What Are the Characteristics of Strong Partnerships?

How Are Partnerships for Service-Learning Different from Other Types of Institutional Relationships?

Partnerships are differentiated from other types of institutional relationships because they are mutually beneficial to all parties. Truly reciprocal partnerships, also called collaborations, are well-defined relationships based on “a commitment to: a definition of mutual goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing not only of responsibilities but also of the rewards” (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992, p. 7). In my view, service-learning partnerships are also distinguished in that they strive to achieve “partnership synergy,” which is “a successful collaborative process [that] enables a group of people and organizations to combine their complementary knowledge, skills, and resources so they can accomplish more together than they can on their own” (Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health, 2013, p. 2).

Although there is no roadmap or recipe for successful service-learning partnerships, there are principles and frameworks to guide our work. These principles are not intended to be prescriptive or to be adopted verbatim, but instead to provide a starting point for discussion when forming or periodically reflecting on the progress of partnerships (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Board of Directors, 2013).The Campus Compact Benchmarks for Campus/Community Partnerships (Torres, 2000) offer eight essential features of “genuine democratic” partnerships that are loosely grouped into three overlapping stages of partnership development (p. 5). The introduction to the benchmarks clearly states that they are directed toward institutions of higher education and observes that “the cooperative, collaborative model is not native to the university” (Torres, 2000, p. 3). In Stage 1, the emphasis is on developing the partnership based on shared vision and tangible benefits for all partners. Stage 2 involves building collaborative relationships that are based on trust and respect, multidimensional, and well organized and led. The elements of Stage 3, sustaining partnerships over time, include integration into the mission and systems of the partnering institutions, strong communication and other processes, and regular evaluation. These benchmarks are reproduced in Exhibit 3.1. In the original publication, the benchmarks are accompanied by program examples and questions for further consideration (Torres, 2000).

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) promotes service-learning as a core component of health professions education and as a means of developing partnerships. Their “Guiding Principles of Partnership” are easily generalizable to partnerships outside the health field. Like the Campus Compact benchmarks, they embrace authenticity, meaningful outcomes, and the importance of developing mutually trusting relationships. They also emphasize transformation that occurs at multiple levels, including personal, institutional, and community, as well as transformation of science and knowledge and political transformation leading to social justice (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Board of Directors, 2013). A summary of the CCPH principles can be found in Exhibit 3.2.

How Should I Initiate a Community Partnership for Service-Learning?

How Should I Approach a Potential Community Partner to Determine Whether There Is a “Match” for My Course or Program?

One of the most perplexing things about service-learning for individuals new to the work is how to initiate a community partnership. Happily, more institutions are establishing a single point of contact for both potential campus partners and representatives of community organizations seeking to develop service-learning partnerships, usually an individual in the service-learning center or community engagement office. This approach simplifies the process substantially for both parties, particularly for would-be community partners, who often find it difficult to find the right person at a college or university to help them connect with a campus partner. The willingness of faculty or staff members to consider service-learning may depend on having a knowledgeable source of information about the community who can offer suggestions for potential partners or make the initial contact for them. Some service-learning centers host fairs or receptions where community organization representatives can meet faculty, staff, and students to discuss their needs and opportunities for service-learners. A variation is a “speed meeting” event, at which faculty, staff members, and student leaders spend two to five minutes with each potential community partner, followed by a more relaxed time for further conversations.

More important than who should initiate campus-community partnerships is how to initiate and sustain them. The following steps and guidelines are based on the principles for partnership development in the first section of this chapter. Because this book is written principally for individuals within higher education, it is important to note that I have framed the steps below from that perspective. I have developed them through my research, my own partnership experiences, and many interactions with community partners, faculty, staff, and students at institutions across the country and the world.

Step 1. Learn All You Can About Potential Partners Through Online, Media, and Personal Sources.

The service-learning center, institutional outreach or community engagement office, other service-learning faculty, local United Way, community volunteer clearinghouses, mayors' offices, and churches are all sources of potential community partner contacts. Once you have identified a potential partner, the organization's website, a search of local newspapers, and social media can provide useful background information and recent activities. Word-of-mouth can be the most helpful source of all in both locating potential partners and learning about them on both the professional and personal levels.

