Merging cultural differences and professional identities: strategies for maximizing collaborative efforts during the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.

Significant policy changes focused on improving employment outcomes for persons with disabilities have included the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990, amendments to the Rehabilitation Act in 1992 and 1998, the formation of the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, and the passage of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIIA) in 1999. In addition, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) went into effect in July, 2000.

The 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments strengthened vocational rehabilitation's commitment to employment of people with severe disabilities, by streamlining the rehabilitation process and strengthening policy on consumer involvement in the rehabilitation process (Whitney-Thomas, Timmons, Thomas, Gilmore, & Fesko, 1997). The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 provides an array of services to people with disabilities including health care, employment preparation, and placement services. In addition TWWIIA has as its goal to increase the range of service providers available to beneficiaries with disabilities by providing them with greater choice. Administered by the Social Security Administration this program allows individuals who receive SSI or SSDI to receive a ticket that entitles them to job placement assistance from any approved service provider. The combination of these legislative mandates provides individuals with disabilities with more options for seeking and retaining employment.

In addition to creating greater employment opportunities legislation over the past decade has emphasized interagency collaboration. The central goal of WIA is to bring together various employment and training agencies into an integrated workforce system to meet the needs of all individuals, including people with disabilities. When WIA was enacted in 1998 it became clear that the nation's goals for providing employment services includes all job-seekers. With these principles in place no single service agency is entirely equipped to serve every type of individual searching for employment. The current climate created by this legislative shift makes interagency collaboration a necessity.

WIA calls for partnership between many agencies that address employment and education needs, but Vocational Rehabilitation is the only mandated partner who is exclusively focused on serving individuals with disabilities. When considering the collaboration of the workforce system as it relates to customers with disabilities it is typically the workforce programs under WIA, dislocated worker, Wagner-Peyser Act and the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency which are the primary focus though other program interact with customers with disabilities as well.

Although a goal for each agency is to provide job-seeker assistance, each system has its own service delivery model, traditions, and experiences (Cohen, Fesko, & Timmons, 2002). For instance, the rehabilitation model (which focuses on enhancing the functional abilities of individuals to increase independence) is vastly different than the medical model (operating under the supposition that there is something inherently "wrong" with a person with a disability), which guides many systems. These differing philosophies have important implications when interagency collaboration is undertaken. The values and philosophies that drive an agency will define organizational culture and the manner in which services are provided. Rehabilitation focuses on career development, individualized planning and support where workforce systems orientation is on labor exchange and matching employer and customer in a primarily self-service environment.

Although multi-agency coordination is a desirable objective, a combination of structural, philosophical, cultural, and financial barriers arise in practice, and coordination has proven difficult to achieve (Perry-Varner, 1998). Agencies with different roles, histories, cultures, powers, and priorities are expected to collaborate for one common mission. Expectations about accountability, supervision, and responsibility for decision-making vary across agencies. Differences in professional training, occupational status and power, gender, race, class, language, and public image all contribute to the real and perceived power differentials within the interagency network. Working together means interaction between disparate realities, systems of meaning, and types of bias. Mazzella (2000) described many of the systemic barriers to interagency collaboration. These obstacles include the following: differences in organizational culture and procedures which often lead to an unwillingness to take risks or compromise; funding sources which may limit flexibility in the sharing of resources; turf issues in which one or more of the organizations do not want to relinquish power and responsibility for their customers; and the misperception by agency staff that regulations will not permit collaboration.

Because of these barriers there is no objective "roadmap" for developing successful interagency collaboration. However, there are essential components that must be present when systems undertake a collaborative effort. Research shows that collaborations are more successful when they are focused, such as on a particular group or community, and when members work towards a mutual goal (Elder, 1980). Findings also indicated that the most successful collaborators share a common perspective with regard to their responsibilities and have a mutual respect for the counterpart agencies (Dellario, 1985). Additional elements of successful collaborations include staff training on the scope of services each partner provides and formative or process evaluations that monitor the collaboration and provides a record for lessons learned throughout the process (Bruner, Kunesh, & Knuth, 1992). Finally, the purpose of the collaboration must be clear, ownership of the process understood, allies identified, and an agreement to act in place (Butterworth, Foley, & Metzel, 2001).

