ࡱ> 572347 bjbjUU %7|7|ml&&& 0 <<<P0008&1Lr1PM2222"T2T2T2T2T2T2{M}M}M}M}M}M}M$O QM<T2T2T2T2T2M2<<T2T2M222T2<T2<T2{M2T2{M220:sK<<'MT2&2 'P,0p2L'MTM0MLTR2TR'M2PP<<<<3Sec Draft Part II Draft 4-10-01 D R A F T CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION HOW GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS CAN WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC PURPOSES PART II: LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION ELEMENTS OF CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION There are numerous types of cross-sector collaboration. The most common type is ad hoc problem-solving undertaken to achieve a substantive public purpose over a finite period of time. Government, business, and nonprofit partners join together to accomplish a mutual goal, such as building a downtown mixed use development, and then disband when the goal is achieved. Ad hoc problem solving might also be undertaken to develop elements of civic capacity such as developing a community leadership program or otherwise strengthening institutions. Another common type of cross-sector collaboration is a more or less permanent institutional arrangement. Here again, the goal may be to address a substantive public purpose, such as feeding the hungry people through an on-going service delivery mechanism such as food banking. Or the goal may be to sustain key elements of civic capacity, such as a regional research and data information capacity to report on economic, social, and environmental trends. Cross-sector collaborations can also vary by the size of the project, the number and mix of participants, and other factors. While each of these different types may require different goals, strategies, and organizational structures, there appears to be a generic set of stages and elements that characterize most cross-sector collaborations. Recognizing Common Needs and Convening Potential Partners Cross-sector collaborations begin when someone recognizes a common need that requires contributions from organizations in all three sectors, and convenes those organizations to determine if there is indeed a fit. The person or group that recognizes the need does not necessarily have to be the same as those who do the convening, nor do any of the initiators necessarily have to come from any one of the three sectors. However, successful collaborations typically are convened by individuals or groups that have the time, money, and legitimacy to get the parties together and start them on the path to serious planning, agreement, and startup, if not through to a successful conclusion. A key question at this point is who should be at the table? One of the principal challenges of cross-sector collaboration is to assure that all the parties that need to be involved are involved, that no groups with a legitimate interest or the ability to veto the effort are excluded, and that the resulting mix of players is sufficiently manageable to produce results. Or as Harlan Cleveland put it: How do you get everybody in on the action and still get action? The organizational missions and interests of the potential partners need to be clearly linked to the functional objectives and goals to be achieved through a collaboration, which in turn is intended to serve a specific public purpose (or community need, problem, opportunity, or aspiration). In essence, a successful collaboration defines a cascading linkage from public purposes, to collaboration goals, to collaboration functional objectives, to the organizational missions and interests of the partners. Public purposes are overarching community goals, or social outcomes, that serve the interest of the community as a whole. Such purposes need to be clearly defined, commonly understood, widely accepted, and preferably measurable social outcomes that matter to citizens and to the community. The success of collaborative efforts ultimately will be judged on the degree to which they contribute to the overall public interest, or community well being. Many collaborative efforts are undertaken with the best of intentions but can falter or prove ineffective if they are not linked to important public purposes at the outset, or if they fail to remain clearly linked to those purposes. Collaborations often fail in this regard by defining the collaborations goals predominantly in terms of the partners interests. Collaboration goals are the results the collaboration intends to achieve through its efforts. Those results may be public purposes or social outcomes, or they may be actions intended to contribute to public purposes or social outcomes. In either case, they should be clearly defined, and preferably measurable, so the collaboration will be able to know if it is successful. Functional objectives include institutional or structural changes required to build civic capacity and accomplish substantive collaboration goals, and/or public purposes, for instance: Communication, including sharing information among partners; joint information gathering, research, and analysis; and sharing or promoting information and research with others Planning, policy development, decision-making, and/or advocacy, for the partners organizations, for a specific project or policy field, or for the government or community as a whole Pooling resources, such as money, goods, services, expertise, or information, including contributions of resources from one partner to another; exchange of resources among partners; joint development and/or use of organizational infrastructure and vendors; and contributions by partners to a mutual beneficiary Joint operations, including joint delivery of compatible or complementary services, and the intermingling of service operations If such functional activities are established as more or less permanent institutional changes, as opposed to being temporary activities required only to serve the collaborations larger goals, then they are contributing to the communitys overall stock of civic capacity. Organizational Missions and Interests. No institution or organization is interested in collaboration for its own sake, but rather to advance its mission. Collaboration