Step 2. Carefully Consider the Nature of the Commitment You Are Willing to Make.

Although it may seem obvious, I feel it is important to state clearly that faculty, staff, and students should take making a commitment to a community organization very seriously. It is well worth taking time to determine the amount of your own time and energy that you can contribute to the partnership. Because most community organizations operate with too few staff and limited budgets, their leaders may make resource or service delivery decisions based on your commitment of time and expertise, both your own and your students.' One of the first questions a potential community partner may ask is about the duration and frequency of the intended commitment. Limited commitments are likely to be less useful from the community perspective. Unless short-term service projects, perhaps ten hours or less over the course of a semester, are specifically designed to target particular needs, they may actually result in a net loss to the community organization. If you want your students to have deeper, more meaningful experiences, consider making a deeper commitment to the partner organization.

Timing is an issue to consider in planning intensive experiences. Spring break may be a convenient time for colleges and students, but it may not be best for communities. Some communities have found that they cannot accommodate all the alternative spring break participants who seek to do their service-learning at the same time. In addition, needs are often ongoing, and important events do not necessarily coincide with the academic calendar. It is also possible that a conflict may arise between the work that alternative spring break students would like to do and the work that must be done at that time. For example, a community may need health screenings and education, but not at harvest time.

Step 3. Start Early.

Potential community partners appreciate being contacted well in advance of the start of the course or program. Community organizations generally try hard to be obliging and to avoid saying “no” to a college or university. However, imposing on them without adequate time to develop meaningful placements for students, particularly if intensive service or a significant number of students is involved, can be disruptive and excessively time-consuming. I advise faculty members to provide a draft syllabus to the potential community partner as early as possible. This enables community partners to understand what you expect your students to learn through their service, allows them to gauge early on whether there may be compatibility, and provides them with the opportunity to offer input regarding the academic content of the course that can better prepare students for the service-learning experience and enhance their learning about relevant issues.

Step 4. Take the Time to Get to Know One Another as People, Always Remembering That Communication Is Key.

It is fine for the first communication to be through email or by telephone, but there is no substitute for face-to-face communication at the community site. Partnerships between institutions start as relationships between individuals. Potential partners should engage in preliminary conversations that are both personal and professional. Informal conversations about families, hometowns, and backgrounds lay the foundation for frank conversations about what each of you brings to the partnership and what each needs from it. There is no doubt that the primary reason that most community organizations take on service-learners is to increase their capacity and productivity; however, they do not think only in terms of their self-interest. Most community partners are genuinely interested in contributing to students' education about the issues and populations they are passionate about and in engaging with the college or university to advance their organization's priorities and around social issues in general.

Step 5. Determine Whether There Is Compatibility.

A partnership of any kind, especially a service-learning partnership, is a collaborative process. Compatibility in a collaborative process means that the individuals or organizations involved can accomplish more and be more effective by working together rather than separately. Compatibility in a service-learning partnership should exist on several levels. First, the desired learning outcomes for the service-learners should be compatible with the organization's mission and the tasks or projects the organization requires. The schedules and number of hours also need to be compatible. For example, if the course or program is one semester in duration and the community's needs exceed that timeframe, there could be a lack of compatibility. A third compatibility issue is whether the students will have the knowledge, skills, and preparation for the work that the organization would like them to perform. For instance, students in an undergraduate course on the psychology of domestic violence work at a shelter for battered women. They may be adequately prepared to engage in group activities with the children of the battered women, but not to provide counseling to the victims.

Step 6. Ask the Right Questions.

Once you have determined that there is a match between your desired outcomes and those of your community partner, there are numerous specific questions to discuss. These include: How many students does the organization need? With what skills and knowledge? How much service is needed? How frequently? Over what time period? What are the specific tasks? What role would the community partner like to take in selecting the students to work with the organization? Where will the service take place? Would the community partner like to participate in reflection, and, if so, how? Will you do service with the students or, if not, regularly visit the service site? Who will provide the necessary training? What security procedures are required, such as inoculations, fingerprinting, or background checks? Will there be a written agreement?

Step 7. Stay in Touch.