Mattessich and Monsey (1992) identified six factors that are influential in the success of collaborations between agencies. These factors are the following: the social, political, and physical environment; the characteristics of the partnered agencies such as mutual respect and ability to compromise; the process used to make decisions and accomplish goals; the communication channels established between all agency personnel; the purpose and vision of the collaborative effort; and the availability of resources to support the collaboration. Finally, communication is the cement that binds organizations. Communication alone enables a group to think together, to see together and to act together (Fesko, Timmons, & Cohen, 2002).

Interagency collaboration means that actors in a partnership are willing to work together for the mutual benefit of the customer. However, in practice, collaboration among state agencies is not an easy task. It is especially difficult when differing cultures, philosophies, and professional identities are required to merge together as a result of policy change, leaving staff at all levels to contend with ambiguous organizational boundaries. The current research sought to uncover the cultural and professional identity challenges experienced in three states (Kentucky, Minnesota, and Maine) as partners collaborated to implement the Workforce Investment Act. This study attempted to discover the strategies used to address these challenges of working together. The research answered the following questions:

* What strategies were created to alleviate cultural and professional identity concerns and facilitate the process of collaboration?

* What was the nature of cultural and professional identity concerns as partners collaborated to implement WIA?

Methodology

The following methodology section will cover the (a) process of state selection, (b) data collection, (c) description of the sample, and (d) data analysis techniques employed.

Process of state selection

There were four levels or stages of screening used by the researchers in the process of state selection. The first stage was a broad-based nomination mailing, the second was expert panel verification, the third stage was screening interviews, and the final stage of selection was cross-referencing. Each of these four levels of state selection is discussed in more detail below.

Nomination Mailing

The broad-based nomination mailing process was the first step in engineering this research study. A contact list was comprised of leaders in Workforce Development, State Departments of Labor and the disability community. Each contact person was asked to identify states that have demonstrated promising practices in: a) coordination of employment services; b) inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the planning process; and/or c) increased access to One-Stop Career Centers for individuals with disabilities.

Expert Panel

After the nomination mailing a panel of experts with a broad national perspective on disability and employment was formed. Panelists from the U.S. Department of Labor had expertise in the development of disability initiatives. Expert panel members compiled a list of the top five states that were using innovative approaches to coordination, inclusion of people with disabilities, and increased access to One-Stop Career Centers. In addition to compiling their own list the expert panel offered their perspectives on the states that were repeatedly identified through the nomination process. The final suggestions this panel were then compared to the nominations from the mailing process.

Screening Interviews

While the panel interviews were being conducted, researchers completed an additional screening with the nominators from the broad-based nomination mailing. The goals of the secondary screening were to elicit more information on the nature of the practices in the state and to understand the reasons for the nomination. Participants were asked: a) to describe the state's collaborative efforts and agency participants; b) the impetus for collaboration; c) how the collaboration emphasizes consumer involvement; and d) to describe the level of access available to people with disabilities using the One-Stop Career Centers in the state.

Cross-referencing,

The fourth and final stage in the selection process was a cross-referencing activity. The information from the nomination mailing, the expert panel interviews, and the additional nominator screening interviews were considered against several additional variables. Criteria considered for cross referencing included the range of collaborating agencies represented; the nature of collaboration that was reported; the frequency with which the state was nominated; the nature of the nominations (national versus state source); the state's organizational structure; and practical considerations such as geographic representation and state size. Consideration was also given to states that had submitted early WIA plans, although the absence of an early plan did not exclude that state from being a contender.

This multi-phase selection process allowed researchers to identify three states, Minnesota, Maine, and Kentucky for further study. These states were consistently identified as being innovative in their approach to collaboration. To understand what factors contributed to this collaboration, the next step was to gather more in depth information about each state and to identify the key personnel who were directly involved in the process and could discuss the critical features.

Data collection

Data collection began with a comprehensive document review for the selected states. Following document review, interviewees were recruited and data was collected through in-depth interviews conducted at site visits in each of the states. Each of these processes is discussed in more detail below.