goals and objectives and the ultimate public purposes they aim to achieve need to be clearly linked to the core missions of each partner. Such public purposes as economic prosperity and quality of life typically serve the interests of all three sectors. And all partners care about their reputations and maintaining the loyalty of key constituencies, including their employees. Successful collaborations also respect the need for each sector to promote or protect its own specific mission and interests. For example, businesses seek some combination of profit, growth, market share, shareholder value, and satisfied customers. Nonprofit organizations must look out for their constituencies and at least cover their costs. Governments must respect political interests, protect community values, and promote their definition of the common good. A successful collaboration begins by balancing these interests in the context of a dominating concern with achieving a public purpose. Mutual Planning for Performance Having concluded that they have compatible interests that can be linked through shared collaborative goals and functional objectives to a broader public purpose, the partners begin more detailed planning focused on defining and achieving performance. They may continue working through the original convener or other facilitator to guide the conversation toward a shared vision, strategy, theory of action, and agreement on basic responsibilities and relationships. The potential partners also assure that their respective organizations share compatible cultures, complementary capacities, and collective resources adequate to the common goal, and are aware of key organizational differences. The convener, facilitator, or some other third party may continue to play a role in shaping the conversation, developing the relationship, and facilitating negotiations among the partners. The partners need to agree on a performance model that is compatible with the cultures and core values of all three sectors, and which also serves the goals of the collaboration. This includes defining, linking, and where possible measuring: Intended results public purposes, collaboration goals and functional objectives Resources invested money and in kind contributions (inputs) Process by which those resources are employed (throughputs) Immediate results of the effort expended (outputs) Public purpose results to which the effort contributed (outcomes) Values, such as ethical behavior, openness, citizen engagement and respect for individual dignity Public purposes and collaboration goals and objectives should be clearly linked and expressed as specifically as is appropriate in terms of measurable results. The collaboration needs a theory of action or logic model that connects its goals, objectives and various activities with its ultimate public purposes. For instance, if the intended public purpose or social outcome is to reduce teen pregnancy, a second tier goal for the collaboration may be to provide counseling and support to first-time teen moms in order to discourage a second pregnancy. A functional objective may be to generate objective research data or improve communications to help other service organizations that counsel teen moms. If the collaboration chooses to focus on the functional objective of generating research data on teen pregnancy that will be helpful to other service organizations dedicated to reducing teen pregnancy, how can it assure that its research will be useful and accessible to the service organizations, and how will it determine whether the data were actually used in a manner that led to the reduction of teen pregnancy? Ideally, reliable performance data should be developed to measure these linkages, and periodically used to make objective assessments. If generating such data or undertaking formal assessments is impossible or unduly costly, at the very least the collaboration partners should clearly define how they expect these connections to be made in practice, and continually seek to test by whatever means available whether those connections are in fact being made and the intended public purpose is genuinely being served. The minimal test is for the partners to periodically ask themselves whether their efforts are genuinely contributing to, or likely to contribute to, the intended public purpose. Is our data really helping to reduce teen pregnancy, or likely to do so? Without such discipline, collaborations can wander into a preoccupation with the functioning of the collaboration itself, or with second or third tier goals and objectives, and lose sight of the public purpose for which it was initially created. Agreement on Basic Elements The partners, through a combination of conversation, exchange of materials, and negotiation, agree on the fundamental elements of the collaboration including: Public purposes, collaboration goals and functional objectives Overall strategy, theory of action and performance model Roles, responsibilities, and tasks of each partner Structure for organizing and managing the project and relationship among the partners Financial and in-kind support adequate to the undertaking Commitment from the top leadership of each organizational partner, and specification of who speaks for each partner, assuring that person has the support of top leadership Communication among partners and stakeholders, including effective public engagement that brings citizens into the process in a manner that will inspire their understanding and confidence in the collaboration Ethical principles which will govern the collaboration Trust among the partners, including intangible factors that add up to whether they have confidence in one another Assessment of progress toward goals by an objective source on a periodic basis and through an agreed upon means The agreement is then articulated in a joint statement, an exchange of letters, a memorandum of understanding, a formal contract, or through the creation of a new organization -- as appropriate to the circumstance and nature of the collaboration. Start-up The start-up phase of the collaboration is the first step in putting the operational