencies and collaborative capacity?

Collaborative competencies focus on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of effective collaboration. Collaborative capacity focuses on the organization’s network for support of collaborative efforts both within and beyond the organization. The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies was focused on guiding public managers interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence through continuing education and training. A guide focusing on collaborative capacity would offer managers and leaders guidance on how to address and facilitate political leadership/authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate, investments of time and resources, the development of institutional procedures that reward use of collaborative strategies and review and changes regarding organizational culture and collaboration.

2. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITIES WITHIN AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND AMONG AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN COLLABORATION?

The benefits of developing collaborative capabilities within agencies and organizations include: cost savings through the transfer of smart practices, better decision making as a result of advice and information obtained from colleagues, enhanced capacity for collective action by dispersed units, and innovation through the cross-pollination of ideas and recombination of scarce resources. (Need citations for these benefits)

3. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

#5 WHAT ARE THE RANGE OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY BUILDING STRATEGIES WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT TARGET THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

#6 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT AND WHAT GUIDANCE CAN WE OFFER ABOUT WHICH WORK BEST UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES?

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 11

DRAFT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FORCOLLABORATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT GUIDE

In 2008, as part of a project focusing on helping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena, DuPraw undertook a literature review to identify the components of collaborative capacity from an organizational and “systems” point of view. DuPraw and the USACE team defined “collaborative capacity” as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes”; fostering collaborative capacity requires “systematic attention, resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction” (Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen, 2006). “Building collaborative capacity,” say Hocevar and colleagues, An organization that has a robust collaborative capacity is able to “learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities” (Innes and Booher, 2003).

The team defined “system” as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment”; further: (1) systems are comprised of subsystems; (2) system activities can transform the system into another state; (3) systems have self-regulatory and adaptive mechanisms; and (4) systems smust function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996). In large, non-linear systems, changes to one subsystem can radically alter the way in which the whole system functions (Anderson 1999). Each component of a system (such as a branch of a federal agency) may have its own unique role and culture, but each depends on the effective functioning of the other system components for the overall success of the organization (Constantino and Merchant 1996).

DuPraw’s findings, published in the 2011 in the USACE report, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective,” suggested that there are five inter-dependent components to such a system: (1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment; (2) Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; (3) Time and Resources; (4) Institutional Procedures; and (5) Organizational Culture. Each of these is briefly defined below; a more detailed discussion can be found in the 2011 USACE report mentioned above.

Political leadership, authority and empowerment -- The authority to encourage collaboration, reprogram budgets to support it, and to implement resulting decisions, including monitoring and evaluation (Jones 2005). Political support is needed for cross-project and inter-agency activities, including training and discussion forums (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership 2004 (revised 2005)). Leaders need to able to advocate for the explain collaboration and its benefits, and encourage ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those initiating collaborative

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 12

projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks they can tap at all levels of their organizations, and all participants the authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective organizations (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006).

Knowledge, skills, and abilities – The USACE team used the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) shown in Appendix 1. It is a compilation of KSAs used by the Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as several additional KSAs derived from DuPraw’s literature review.

Time and Resources – In the environmental / public policy realm, collaborative projects are frequently multi-year initiatives, entailing many meetings and much in-house; related time-consuming activities can include budgeting, research, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Koontz et al. 2004). Having a source of dedicated resources contributes to success (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen, 2006). Resources are not limited to funding, but include human and technical resources (Koontz et al., 2004).

Institutional Procedures – official ways of carrying out the organization’s operations, including developing leadership commitment, establishing policies, rules, norms and practices; and obtaining resources and cooperation (Imperial 2005). Most organizations also have institutional procedures pertaining to communication with various audiences and methods of fostering external awareness (e.g., interactions with politicians, public agencies at various levels of governance, and branch offices).

Organizational Culture – Organizational culture reflects a shared worldview, ideas of what is right and wrong, priorities and values (Goldberg 2008). Thus, it has a profound impact on the way its personnel engage in collaborative endeavors. The following organizational attributes may contribute to an organization’s collaborative capacity include adaptability (Making Community Coalitions Work 1993) and resiliency (Innes and Booher 2003). Those that may undermine collaborative capacity include:o Minimization of collaborative activities; risk aversion and lack of trust

among participating agencies (How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking, 2006);

o Belief that regulations are inflexible; reputation for being unreliable or untrustworthy; conflicts in missions of internal divisions; difficulty managing expectations of other key players (Creighton 2008); and

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 13

o Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions; resistance to change; lack of a visible champion for collaboration; and turf issues (Imperial 2005).