Document review

Prior to conducting the site visits, an extensive review of documents was conducted. Several key pieces of data served as a briefing book for researchers who were conducting the site visits. Contents for each state's briefing book included; a) pertinent state demographics; b) WIA board participants; c) a summary of the State Plan; d) state level Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs); e) number of One-Stops and the nature of the relationship between the One-Stops and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR); and f) a summary of any unique collaborative efforts happening in the state.

Recruitment methods

State level administrators for the VR and Workforce Development departments were interviewed in all three states. Representatives from local areas were also interviewed in states with strong local collaborative initiatives. The researchers also sought to obtain the perspectives of additional "key players" in the collaborative experience. These were individuals who were actively involved in implementing these collaborative efforts. For example, they may have assisted in the development of the state's WIA plan or Memorandums of Understanding, assisted in creating one office setting where staff from multiple agencies were located (co-location), or they were clearly motivators or coordinators of the process. These active participants, or individuals that were accustomed to "getting their hands dirty" during such enormous change, were considered by the researchers to be the movers and the shakers.

Movers and shakers were identified through phone calls to disability advocacy groups such as the state's Developmental Disabilities Council, University Affiliated Program, Independent Living Centers, or the VR Consumer Council. In addition, WIA state contact and the State Coordinator for One-Stops were also contacted for their perspectives on movers and shakers. The names that arose consistently were chosen to be interviewed.

Upon consent from the participant, an appointment for a face-to-face interview was scheduled. A three-day visit to each state was arranged to collect data. The number of individuals interviewed ranged among states but at least fifteen people per state participated in the study. Individuals who were interviewed for this study included state and assistant commissioners in vocational rehabilitation and workforce development, WAI board members, state ADA coordinator, state level staff in fiscal, data coordination and programmatic roles in vocational rehabilitation and in workforce services s, and individual associated with disability organizations.

Interviews

Each interview was in-depth, semi-structured, conducted on an individual basis, and lasted approximately one hour. In the event that participants were not able to meet in person, a phone interview was conducted. Ninety percent of the interviews were conducted in person. A protocol of questions was constructed to guide the interview process. However, interviewers encouraged open discussion, and in keeping with the qualitative framework, did not strictly adhere to a specific set of questions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Participants were asked about: (a) factors that drove the collaborative process: (b) agencies/personnel that have been instrumental in the process: (c) challenges encountered and strategies to solve them: (d) the role of the state's Vocational Rehabilitation agency in the process; (e) the role of individuals with disabilities; and (f) how the collaboration affected services delivered to individuals with disabilities. All interviews were tape recorded with the consent of each participant. The tapes were sent to an independent agency for transcription.

Data Analysis

This study used a qualitative research design, borrowing tools from ethnography including open-ended interviews and document analysis. Four features of naturalistic inquiry served as standards for designing the study and provide methodological rigor, credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These served as counterparts to the more traditional quantitative features of external validity, internal validity, verifiability, and objectivity.

Credibility of the data addresses how accurately findings reflect the system under investigation. Prolonged and persistent engagement and triangulation, or the use of multiple data sources and multiple investigators, was used to ensure that the data are credible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer debriefing and member checks (having participants review and confirm findings) was used. Dependability of the data was provided through a written record, including tape recording and transcription of interviews whenever possible. Maintenance of field notes and memo writing to record researchers' observations and thoughts provide a comprehensive audit trail.

Once the data have been collected Bogdan and Biklen (1992) describe qualitative analysis as "the process of systematically searching and arranging the interview transcripts, field notes, and other materials that you accumulate to increase your own understanding of them ..." (p. 153). The techniques used to analyze the data in qualitative components include coding and memo writing. QSR NUD * IST 4.0 for the Macintosh (1997) was used for conceptualization of themes, coding, and data sorting. This software was designed specifically for qualitative analysis.

Coding

The analytic process by which the researchers began organizing data into themes or categories related to both original and project-inspired research questions is known as "coding" (Strauss, 1987). Codes are meaningful labels that denote concepts, actions, or recurrent themes. Once data were coded, the researchers could see relationships and context between pieces of data.