Figuring out what is the best and most productive way to communicate on a regular basis often entails finding a delicate balance between consistent communication and placing an unwanted burden on either partner. Regardless of how you decide to do it, regular communication is essential to keep things running smoothly, to prevent small issues from becoming big problems, and to develop the relationship.

Step 8. Ascertain How You Will Know the Degree of the Success of Your Partnership.

Based on your earlier conversations about the outcomes each of you seeks from the partnership, you will need to determine the measures and other criteria that you will use to assess the extent to which the desired outcomes were achieved for both partners. Chapter Six provides a thorough discussion of assessment.

Step 9. Celebrate Success.

It is important to take time to celebrate successes along the way as well as at the end of the course or program. This can be ongoing as an element of reflection, through “shout outs” as service-learners leave the community site, or through social media. As the experience concludes, celebrations can occur at gatherings either in the community or on campus, through coverage in community or campus publications, or as recognition by local and campus officials.

While these steps are presented from the perspective of the higher education institution, there are good resources available to guide community organization leaders and community members through the process of service-learning partnership development. Campus Compact has published a guide specifically for community partners (Scheibel, Bowley, & Jones, 2005), and several colleges and universities have developed online community-partner guides specific to their circumstances. Examples are provided below.

What Makes Partnerships Work Over Time?

How Can We Avoid “Overpartnering” with Communities?

In addition to the advice on initiating partnerships and the steps for developing them, there are several other best practices that serve both universities and communities well. First, it is important to note at the onset that a partnership is shaped by the history, cultures, missions, expectations, challenges, and capacities of each organization (Ramaley, 2000). The needs and capacities of the community as identified by the community should define the approach to the partnership. However, community partners should recognize that different types of colleges and universities have different purposes and assets, and that all, including the largest and most prestigious ones, have limits to their capacities and the assets they can offer.

As Judith A. Ramaley states, “An ideal partnership matches up the academic strengths and goals of the university with the assets and interests of the community” (2000, p. 241). For example, research universities can offer a high level of technical assistance and the ability to focus faculty, graduate student, and undergraduate student research on community issues. However, most research universities value and reward traditional research over community-based research and encourage faculty to address their research to global issues and in global contexts. Community colleges, on the other hand, are closely, directly, and inextricably tied to the communities in which they are based. Although research is not their primary focus, a majority are involved in service-learning that addresses local issues and needs. Faith-based institutions may seek partnerships that enable them to fulfill their social justice missions. Depending on whether they are urban, suburban, or rural, communities also differ in their capacities, assets, and needs. Community organizations in large cities tend to be larger and have more staff than those in less populated areas, but they can be overwhelmed by the extent of their clients' needs for services and thus find it challenging to take on service-learners or, conversely, be unable to handle the number of volunteers who seek to work there. Those in suburban or rural areas are more likely to face challenges of how service-learners can reach their sites because of distance from the campus or lack of public transportation. In addition, rural community organizations are often small and may have few, if any, opportunities to involve service-learners.

Secondly, all potential partners need to realize that there is no simple answer to the questions of “Who is the community?” or “Who is the university?” In the literature on campus-community partnerships for service-learning, we often speak in terms of “the campus” or “the university” and “the community” as though the terms represented a single, unified entity. In reality, each comprises a complex set of relationships, including both those that are officially defined and delineated and those that are not. It takes time and effort on both sides to understand the various elements that make up a community or a university and how different people experience membership in and association with them differently. Because neither is monolithic, it is challenging to ascertain who can speak for the university or the community. Often, partnerships are difficult to establish and sustain as a result of competing interests within each of the partnering entities. For example, community organization staff, their clients, elected local officials, and informal neighborhood leaders may all have different views of the needs they seek to meet through the partnership and how to best address them. Similarly, within an institution of higher education, senior administrators, faculty, service-learning center staff, and students may bring different interests, expectations, and assets to the partnership. Frank conversations over time that engage individuals on various levels within each of the potential partnering institutions, together with a lot of patience and perspective-taking, help to address these differences and challenges. The complexities related to the multiple constituencies involved in partnerships and the role of boundary spanners in addressing them are further discussed in 9.5.