design into practice. It requires mobilizing resources, people, financing, systems, logistics, and stakeholders, and effective communications to keep all partners and stakeholders informed and to explain the undertaking to a broader public. These crucial activities in the start-up phase of a collaborative often spell the difference between success and a stillborn effort, or one that will require costly correction of problems. Operation and management Once underway, collaborations need to be operated and managed in a professional manner, and in keeping with the initial agreement. Sustaining collaboration requires patience, discipline, energy, focus, adequate resources, skillful communication, and appropriate processes to build and main trust. Early and visible successes can be helpful in building confidence and support. Performance monitoring, communicating, learning, and improving Collaborations need to continually monitor their performance in order to know if they are on the right track, whether they are making a difference, and how they can improve. This is not just a matter of assuring that the partners are collaborating successfully, but that the collaboration is accomplishing its functional objectives, goals, and ultimately the public purpose for which the collaboration established in the first place. It requires ongoing monitoring by all the partners, and effective and open communication among them and with the public. It is also important not only to specify when and how progress will be more systematically assessed, but also to assure that the partners learn from the assessment and take appropriate action to improve the operation. If the partners are not collaborating successfully, why aren't they and what can be done about it? If they are working well together but not achieving their objectives, goals, and the intended public purposes, why not and what can be done about it? Termination or modification Collaborations should be terminated when their functional objectives, goals, and/or public purposes have been achieved; when an agreed upon time has elapsed and the partners no longer desire or are unable to continue; or when it is demonstrated to the partners satisfaction that success is highly unlikely or that it is no longer worth the effort or investment. Appropriate modifications in the collaboration should be considered as the need arises, but also following each periodic assessment of progress. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT George Bernard Shaw said that people deserve to be judged in the context of their times. In a similar vein, cross-sector collaborations need to do be understood and fashioned to work in their own particular contexts. Collaborations do not take place in a vacuum. They need to be grounded in specific places, be clear on the people who will be affected, understand the governance system or systems at play, and take account of the on-the-ground realities of specific institutions and organizations. Place A place is a geographical area where people live, work, shop, play, worship, learn, and socialize. Much of the discussion about cross-sector collaboration assumes a national context. Americans tend to talk about government, business, and nonprofit organizations on the usually unstated assumption that they are referring to American national institutions. However, most successful cross-sector collaborations, and certainly many of the more innovative and productive of them, occur at the state, local, and regional levels. Others are taking place on an international, transnational, or global basis. So a place can include a neighborhood, a locality, a region, a state, nation, an international region, or the globe. Place is important because despite increasing air travel and telecommunications, people continue to do things on the ground including taking off and landing in airplanes and communicating over cell phones and the Internet. Employment markets, commuting patterns, communications and advertising markets, transportation and energy grids, water and sewer sheds, and a wide variety of health, education, recreation and cultural activities and institutions all have delimited, if not necessarily coinciding, geographical boundaries, even with globalization and urban sprawl. In fact, one of the principal challenges to all three sectors and one of the major values of collaboration -- is to integrate the wide array of separate but interdependent services that people, families, and communities depend upon in any given place. Regions have particular salience in this regard, as discussed below. People If a place is a territory where people do things, then the people doing those things in that place -- the citizens, residents, and visitors -- provide the principal context and the essential concern of cross-sector collaboration. Typically the collaboration will focus on the specific concerns of a specific segment of that population. But the interests of the entire population need to be taken into account, both because they form the community for which the public purpose is defined (even if that purpose is to help improve life for a segment of the population), and because they constitute the reality of the public the collaboration must work with. The people in a given place may or may not think of themselves as a community, with a common history, experience, identity, culture, institutions, and social systems. But the collaboration needs to understand what it is that connects this particular collection of people, and build on those connections. And it needs to understand what divides them, or impedes them from acting as a community, and work to overcome those barriers. Governance System Whatever the place and whoever the people, there will be a governance system of some kind, however clear or vague, strong or weak, effective or inept. It is rare that a governance system will be a single government. Governance, after all, simply means the way in which a group defines its common purposes and attempts to achieve them. More likely, the governance system will be a collection of governments federal, state, county, municipal, regional, special purpose