Memo writing

Memos are systematic writings and musings of the researchers that occur during the coding process. Memos serve to focus the emerging themes and concepts into a discussion that emphasizes answers to research questions. Often memos generate organizational schemes and further conceptualization or sorting of the data. The researchers met on a regular basis to discuss the emerging data and the memos generated by this process. Drafts of findings were compiled using the themes organized during the memo writing process. In this way the memos served as an outline for the results that are presented.

Results

Analysis of findings revealed concern among participants about merging cultural identities and the loss of profession identities among partners. As a result five strategies were developed to alleviate concerns. These were the use of cross training; using meetings to strengthen communication; focusing on relationship building; acknowledging each partner's expertise; and creating a shared vision. Each strategy as well as the area of concern will be described using the perspectives and experiences of participants from each of the three states.

Area of concern: Merging cultural differences and loss of professional identities

Participants emphasized the enormous cultural shift that occurred as a result of the mandated collaborations under WIA. Essentially, the creation of One-Stop Career Centers was a new way of doing business rather than the establishment of a new program. Partnering agencies were resistant and anxious about the change since many viewed an integrated system as threatening to job security. Many feared that their positions were in jeopardy, and agencies were affected by uncertainty and great change. In Minnesota, for example, the effort to integrate services was met initially with resistance from VR. VR feared being "absorbed" into this new workforce system, as the emphasis moves towards job-seekers with disabilities having access to typical One-Stop services. This significant cultural change caused partners to tenaciously defend their territory, as noted by one respondent in Kentucky: "There was a lot of turf protection among the partners ... As long as you stay closed-minded to anything, you're not going to be receptive ... You're still thinking, 'this is my program and I'm going to protect it, I'm not going to share.'" An interviewee in Maine said, "At first it was us against them ... Everybody was very territorial and everybody was afraid, (thinking) 'We don't want to do too much of this. They are going to learn our end of the business.'"

At times, not only did staff not want other agencies to infringe on their customers, services, and funding streams, but there was also reluctance to take on responsibilities that were perceived to belong to someone else. For VR counselors who have specialized training and advanced degrees, the prospect of individuals with disabilities being served in One-Stop Centers suggested that their skills were no longer needed. VR staff were concerned both for their professional status as well as for their clients and the level of specialization in service delivery that they may require.

In Minnesota, where an emphasis was placed on full co-location VR staff into One-Stop Centers, combining cultures produced varying levels of tensions. In some cases, cultures conflicted, in other cases they easily meshed, and in still other cases, agencies co-existed but with very little interaction. The nature of people's workloads and workdays differed by agency. Workforce staff usually stayed in the office and saw many customers throughout the day. VR staff saw fewer customers but provided more intensive services and often attended outside meetings. Differences as basic as the hours staff worked and the amount of time spent out of the office seeing customers had to be negotiated within each integrated center. A more significant consideration was the different type of staff working side by side. Some staff were union members, some worked for the state and others worked for private providers. This resulted in a range of salaries and titles used for staff providing similar functions. The organizational style in which an agency has done business also becomes more obvious to other agencies and it takes time and commitment to work through these issues.

While many of these concerns were clearly justified, they proved only to be initial reactions. Findings showed that over time, many of these concerns dissipated because partners developed strategies to overcome them. Staff in all states used various strategies to address the challenges that accompanied WIA implementation with respect to the cultural and role shifts that took place. Following are some of the more successful approaches that the states took in an effort to ameliorate some of the tensions that arose as a result of the collaboration.

Strategy number one: Cross training,

Cross training was used to educate partners on the varying roles and areas of expertise that each possessed. Interviewees in all three states noted that this strategy raised awareness and eased concerns around turf protection.

Each state showed slight variation on this theme. For example, staff in Kentucky advocated for cross awareness training, rather than more traditional cross training. Cross awareness training provides enough information to ensure that staff can identify client needs and direct them to One-Stop staff who have expertise in certain areas. Cross awareness training does not imply that staff must be able to perform each other's work. Rather, the goal is for staff to be able to clearly articulate the type of services other agencies provide as well as their target populations. Many One-Stops in Kentucky have trained their caseworkers to identify a variety of customers, such as dislocated workers, incumbent workers, youth, and individuals transitioning from welfare to work. Because all of these populations are seen in the One-Stops, it is vital for all representatives to have knowledge of available resources. As one participant noted, "We've had two training sessions ... not for eligibility purposes of individual programs, but more general knowledge of what ... vocational rehabilitation does ... It's a general knowledge of other department activity."