In the winter of 2010/2011, DuPraw began working with the US Forest Service (USFS), helping the agency develop systematic methods of fostering its collaborative capacity. USFS is recognizing the vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. Its new planning rule is a key driver, as implementation of the rule requires expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts. The USFS reviewed the framework for collaborative capacity developed by the USACE team, and adapted it for its own use; they conceptualized their “system” for enabling collaborative capacity as having five components also, but a slightly different list, as follows: (1) Leadership; (2) Institutional Culture; (3) Relationships; (4) Policies and Practices for Implementing Them; and (5) Learning. Reviewing her work to date with USACE and USFS, DuPraw proposes a revised conceptual model for a generic system supporting collaborative capacity development that merges the frameworks used by these two agencies (see attached file for Figure 1). The generic model has six components – those found in the USACE model plus “relationships.” Those involved in developing the USFS model felt very strongly that relationships were the “currency” of collaboration. Thus, in the updated generic model, relationships are at the center of the system, surrounded by the original five components from the USACE model. It appears to DuPraw that the other four components of the USFS model are already represented in the USACE model, albeit labeled and arrayed slightly differently. It seems likely, and appropriate, that each organization working with a generic model will want to tailor it to meet their unique needs and to foster ownership in the tailored framework by those who need to use it.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 14

REFERENCESAnderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science.

Organization Science 10 (3).

Bean, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Mike Eng. 2007. Assessment in Environmental and Public Policy Conflict Resolution: Emerging Theory, Patterns of Practice, and a Conceptual Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24 (4).

Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 15

Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning: Submitted to the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.

Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology 29 (2).

Goldberg, Rachel M. 2008. Learning from Cross-Cultural Practitioners. In ACR Environment and Policy Section Conference: Nurturing Conflict Resolution Skills, Practices and Programs Amid Institutional Changes. Tucson, AZ.

Hocevar, Susan Page, Gail Fann Thomas, and Erik Jansen. 2006. "Building Collaborative

Capacity: An Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness." In Innovation Through Collaboration - Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Vol. 12, 255-274. Elsevier Ltd. ISSN: 1572-0977/doi:10.1016/S1572-0977(06)12010-5.

How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. 2006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society 37 (3).

Imperial, Mark T., and Timothy Hennessey. 2000. Environmental Governance in Watersheds: The Role of Collaboration In 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN.

Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2003. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. In Institute for Urban & Regional Development Working Paper Series. Berkeley: University of California.

Jones, Robert M. 2005. Leadership and Public Learning. In Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, edited by J. T. Scholz and B. Stiftel. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 16

Koontz, Tomas, Toddi Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES Jan 20 2012

1. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Maria and Marci)

2. US FOREST SERVICE “EMPOWERING COLLABORATIVE STEWARDSHIP” PROJECT (Deb & Marci)

3. SIERRA CASCADES DIALOG GROUP (Deb)4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING (BILL LOGUE)

5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (CHRIS CARLSON)

1. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE,

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:

Marci DuPraw & Maria Placht

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):

Public – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

Given the current environment of diminishing resources, increasing complexity, shifting priorities, and greater pressure to integrate across multiple disciplines, agencies, and jurisdictions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) deems collaboration as critically important for achieving its mission in the 21st century. Solutions to today’s problems require reaching out to those with different authorities, perspectives, and resources to solve the various dimensions of these problems. In 2008, the Corps established a Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center of Expertise. The initial project of the Center was to understand the capacity of the Corps in areas relating to collaboration, conflict resolution, and public participation, so that Center staff would better grasp where the Corps’ strengths and

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 17

weaknesses lay and thus where they should focus their efforts. The information collected during this baseline study gave the Center a starting point and a roadmap to guide its early initiatives.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

The “Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative,” began in the summer of 2008, to:

Assess the Agency’s current capacity to collaborate with external stakeholders on water resources planning and management objectives;

Elicit suggestions for capacity enhancements from the field; and Formulate priority recommendations for how to enhance the

Corps’ collaborative capacity. The initiative defines “collaborate” as the multitude of ways the Corps seeks to involve and work constructively with external stakeholders.  This includes, but is not limited to, public participation, interagency and intergovernmental partnering, collaborative problem solving, consensus-building, and conflict resolution. This effort was led by the Corps’ Conflict-resolution & Public-participation Center (CPC) with assistance from CPC field representatives in each Corps Division and with support from SRA International, Inc. (SRA).