authorities, and perhaps even foreign and international government agencies along with a wide range of nongovernmental institutions that both influence public decisions and act to achieve public purposes. Governance systems today are complex and confusing. One reason for this is that there is a fundamental mismatch between the socio-economic agglomerations we call places, and the political boundaries often arbitrarily drawn by governments. Our governments are organized principally at the federal, state, and local levels, while society and the economy function principally at the global, regional, and neighborhood levels. This is one of the reasons that cross-sector collaborations are so important. Cross-sector collaborations provide a way to fashion horizontal relationships among government, business, and nonprofit organizations across political jurisdictions in the same socio-economic place even when that place is a crazy quilt of political jurisdictions. Cross-sector collaborations also provide a way of integrating efforts vertically among the national, state, regional, and local organizations that operate in any given place. This includes vertically structured governments, including federal, state, county, and municipal governments and their various functional divisions, such as transportation, education, health, and social services. And it also includes the vertically structured national organizations of business and nonprofit organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the National 4-H Club, which work through regional and local affiliates on projects in specific places. In fact, the grand challenge and the great promise -- of cross-sector collaboration, is to connect all three sectors across political boundaries within the same place, and at the same time connect the national, regional, and local organizations of all three sectors that affect the well being of that place. John Gardner, founder of Common Cause and Independent Sector, argues for a New Governance approach that would link all levels of government, all sectors, and all public systems in a comprehensive approach to solving public problems set in a regional context. Such broad-based collaborations featuring flexible and mutually respecting relationships under neutral auspices sounds complicated, he acknowledges. And yet citizens and officials all over the country are working on this. Institutions Context is also created by institutions and the thick networks of organizations and individuals that comprise them. Businesses, labor unions, media, financial institutions, schools and universities, hospitals, faith-based institutions, social service agencies, community service organizations, foundations, political organizations, neighborhood groups all form themselves into complex systems that address a wide variety of social needs. The institutional context of business, for example, includes investors, shareholders, boards of directors, managers, employees, suppliers and customers, who operate in markets and industries with competitors, stock indexes, quarterly performance reports, securities analysts, bond rating houses, and government regulatory agencies. The institutional context of governments includes a legislature, executive, and courts in tension with one another and often in conflict internally, operating in a political environment of citizens, voters, political parties, campaign funders, lobbyists, interest groups, media, and bond rating houses. The institutional context of nonprofit organizations, in addition to their governing boards, management, employees, volunteers, and constituencies includes an array of funding sources (fee-payers, governments, foundations, businesses, individuals), researchers, evaluators, and government officials checking on their tax status. And the institutional context of each sector is, in turn, intertwined with that of the other two. Organizations Peter Drucker has characterized the modern world as a society or organizations. Most cross-sector collaborations occur among organizations in the three sectors, specifically governments and government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. Organizations, however, vary widely in mission, size, complexity, and capacity. In fact, the differences among organizations within the same sector are often greater than the differences among the sectors themselves. Political scientist John Nalbandian pointed out that an organization like the University of Kansas, where he is a professor, is a large and substantial institution with established processes, procedures, and a long history. It is going to be there for a long time. By contrast, many neighborhood groups are fragile and temporary organizations that know little if anything about capital budgets, long range planning and merit systems. The challenge of collaboration is not just getting the three sectors to work together, but also getting these very different kinds of organizations, with quite different capacities, to work together. How do you get communication between institutions that have tremendous capacity, and temporary organizations that have tremendous energy and passion? An organization of any substantial size will be divided into organizational units that may take on strong identities and characteristics of their own. Many governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations are large, complex institutions in their own right. Some are structured in a vertical, hierarchical, stove-piped manner that is often at odds with the horizontal orientation of collaboration. Others are really loose coalitions of more or less autonomous organizational units. It is important for the partners in cross-sector collaborations to be clear on which organizational units they are dealing with. Who is the real partner, and has the authority to speak for the organization? For example, partnering with the mayor of a city may be of little value if the mayor is unable to get the support of the city council, or to effectively mobilize city departments to produce resources critical to the collaborations success. The same is true of corporations. Partnering with a