In Minnesota, collaborators realized that particular phrases can mistakenly generate negative feelings. Questions were raised about professional identity and job security. Administrators addressed this perception swiftly, noting that they had no intention of having "the butcher fill in for the pharmacist when things get backed up." Paying attention to terminology enabled staff to have a better sense and understanding of both their own and one another's roles.

Strategy number two: Using meetings to strengthen communication

Communication between state-level partners was critical to move forth with the significant changes necessary for WIA implementation. Throughout this process in Minnesota, state level WIA partners held weekly meetings that were regarded as integral to the collaboration process. "If it was an issue that stood between where we are and where we wanted to get to, if it needed some action, it came before ... the implementation group on Monday mornings. It really holds the secret to success of the whole system?' At these meetings, each program was represented, along with others who participated as needed. This included individuals with expertise in real estate, telephone systems, management information systems, and fiscal resources. These meetings began when partners realized that co-location was happening quickly, resulting in gaps in information-sharing. "When several of us realized that it was taking too much time to chase down the answers one-on-one, we decided (to) get everybody together every Monday morning until we've got the last One-Stops set up and operating." Carving out a block of time in the beginning of the week to discuss these issues was very effective. "It was wonderful ... if you devoted a couple of hours every Monday morning you got what you needed."

These weekly meetings were an opportunity for participants to address global implementation issues, as well as more specific concerns such as leasing and shared supplies. At these meetings, people set aside their own program biases and worked toward a common goal. As much as possible, participants tried to suspend concerns about turf protection and resource management issues or discuss them thoughtfully. "We talked about the issue and how it impacted everyone.... in a collaboration like this, what affects one partner is invariably going to have an impact on the others."

In addition to weekly meetings, area-wide meetings were held in Minnesota. "(We) brought in all the people and said 'you know we are planning to make some major changes here. Give us your input.'" Early inclusion of multiple partners affected by the change was important in helping staff understand this new system and its impact on their jobs and agencies.

Partners in Minnesota also held regional meetings throughout the state, at several different stages in the development: "Once the concept was developed, that concept was taken to all staff throughout the state. Everybody in management, from the Commissioner down, went out and talked ... explaining what the concept was and what we were going to do next."

Maine noted the importance of having staff involvement at all levels of the organization. Individuals who were resistant to the change began to see how their participation was contributing to the process, and began to feel that they had more control over the change that was occurring. Staff were taking pride in what they were creating and were able to think more flexibly since they were invested in the process. Managers cited the importance of having direct line staff involved since frequently they would identify issues and solutions that had not occurred to the managers.

Because participation in a committee was mandatory in some states, collaboration among staff was compulsory as well and became a routine part of the day. "Talking and planning ... this is what was expected of us ... It was just part of our jobs at that point. I think getting to know people, getting on committees that mean something to us ... (It was a) way (for us to) contribute and make that work for our consumers."

Strategy number three: Focus on building relationships

Relationships based on mutual support, respect, and shared goals provide a solid foundation for WIA implementation. These relationships allow for expertise sharing and enable the partners to capitalize on one another's strengths. As one participant from Kentucky noted, "Getting people together and getting them working together is the surest way of ensuring that the system will survive." Relationships were built horizontally (between entities at the same level),vertically (between federal, state, and local government), informally (among staff at various levels), and formally (through the use of Memoranda of Understanding or MOUs).

One participant from Kentucky noted that establishing informal relationships among individuals in the partnering agencies was as important as the formal collaborations. "... There is a lot of time that has to be invested in getting on the same page before you can get to implementation. It's setting those relationships up." Once these informal relationships were solidified, these social networks facilitated the work of the partners. "What we've been able to keep, within the Cabinet, is that feeling, that we know everybody and we can talk to them ... These [partners] are people you see every day."