Another often-cited best practice in regard to campus-community partnerships is capacity building. From the point of view of the community organization, this might appropriately start with identifying ways the institution can help the organization develop its capacity to be an effective partner. For example, the college could provide student employees or interns to coordinate the work of the service-learners at the site, including scheduling, logging time spent and work accomplished, providing orientation and training, and gathering necessary supplies. In addition, service-learners can build organizational capacity by working on projects that the agency does not have the time or ability to undertake, such as website design, organizing a fundraising event, and developing a business plan. Other ways to build capacity for partnership include conducting and reporting research, assisting with grant applications, and connecting the organization to other institutional resources. Colleges and universities can develop their capacities for partnership by collaborating with community organizations to access governmental or foundation funding that would not be available to the institution alone; by increasing the number of opportunities for students to engage in service-learning, field work, internships and community-based research; and by expanding their support for faculty-engaged scholarship. Capacity building is critical to avoid Ramaley's caution that the “early rush of enthusiasm can be replaced by fatigue and burnout” (2000, p. 241). Question 3.6 provides models of institutional infrastructure for service-learning partnerships.

Fourth, colleges and universities—particularly those that are large and decentralized—should provide some means of coordination of their various outreach, engagement, and partnership efforts. As Ramaley reminds us, “Some communities are being partnered to the point of exhaustion” (2000, p. 241). At one university, a campus survey indicated that there were more than seventy individual service and service-learning projects going on simultaneously at a single nearby high school, some more successful than others. As a result, there was extensive duplication of effort, issues at the school that went unaddressed, an excessive burden on teachers and school staff, and frustration by both service-learners and school personnel about the lack of quality work and discernible positive outcomes. Staff of service-learning centers at some institutions serve as the gatekeepers for service-learning partnerships, doing their best to ensure that community partners are well served, that service-learners have good experiences, and that faculty receive the appropriate guidance and support in developing and sustaining partnerships.

Finally, clearly articulating the desired outcomes of the partnership from the community and the institutional perspectives, developing an assessment plan, and reviewing the assessment results together are fundamental elements of any partnership. This enables the partners to recognize and celebrate small successes as they occur. Also, keeping a running assessment of how well the partnership is working from the point of view of all participants is helpful in identifying areas of concern and making adjustments early in the partnership. However, it is important to recognize that, in some cases, it may be necessary or in the best interests of the partners to terminate the partnership. Despite good intentions and processes, sometimes the service-learning partnership, like any other partnership, simply is not working. Terminating a partnership does not necessarily mean failure. The effort expended by each side may simply no longer be worthwhile based on the return for the investment of time, energy, and other resources. Or, like any other transaction, both sides may be satisfied with the exchange and desire or need no more from the relationship. In any case, it is worthwhile making the final investment of time and effort to end the partnership on good terms, noting its accomplishments and lessons learned. It is also important to leave the door open to the possibility that a community organization may be better suited to working with a different faculty member at the same institution or that the faculty member may find another organization to offer opportunities that align more closely with course learning outcomes. A worksheet designed to enable community partners to assess the cost-benefit ratio of a partnership is reproduced as Exhibit 6.1.

What Is the Difference Between Transactional and Transformative Campus-Community Partnerships?

In a frequently cited chapter in Building Partnerships for Service-Learning (Jacoby, 2003), Sandra Enos and Keith Morton adapt theories that have been used to examine leadership (Burns, 1978) to demonstrate how campus-community partnerships for service-learning “have the ability not just to get things done but to transform individuals, organizations, institutions, and communities” for the better (2003, p. 23). Transactional relationships are those that are designed to complete a task with no greater plan or promise, and, in many cases, lead to satisfaction on the part of all participants. The parties engage together because each has something the other finds useful. Most service-learning courses and programs are based in transactional partnerships.

Transactional partnerships do not necessarily evolve into transformative partnerships, which may be perfectly appropriate for all parties involved. The decision to enter into a transformative partnership should be an intentional one and involves recognition by both institutional and community partners that their partnership is likely to transform them both. In a transformative partnership, the partners open themselves to the continuing possibility of being transformed in large and small ways. Such a partnership calls into question the very identity of the institution and the community. The campus and community partners share an understanding that they are part of the same community, with common problems, common interests, common resources, and a common capacity to shape one another in profound ways (Enos & Morton, 2003).