corporate public affairs office may yield a different result than partnering with the marketing, research, product development, or human resource management division. Nor is it always certain that the CEO of a corporation or of a nonprofit organization can or will speak exclusively for the company if the CEO is unaware, unable, or unwilling to contend with the often conflicting policies of various corporate divisions that may run counter to the collaborations purposes. Organizations typically divide themselves into activities that are variously characterized as programs, lines of business, and processes. The principal activity units for implementing policy and achieving results in government agencies and nonprofit organizations are typically characterized as programs. The term is used less often in the business world, where line of business, product line, cost centers, and various other terms suggest comparable operating units and activities. Services may be a term that better spans the three sectors. A collaboration may actually be more interested in linking the processes of the partnering organizations. The point is to recognize that the importance of both specifying the points in each partnering organization that are to be linked by the collaboration, and the need to account for differences in vocabulary. The Salience of Regions Regions are of special importance to cross-sector collaboration principally because they constitute the de facto socio-economic places where most human activity. Some of the most innovative and constructive collaborations, moreover, are occurring at the regional level. Government, business, and nonprofit organizations in urban and rural regions throughout the country, and indeed throughout the world, are working out the practical relationships necessary to deal with their common problems. Regional leaders are searching for ways to solve problems that spill over city and county boundaries, because they have learned that communities working alone cant deal with such issues as job training, housing, traffic, youth development, reducing gang violence and crime. These problems do not respect local political boundaries. Nor are they limited to government, but also involve business and nonprofit organizations. They require a regional community collaborating and working together on a cross-sector regional basis. And this need has been intensified by the devolution of responsibility from Washington to state and local governments. Curt Johnson of the Citistates Group has described how regional cross-sector collaborations are being driven by the search for practical answers to problems across organizational boundaries: Seattles collaborative strategy is an effort to build firmer relationships and deepen the sophistication of their civic leadership about whats happening in the world. San Diego, which defines its regional concerns as crossing the border into Mexico, is working to connect schools, universities, and the business community to help people make career connections. Chicagos major new plan for the region, Metropolis 2020, is reminiscent of the historic Burnham Plan that transformed Chicago into a world-class metropolis a century ago. In Atlanta, business and environmental leaders supported the creation of a new regional governance structure, not because it arose out of a policy discussion, but because they didnt have any other choice. South Floridas efforts to collaborative across county lines, sector lines, and racial and ethnic lines might be viewed as a rehearsal for America given the regions challenges of aging, diversity, and congestion. Kansas City has consciously fostered a spirit of collaboration among government, business, and nonprofit organizations that has led to a wide variety of successful cross-sector collaborations. Viewing government, business and nonprofits in a regional context can help sort out the appropriate roles not only for each sector, but also for different organizations within each sector. For example, while fiscally squeezed local governments feel they must cut back social services in order to provide basic municipal services like roads and police, more affluent local governments in the same region may be able to afford both. Taken together, all the local governments in a region might better be able to provide municipal services without sacrificing important social services. Bob Kipp, Vice President of Hallmark Cards, pointed out that while the central city governments of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, both confront serious resource constraints that may require them to choose between basic municipal services and a broader array of social services, suburban governments in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area do not face such a dilemma, at least not to the same degree. So viewed from a regional perspective, perhaps local government does have the resources required to finance quality education and a full range of social services required to create a strong regional workforce. Some argue that the issue is not whether government can afford to provide certain services but whether they are institutionally designed to provide them. Viewing such issues in regional context (i.e. in its natural service area) can shed light on this issue as well. For example, when viewed in the regional context of training a skilled labor force and responsible citizens, education can be seen as a regional asset and a priority that requires collaboration among all three sectors on a regional basis. Curt Johnson argued the only way to break the political deadlock over the issue of education reform and use of school choice may be to place it in the regional context of how best to assure a quality workforce for the entire region. Regions are one of the prime contexts and hot spots for cross-sector collaboration largely because they are real places where people live and work, and because the institutional boundaries in regions are typically dramatically at odds with the reality of the problems people need to deal with. In this respect regions are also a metaphor for the rest of society. Everywhere we live, every