Respondents in Kentucky noted that relationship-building enhanced the visibility of disability issues. Individuals representing disability agencies formed alliances within local boards (most notably VR and the Department for the Blind) to make their collective voice stronger. Disability advocates aligned themselves to ensure that accessibility and other disability-specific issues were addressed. "There are so few of us out there that are champions for people with disabilities ... we work very closely. We know each other personally.... we work uniformly, and that helps us. That gives us two votes instead of one ..."

Formal relationships between disability advocates and others also facilitated greater awareness of disability issues. For example Kentucky formed a state-level policy group focusing on learning disabilities that included representation from the Kentucky Psychiatric Association, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) system, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education, the Department of Corrections and others. This working group provided a forum for education and discussion of disability issues within the context of workforce development.

In Portland, Maine relationships were built prior to co-location because partners had already been meeting together that previous year. This allowed people to get to know one another and develop relationships. Often they would arrange to have food as a draw to get people to meetings. This created a casual and cordial atmosphere. "Whenever things got rough we did something with ice cream sundaes or apple pies or something to bring people together. Because if you know each other and like each other as people it's easier to work together as professionals."

Strategy number four: Acknowledging each partner's expertise

Respondents in all three states described the importance of understanding and validating each partner's unique role and special capabilities. VR, for example, provided expertise and consultation on regarding the needs of job seekers with disabilities. This made VR staff feel useful, needed, and showed the partners that each has something of value to contribute. In each state disability agencies took on the role of consultant as they prepared the range of One-Stop providers to effectively serve people with disabilities. For VR in Kentucky one of the greatest advantages of working in collaborative settings was the chance to provide education to the partnering agencies:

   We believe that we're the experts in the area of
   providing services to people with significant disabilities.
   There are things that we can provide to (other agencies)
   to help them do their jobs better ... We can assist them
   with learning what they need to do, give them a list of   who to call. We can tell them how to ... accommodate
   individuals who have various disabilities, whether it's
   visual, heating, physical, or mental.

As a result of such education partnering agencies were better able to serve all individuals, including people with disabilities. In addition One-Stop partners reinforced the notion that VR and other agencies traditionally serving people with disabilities are key in helping them provide better supports for all job seekers. "[VR has been helpful in getting] information to us so that we establish our system and centers in a manner that they meet ADA [requirements] and are ... accessible. They have given us a checklist and documents and they've been very helpful in providing communication for us."

VR staff in Minnesota have also become consultants, offering advice regarding working with someone with a disability or directing a job seeker with a disability to the appropriate resources. Training by VR staff was viewed as a very important component of WIA implementation. Without training it was difficult for staff to truly collaborate and assist those who traditionally have been construed as somebody else's clients.

Minnesota's VR staff were also a resource to TANF agencies for difficult-to-serve customers with disabilities. In some instances people who were TANF-eligible did not receive services because they were exempt from the work requirements and therefore not seen as priorities for caseworkers who were more concerned with clients facing time limits and benefit termination. As TANF staff became more familiar and comfortable with the VR system, they made more referrals, resulting in better services and new opportunities for employment for individuals with disabilities.

In addition to providing valuable resources, information, and perspective to the collaborative process, VR staff in Minnesota cited benefits to their agency as well. VR counselors were able to gain more information about labor markets and greater access to potential employers. VR counselors gained tools and skills beyond what had traditionally been used to help people with disabilities find employment.

Strategy number five: Creating a shared vision

In Maine, barriers such as agency cultural differences and turf protection were addressed through shared goals and vision. Interviewees commented on the importance of alignment between key partners and a strong vision from leadership. Open communication and tolerance of risk were crucial. In addition, partners had to truly believe that collaboration results in better outcomes. "Personality clashes, turf issues, they are there but they are not insurmountable ... To have a common goal is key as a recommendation."

In Portland, Maine, partners agreed that in order to reflect the new culture of collaboration, it was important to stop differentiating between agencies by using their traditional names. Rather, they preferred to describe the supports each provides. "One thing we agreed on was we will not use agency names. We would use functions. So we said welcome to your One-Stop Career Center connecting you to services for vision impairment, rehabilitation ..."