The Initiative resulted in thirteen key recommendations, organized by what we determined to be the five components of an organizational framework that would effectively support, enable, and reward the use of collaboration(institutional procedures; leadership, authority, and empowerment; individual skill sets; time and resources; and organizational culture).. Using a systems approach to assess the Corps’ capacity to collaborate enabled the identification of the holistic changes needed to move the Corps toward a culture of collaboration.

Process Steps Summary: The Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative was a two-year project that followed this process:1. Convene a diverse internal/external 13-person Review Group to

ensure that the capacity assessment initiative meets USACE needs;2. Collect input from members of the Review Group regarding the

goals and objectives of this assessment, anticipated challenges to achieving success; existing assessment tools and feedback to develop a USACE-specific tool; and proposed methods for analyzing and documenting results;

3. Develop a capacity assessment tool/survey that will assist the Corps in assessing its ability to conduct partnerships and to develop collaborative working relationships;

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 18

4. Use this tool to conduct a capacity assessment, which occurred via one-day, facilitated workshops in each of the eight Corps Divisions. In advance of each workshop, Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs from that Division completed the tool, as well as others identified as having particular experience and expertise in collaboration. This assessment targets the leaders of each Division because it is they who best exemplify the collaborative capacity of the Corps. 230 Corps staff at the Division and District level completed the tool and most of them participated in one of the eight workshops. During the workshops, participants presented barriers and enablers to successful collaboration via a series of case studies, discussed the survey results and implications, and recommended methods that Corps staff and Corps Headquarters could use to improve collaborative capacity.

5. Periodically elicit input from the Review Group regarding the proposed agenda for the Division workshops; the draft findings report; how this initiative is carried out, what is working well, and where mid-course corrections might be needed; and “next steps” once this assessment is complete.

6. Use the results of the survey and workshops to write a report identifying areas that need the Corps’ attention. This report focused on steps the Corps can take to maintain collaborative strengths and enhance those areas that they would like to develop further, particularly for water resources planning and management.

Current Status:

In January, 2011, following the completion of the Initiative, CPC presented the 13 recommendations to Corps senior leaders in for their review and direction. Many of the recommendations were identified as overlapping with/relating to CPC or other Corps initiatives. CPC was directed to synch those recommendations with the leads for the other initiatives. Seven of the 13 recommendations fall into this category and are currently being implemented in part or in full. One recommendation has been implemented by CPC in full, which is to “Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes.” Four recommendations are not yet being implemented as senior leaders decided that no new funds would be allocated to implement the recommendations not related to current Corps efforts. One final

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 19

recommendation will not be implemented as Corps senior leaders decided it was not appropriate/relevant.

Outcomes/Achievements:

The outcomes of this Initiative are still unfolding. Achievements to-date:

1. Ensuring Corps personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes. This was achieved in part through a roster of internal facilitators expanded during the workshop meetings by identifying existing Corps facilitators.

2. Establishing a Collaboration and Public Participation Community of Practice. This community serves to foster relationships, connect people doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public participation as critical to achieving the Corps’ mission, and share best practices and lessons learned.

3. Providing field perspectives and information to CPC regarding the state of collaboration in the Corps and ideas for how CPC can improve this capacity. As a baseline study, the information collected during this effort was invaluable in terms of educating CPC staff of the needs of the field and highlighting areas important to focus on in future work. The information collected during these two years continues to inform and guide the direction of CPC every day, making their work more relevant and useful to the Corps.

4. Providing data and input to training courses – to both inform current course content and develop new courses, such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative leadership.

5. Collecting several conflict resolution or public participation case studies from each Corps Division as a starting place for developing a database to collect case studies and document lessons learned and best practices that will be developed by/shared with the Community of Practice and the broader Corps.

6. Improving understanding of the relationship and intersection of conflict resolution and public participation with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs. Relationships were fostered with these other Corps Communities of Practice that have promoted learning across

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 20

important parts of the Corps that interact the most with external stakeholders.

2. US FOREST SERVICE “EMPOWERING COLLABORATIVE STEWARDSHIP” PROJECT

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:

Marci DuPraw and Deb Whitall (subgroup members) & numerous other in-house and external collaboration “practitioners” (depending on how one defines that term)

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):

Combination

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

USFS is recognizing vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. New planning rule is a key driver, as its implementation calls for expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts underway.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

To systematically foster the collaborative capacity of the US Forest Service, agency-wide.