place in which each of us is a citizen from the neighborhood to the city, county, state, nation, and indeed the globe is endlessly divided into functions and segments that need to be integrated if we are to solve common problems and make sense of life. Cross-sector collaboration is a means of integrating the citizens, organizations, and sectors in each of those regions, in each of those contexts. VISION, CLIMATE, AND CIVIC CAPACITY Successful collaborations require a vision that identifies important public purposes and puts them in context. Collaborative undertakings need to be of a scale that is appropriate to the need, to available resources, and to the temper of the times. Success also depends on a climate favorable to cross-sector collaboration, and on supportive civic capacity. Vision, Scale, and Strategy The vision that drives collaboration needs to be bold enough that it will make a difference and provide the motivation required to get the three sectors and the public engaged. Earl Walker, dean of the business school at Rockhurst University, argued that large and substantial as are some of Kansas Citys most successful collaborative achievements, such as the Union Station renovation and the Life Sciences Institute, these projects alone were not of a scale required by the challenges facing the community. If we are to become what Curt Johnson described as a place people want to head towards, as opposed to simply a place that people come from, the vision needs to be larger, more overarching, and involving. He acknowledged that visions are hard to forge, and that some people think it isnt worth the effort. But I think it is, and that a vision would be enabling and help to drive Kansas City into new directions. Curt Johnson agreed that Kansas City had done a good job of knitting together its cultural assets in the arts, and shown its talent for partnerships. He also noted that many regions around the country had succumbed to downsized expectations and boutique solutions: the expectation that we are all supposed to get a warm feeling if we clean up five urban blocks, or restore one wetland, or immunize kids in two school districts one fall. Weve lost the capacity for the broader vision and the bigger scale. By contrast, he noted, the Chicago region had organized a metropolitan vision that in some ways was as sweeping as the legendary Burnham plan for Chicago at the beginning of the 20th century. Bob Mann, of Bridging the Gap, agreed that the three sectors are relevant only to the extent that we have a bigger vision. He endorsed Kansas Citys Metro Outlook framework that included environmental, social, and economic systems in a broader vision. The overarching piece has to be the visioning and interplay of those three systems -- natural, social, and economic -- in defining quality of life. The problem, he said, is that we tend to view issues from only one perspective, such as youth, environment, basic services, and so on. But each of those issues involves all three systems. We tend to define the problems narrowly and then only later bring in partners from the various sectors in order to bridge the gap in what was faulty thinking at the outset. The trick is to begin defining the problems in a more comprehensive, balanced, and long-term manner. And we dont like doing that, especially if we are in government and driven by annual budgets, or in business and driven by quarterly profits statements. George Frederickson, professor of public administration at the University of Kansas, pointed out that in the 1960s virtually every city in the country, including Kansas City, faced a serious urban crisis. General critiques of that era by such people as David Rusk and Brian OConnell concluded that those regions that organized a more comprehensive regional government tended to improve their tax bases and their economic outlook, and did a better job of redistributing resources between the haves and the have-nots. Those regions that left in place suburban fragmentation encountered very heavy growth at the extremities of the metro area, and did not focus on the urban core and systems of controlling growth. I would suggest, he said, that such a change would have a longer-run and greater impact than incremental funding of a smaller program or nonprofit. Others argue that while the big scale approach is appropriate in certain circumstances, collaborative efforts need to be realistic in addressing problems, or parts of problems, that they can do something about and not underestimate the value of small, incremental steps. In the first place, small steps can produce real results that matter to the people who benefit from them. And small steps can pave the way for bigger projects. As Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes put it, I agree with the need for the larger vision, but we shouldnt be afraid to take the small steps that can lay the foundation for more ambitious efforts. Mayor Barnes cited a monthly gathering of all the mayors along the Kansas side of the state line plus herself, talking about ways to work together. We are starting small, with banners that can be placed along key intersections along the state line promoting the Missouri-Kansas state link. She noted that such efforts may invite criticism as being silly and unimportant, but they are the kinds of actions that can lay a foundation of cooperation that a few years down the road could produce more dramatic results. Cross-sector collaborations need to define a vision and scale appropriate to their circumstances. Bob Kipp of Hallmark Cards noted that one way to get the big picture is to decentralize, and create situations where many people can define their own big pictures on a neighborhood and local community basis. Once that happens neighborhood people not only have a more comprehensive idea of what they need in their own local communities, but they may also be better equipped to come together with their peers from other neighborhoods to define the big picture for the broader region. Clyde McQueen underscored the point by noting that many people who live in Kansas City, and especially people in disadvantaged positions, fear