Portland began the process of creating shared goals by encouraging staff from different agencies to get to know one another and create "wish lists" for how they envisioned the Center. While developing goals and visions collaboratively, staff were urged to think creatively about the limits of their responsibilities. As they began to see similarities in their wish lists, they realized they shared common goals. When challenges arose at this center, staff used them as learning opportunities. The mutual trust and respect among staff members ultimately contributed to their success.

Implications and discussion

A number of innovative strategies developed in the three states (Kentucky, Minnesota, and Maine) that eased tensions around cultural differences and professional identity concerns. Variations on cross training allowed states to develop a sense of one another's services, which increased their commitment to each other. Meetings were used to strengthen communication, ensuring that each partner shared a stake in the collaborative process. Maintaining a focus on relationship-building and acknowledging the expertise of each partner created a greater sense of investment while alleviating trepidation about identity and cultural shifts. The creation of a shared vision kept partners from feeling alienated. As workforce and rehabilitation staff continue to build their own collaborations, they should consider the experiences of other states who have led the way. The following recommendations should be considered throughout this ongoing process.

Acknowledge that collaboration is difficult

Varying levels of turmoil and transition are typical in collaborations. Those who experience the most stability in their working environments should lend support to other partners that con front fear regarding their professional identities and job security. These agencies that are affected by uncertainty and change can benefit from the positive participation and support from their partners. It is critical to clearly articulate partner commitment and motives. It is also important to acknowledge the different position of all the collaborators. Lending support to other partners can ultimately lead to the establishment of relationships, thus enabling them to become key players in the collaborative process.

Work to empower front-line staff

Partners need to think creatively about supporting their staff through the change process. One way to accomplish this is through the development of a work environment that re-distributes power to front-line staff. These front-line workers are responsible for carrying out the mission of the organization (Perry-Varner, 1998). Partners should facilitate empowerment, enhance morale, and keep staff invested in the change process. Staff at the front line should feel a sense of contribution, accomplishment, power and control. Empowerment can occur when leadership relinquishes power, creates opportunities for involvement in committees and planning activities, and included front-line staff in the decision-making process (Timmons, Cohen, & Fesko, 2002).

At the state level, administrators should give staff in the local Career Centers autonomy to design their services but ensure that they conform to state and federal guidelines. This willingness to relinquish power should ultimately produce rewards, leaving staff at the front-line with greater opportunity for contribution. With greater authority, front-line workers accept responsibility for their decisions. Management should always incorporate the contributions of their staff into policy and planning decisions because their input is equally important. Front-line workers often have innovative problem-solving strategies and are most in tune with the needs of the customer. Involvement, in turn, can alleviate anxieties of these staff members while making them feel like valued contributors.

Front line involvement should not only provide feedback, but also direction. As a result, front-line staff can feel more control over, and validation within, a bureaucratic system that could otherwise be perceived as impenetrable. Staff should be involved in setting goals, identifying evaluative procedures, and agreeing on a customer service philosophy. The benefits of such an approach are greater staff morale and lower levels of professional tensions.

Create multi-level involvement and investment in the collaboration

All key stakeholders need to be represented and active in the collaboration, from state and local leadership to front-line staff. All players must acknowledge that each level brings its own expertise, and have a comprehensive understanding of the changing roles that occur during WIA implementation.

Multiple levels of staff from the partner agencies should participate in implementation meetings on all topics including cost allocation, the division and assignment of space, and the delivery of services. There must be a state level commitment to fostering the investment of local boards, and providing technical assistance and guidance as necessary Also, the state board must ensure that the local boards feel valued and respected. In return, local boards must support the state and its vision for implementation of the One-Stop system, ultimately increasing the capacity of the entire system.

Remain flexible

Perry-Varner (1998) notes that one of the central principles in planning and designing a One-Stop center is built-in flexibility. In implementation, this also holds true. Partners must eliminate the use of the one-size-fits-all approach and recognize cultural and professional identity differences. In addition, partners need to try out strategies and re-think these ideas if they prove unsuccessful. Partners must remain flexible regarding the enormous amount of change, the culture shift, and the power struggles that are incurred during this process.