Exhibit 3.3 summarizes the differences between transactional and transformative partnerships. Transactional partnerships are instrumental. In such exchange-based relationships, each party has something the other needs. The end goal is satisfaction with the exchange, similar to when one purchases goods or services. The nature of the needs the partnership addresses are immediate and at least fairly concrete.

The role of the partners in a transactional relationship is to be good managers of people, processes, and things. The project supports the existing goals of the partnering institutions. The work of the partnership exists well within the organizational systems and structures of the institutions, and there is no move toward any change in the identity of the institutions. The commitment of the partnership is well defined and limited in terms of time, personnel, and other resources to the specific project at hand. No change is expected, and little disruption generally occurs in the normal work of the organizations (Enos & Morton, 2003).

On the other hand, participants in a transformative partnership focus on ends beyond the utilitarian. There arises a significant increase in shared aspirations. Partners view their roles as multidimensional and may seek to address the complex social issues that underlie the need for the transactional partnership. They may question or challenge existing institutional goals, how their institutions define and approach problems, and how they do business. As a result, new values, priorities, practices, and relationships may emerge. The partners are open to the collaborative creation of knowledge and work. As far as scope of commitment, the work of a transformative partnership engages whole institutions and occurs on multiple levels, ranging from direct service to the creation of entire new structures for addressing shared concerns. Participants from all levels of the partnering organizations are actively engaged, and fluidity among levels that may fly in the face of existing hierarchies is encouraged (Enos & Morton, 2003).

In an example of a transactional relationship that evolved into a transformative partnership, an urban university's service-learning center, financial aid office, and college of education work with the school system of the county in which it is based to develop an after-school homework-help program at ten secondary schools with low completion rates. The college student tutors are Federal Work-Study students who earn their awards through their tutoring. In this exchange-based relationship, the schools enjoy the benefits of the tutoring program that assists their students with their most challenging science, mathematics, and writing courses. The university benefits from this program because it fulfills the requirement that specifies that 7 percent of an institution's Federal Work-Study allotment be spent on the wages of students who work in community-service positions. In addition, the university hopes to encourage some of the tutors to become teacher education majors to boost flagging enrollment in the college of education.

The decision to enter into a partnership that would transform both the university and the county's school system began during the process of assessing the success of the tutoring program. The university and the county partners shared their distress about the low high-school graduation rate and the resultant lack of applications from high-school graduates in the county to the university. In addition, they agreed that they wished to address their joint concern that few graduates of the teacher education program went on to teach in county schools, particularly those in economically challenged areas. As a result, the state education commission and the university's instructional technology department joined the existing entities to form a partnership to create a charter high school that would prepare pupils for university-level work. Courses were eventually developed that would enable the charter-school pupils to enroll in college courses, supported by students in service-learning courses across disciplines. Eventually, an early-college program was added to allow students to earn sixty college credits, some of them online, by the time they graduate from high school. The instructional technology department provided courseware and training to enable both university faculty and charter-school teachers to engage their students with each other and with students across the globe. The college of education revised the curriculum for pre-service and current teachers to address college preparation for low-achieving pupils. Teacher education students do their observations and student teaching in the school to prepare them more thoroughly for working in low-performing schools. Further, the college of education created a new master's degree program in school psychology in urban settings. The Federal Work-Study service-learners continue to serve as tutors and mentors for the charter-school pupils while increasing their own learning of academic content.

While large-scale partnerships that engage entire institutions with communities, often called community engagement, are outside the scope of this book, it is important to note that transactional service-learning partnerships, including those involving a single course and a single community organization, can lead to broad and deep institutional engagement, as discussed in 9.5. In addition, as highlighted in the Position Statement on Authentic Partnerships of the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, transformation can occur in partnerships at multiple levels: personal transformation through reflection, transformation of institutional systems and policies, community transformation, transformation of science and knowledge, and political transformation, including social justice (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Board of Directors, 2013). The following resources offer more information and examples.