Process Steps Summary:

The effort began in Winter of 2010/2011 with a convening assessment, which laid the groundwork for a 2-day workshop to frame up the effort. This workshop gave rise to 4 “Dimension Groups” (work groups each focusing on fostering a different dimension of collaborative capacity) and a Coordinating Committee. The boundaries of the Dimension Groups were porous, and their coordinators welcomed all comers, internal and external; however, the Coordinating Committee made a conscious decision to start somewhat low-key, given the staff capacity the agency was able to assign to the effort initially, so communication about the opportunity was mostly word-of-mouth until recently. In just 7 months (April – October, 2011), this network of stakeholders jointly developed and implemented a Near-Term

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 21

Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. In November, 2011, they held a two-part webinar to share the work products they had developed to foster the agency’s collaborative capacity and to elicit input about next steps.

Current Status:

The Coordinating Committee was delighted with the enthusiasm engendered by the November webinar, and is about to reconvene to review the feedback received and work out the game plan for fostering a community of practice to support ongoing development of the agency’s collaborative capacity.

Outcomes/Achievements:

To date, this effort has resulted in the development and implementation of a Near-Term Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. Work products that are now available to support the agency’s use of collaboration include:

A brief primer, entitled, “Collaboration: Getting Started”; A FACA “Easy Button” (guidelines to demystify FACA so that it

doesn’t present an obstacle and staff know how to collaborate within its parameters);

Materials to guide employee transitions in a manner that helps employees and communities sustain relationships and collaborative momentum;

Electronic collaboration tools to maximize the benefit of collaboration when it must be done remotely;

After-Action Review Tools (to enable the agency to learn from each collaborative effort they undertake);

A newly-redesigned Partnership Resource Center website full of resources to support collaboration; and

An initial draft map of FS-related collaboratives.

3. SIERRA CASCADES DIALOG GROUP

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Debra Whitall, PhD

Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 22

Combination

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

As an outgrowth of a 2010 conference co-sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and University of California on Pre- and Post Wildfire Forest Management for Restoration and Resiliency, stakeholders’ interest in furthering discussion on key topical areas led to the formation of a new collaborative working group in California: the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group.

The intent of the Sierra Cascades Dialogue is to hold regular conversations among engaged stakeholders on a range of issues across the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades. The term "stakeholder" refers to any individual or organization that has a direct interest in public lands. This would include the Forest Service as the convener.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

The dialogue centers on the future of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, with a focus on the national forests in this bioregion. Dialogues provide an opportunity for learning, shared meaning, aligned actions, mutual respect and understanding different perspectives.

The goals of the dialogue are to:

Bring together public and private land managers to grapple with an “all lands” approach to planning and conservation, beginning with ecological restoration. In this case, “all lands” refers to all land within the Sierra Nevada bioregion irrespective of jurisdictional or ownership boundaries.

Lay the foundation for Science Synthesis, Assessments, and Forest Plan Revisions.

Develop stakeholder collaborative capacity to address challenging, complex issues on a large, landscape scale.

Create shared responsibility and understanding.

Build relationships and trust among all stakeholders through interest-based problem solving techniques.

Process Steps Summary:

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 23

The Sierra Cascades Dialogue is based on best practices in the fields of public participation8 and collaborative policy. A professional facilitator with advanced training in the field of conflict analysis and resolution and an active mediation practice in natural resources planning facilitates the sessions. The facilitator works with senior Forest Service policy staff, including its social scientist, to design the sessions in cooperation with a twenty-member steering committee that is representative of all stakeholder interests.

Current Status:

The dialogue typically has about 140 participants representing a range of interest groups such as county governments, environmental organizations, fire safe councils, industry, land managers, including Forest Service staff and leadership, private landowners, recreation groups, rural communities, scientists, state government, tribes, water agencies, and youth. All dialogues are open to the public, and while participation shifts, a core group attends regularly. The organizers have committed to and actively recruit to realize age, cultural, geographic and socio-economic diversity among participants. In addition to sending Sierra Cascades Dialogue announcements to a large email list serve, a website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/SierraCascadesDialog/) contains announcements, background reading materials and summaries of each dialogue.

Outcomes/Achievements:

The dialogue is in its infant stages, yet is grappling with topics of significance to the Sierra Nevada bioregion, including ecological restoration, improving social and economic conditions in rural communities, ecosystem services and watershed health. In November 2010, 140 participants attended the first Sierra Cascade Dialogue Session on ecological restoration. In its second session (February, 2011), the dialogue explored values, attitudes, and interests and the tie to interest-based problem solving. The third session (October 2011) brought together local elected officials, nongovernmental and governmental organizations alike, social scientists, small business owners and industry representatives to discuss economic and social well-being within the context of a sustainable environment. The most recent dialogue (December, 2011) brought together members of the research community and stakeholders to identify key questions to be addressed through a science synthesis to support a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.