Many partners are taking on new roles. For example, traditional disability agencies have taken on the role of consultant as they prepare the range of One-Stop providers to effectively serve people with disabilities. It is imperative that key players remain adaptable and adjust to these changing roles. There must be a certain degree of flexibility in these relationships, as interaction among agencies is more adaptable when it is dependent on the judgment of personnel rather than dictated by a complex sets of rules (Benson, Kunce, Thompson, & Allen, 1973). Flexibility can be lost by extensive formalization of agency relationships. This is particularly true when interactions between agencies are narrowly prescribed. This could result in staff mechanically engaged in the collaborative process without creativity and insight into the unique needs of the customer (Benson, Kunce, Thompson, & Allen, 1973).

Flexibility is also required when considering how each center will look. A balance must be struck between standardization in procedures and flexibility due to differences in centers, staff, and local regions and workforce investment boards. There should be a consensus that no proto-type exists for the best way to implement this system. This should be perceived as not a barrier but an uncontestable truth. Collaborative change is a progression for most centers. The best way to deal with this is by remaining flexible, being comfortable with variation, and recognizing that full collaboration is a work in progress.

Conclusion

It is critical to recognize that the success or failure of collaboration is dependent upon the human element. Although collaborations are among agencies, these agencies are comprised of individual staff, which brings cultural challenges and concerns around professional identity. Even in the midst of major change and upheaval, through flexible approaches such as those used in Kentucky, Minnesota, and Maine, staff are able to implement plans that improved their work environments and staff interactions. Apprehension stemming from identity and culture shifts can be alleviated as partners realize that the goals of collaboration and shared expertise are the cornerstones of the WIA vision.

Acknowledgement

This is a publication of the Center of State Systems and Employment (RRTC) at the Institute for Community Inclusion/UCE (#H133B980037), which is funded, in part, by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the US Department of Education. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantees and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Department of Education.

References

Benson, J.K., Kunce, J., Thompson, C., & Allen, D. (1973). Coordinating human services. The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bruner, C., Kunesh, L.G., and Knuth, R.A. (1992). What does research say about Interagency Collaboration? NCREL.

Butterworth, J., Foley, S., & Metzel, D. (2001). Tools for Inclusion: Developing interageney agreements: Four questions to consider 11 (1). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion/UAP, Children's Hospital.

Cohen, A., Fesko, S.L., & Timmons, J.C. (2002). Case studies on the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Spotlight on Kentucky 1(1). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion/UAP, Children's Hospital.

Dellario, D. J. (1985). The relationship between Mental Health, Vocational Rehabilitation interagency functioning, and outcome of psychiatrically disabled persons. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 28, 167-170.

Elder, J. (1980) Essential components in development of interagency collaboration. In J.Elder & P. Magrab (Eds.) Coordinating services to handicapped children, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Fesko, S.L., Timmons, J.C., & Cohen, A. (2002). Case studies on the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Spotlight on Minnesota 1(2). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion/UAP, Children's Hospital.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mattessich, P., & Monsey, B. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Mazzella, B. (2000). Collaboration, challenge, risk and reward. The dynamics of working together: A review of the barriers and strategies shaping interagency collaboration. Presentation at the 5th annual Aging and Mental Retardation Conference, September 2000, The Governor's Commission on Mental Retardation, Boston, MA.

Perry-Varner, E. (1998). One-stop career centers: An emerging concept for delivering employment services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 39-49.

QSR NUD*IST 4 [Computer software]. (1997). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Software.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Timmons, J.C., Cohen, A., & Fesko, S.L., (2002). Case studies on the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Spotlight on Maine 1(3). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion/UAP, Children's Hospital.

Whitney-Thomas, J. Timmons, J.C., Thomas, D.M. Gilmore, D.S., Fesko, S.L. (1997). Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation practice since the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion (UAP), Children's Hospital.

Jaimie Ciulla Timmons

Institute for Community Inclusion

University of Massachusetts Boston

Allison Cohen

Institute for Community Inclusion

University of Massachusetts Boston

Sheila Lynch Fesko

Institute for Community Inclusion

University of Massachusetts Boston