8For resources, see the International Association for Public Participation at http://www.iap2.org/

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 24

Agreements and understanding achieved through the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group inform Forest Service decisions. Outcomes are shared with the Regional Leadership Team and other staff of the Forest Service (the Regional Leadership Team includes the Regional Forester, Deputy Regional Foresters, key regional leaders, and the Forest Supervisors).

4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING (Status 1/18/2012)

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:

Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration, Susan Jeghelian, Executive Director, Loraine Della Porta Deputy Directory and Bill Logue, Senior Affiliate

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):

Public

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

Public engagement and collaborative capacity building knowledge, capacity and by using an inclusive and transparent internal process at MassDOT to effectively model interaction with the public and organized stakeholder community to participate in decision making on transportation issues and effectively linking these to traditional/required decision making contexts in the transportation sector.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

The Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration (MOPC) will assist the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) launch an agency-wide policy development and capacity building initiative to implement effective public engagement and collaboratively re-design the stakeholder engagement process for MassDOT and its Divisions across all of their programs and projects. The long-term goal of this project is to build capacity and infrastructure for authentic and effective public engagement within MassDOT’s Divisions and programs to implement MassDOT’s commitment to engaged, transparent, and accountable government. In the shorter term, MOPC will assist in developing and implementing specific stakeholder

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 25

engagement processes for certain projects within the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) and other MassDOT initiatives.

MOPC will assist with development of public engagement policies and protocols, internal capacity building, project implementation and coaching. More specifically within the ABP, the work will address multi-modal use opportunities and improvements that are consistent with MassDOT Green Communities Act and will allow for the MOPC team to provide direct facilitation services on ABP public engagement processes and to assist with implementation and with mentoring MassDOT staff.

MOPC’s role is to ensure that the collaborative structures and processes are developed and conducted in an unbiased environment suitable for discussion, deliberation and decision-making. MOPC will also ensure compliance with best practices for collaborative governance and public engagement processes, including openness and transparency, impartiality and neutrality, and equity and inclusiveness.

Process Steps Summary:

For system design:

1. Assessment of current systems, knowledge and awareness in relation to best practices. Identification to challenges, internal and external barriers to collaboration around roles / responsibilities/ decision making / communication that impact public engagement.

2. Policy/protocol development including assessment criteria and best practices for equitable and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

3. Internal implementation and design – orientation and training modules for roll out, identification of pilot projects.

4. Capacity Building Implementation – create training program and internal training team for Highway Division and agency-wide implementation.

5. Project Implementation – complete demonstration projects

Current Status: Pilot collaborative process, Longfellow Bridge Task Force, successfully reach agreement on recommendations for inclusion in Environmental Assessment.

Initiating system design/capacity building and identifying additional projects for pilot/coaching MassDOT staff.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 26

Outcomes/Achievements: (to date)

1) Thirty-two member Longfellow Bridge Task Force composed of stakeholders and chaired by a community leader was convened by MassDOT. Met 9 times and arrived at recommendations for configurations of space for multi-modal (vehicles, public rail transit, pedestrian and cycling) use in renovation of the historic bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge.

2)Grant and MassDOT funding received for system design. MOPC project team, two technical advisors and external evaluator selected

Expected outcomes: MassDOT Public Engagement Policy and Protocol, MassDOT implementation team and capacity creation, several pilot projects.

5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (CHRIS CARLSON)

The Province of Alberta has a Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Dispute Resolution Services is a program within that Department.

They have launched a Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) to improve municipal business and inter-municipal relations. The program gives municipal leaders an opportunity to look internally and inter- municipally at their organizations and find creative, locally-relevant ways to improve communication, better engage with internal and external stakeholders, and build better relationships. The program helps municipalities assess whether collaborative governance is appropriate and help convene the process and ensure all the prerequisites are in place. They also make grants available to municipalities to implement their collaborative efforts.

PCI worked with the program and provided them with information to assist them in the design and development of a training program on collaborative governance for municipal officials. They provided a review of existing collaborative leadership training programs and discussed possible objectives and curricular components for the training program. A pilot program was then prepared and piloted.

UNCG CCWG January 20, 2012 Meeting #3 Summary 27