regionalization because they believe that their ideas and power will be diluted. A major challenge to cross-sector collaboration is to create the motivation for bold action in the absence of any motivating crisis. It seems that in the absence of visionary and skillful leadership, it takes a crisis before most places are prepared to act, or to support the leadership required to get action. Curt Johnson noted that the places that get written up as startling successes are almost always comeback stories, communities that hit the wall, hit bottom, and bounced back, such as Cleveland in the 70s and 80s. In South Florida, it took the devastation of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to get people to reach across lines to work together. How do you create a suitable civic substitute for crisis? The Climate for Collaboration Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to be successful in a supportive climate. For example, the Kansas City metropolitan area has been characterized as supportive of cross-sector collaborations because it has the following features: Changing leadership patterns in which the traditional elite leadership has learned to work effectively with leadership in other parts of the community. An example is the Local Investment Commission, where traditional leadership joins with leaders from neighborhoods, schools, and churches. Reservoir of social capital. Broadly shared norms, values, interconnections and webs of relationships that put a premium on civility and civic interaction, which has created a healthy reservoir of social capital. Change occurs through civil discourse, not open conflict. Shared vision, values, and a theory of change. Major planning studies in the last ten years have helped coalesce our vision of what the community wants to be. These are accompanied by common sense and willingness to pool resources. Mediating institutions, such as MARC, the Chamber of Commerce, Kansas City Consensus, and the Neighborhood Alliance, which provide a place for issues to be identified and for people to come together. Entrepreneurial leadership, that comes from all three sectors. Diverse mix of resources, including the right mix of public and private organizations. Philanthropic strength. Organizations that have not only invested in specific issues, but also in the capacity of the community to collaborate. Training assures individuals with the skills required to facilitate dialogue and carry out other functions in connecting and using these diverse resources.( Civic Capacity The elements of favorable climate in Kansas City constitute what is broadly called civic capacity, which has been variously defined. In 1982, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a policy research organization of business executives, defined civic foundations as including a commonly accepted vision of the community, building-block civic organizations that blend the self-interests of members with the broader interest of the community, a network among key groups that encourages communication and facilitates the mediation of differences, leadership, and the ability to nurture civic entrepreneurs, leaders whose knowledge, imagination, and energy are directed toward enterprises that benefit the community. In 1987 The National Civic League constructed a Civic Index defining key elements of civic infrastructure, including: citizens participation, community leadership, government performance, volunteerism and philanthropy, intergroup relations, civic education, community information sharing, capacity for cooperation and consensus building, community vision and pride, and regional cooperation. In 2000 the NCL updated the Civic Index to include a series of questions and capacities to help communities build their civic infrastructure. In the 1990s, the importance of civic capacity gained renewed visibility through the resurrection of the concepts of social capital and civil society, and growing awareness of the importance of culture in determining how economies, communities, and societies function. There is now widespread attention to an array of often interrelated factors such as community visioning and consensus-building, performance measurement, communication, campaign finance reform, civic journalism, community-based organizations, corporate social responsibility, business civic involvement, organizational learning, networks of leaders, leadership, community learning, political dialogue and discourse, direct democracy, e.government, and the various related arts of democracy. All of these are important dimensions of civic capacity, and worthy targets of cross-sector collaboration. Building supportive civic capacity and a favorable climate is a first step toward creating successful cross-sector collaborations. This is something of a chicken and egg situation, since the most important factor in a climate favorable to collaboration is a history of successful collaborations. One way to build a supportive climate is through successful collaboration. It brings people and organizations from different and often isolated but interdependent organizations and communities together to accomplish mutually desirable goals, and thereby builds trust and habits of cooperation, that is, the social that capital facilitates collaboration. Successful cross-sector collaboration and a supportive climate for collaboration constitute a self-reinforcing virtuous circle. ACHIEVING PUBLIC PURPOSES: PERFORMANCE-BASED COLLABORATION Successful cross-sector collaborations are performance-based in that they clearly define the public purpose to which they are committed and then drive the collaboration toward to the accomplishment of that purpose. They need to serve the public interest by focusing on an important and widely accepted community need or social outcome with beneficial consequences for the whole community, or for a segment of the population whose particular circumstance is important to the whole community. The Range of Public Purposes Cross-sector collaborations have addressed a wide array of public purposes, including the following: Economic Prosperity. Economic development, quality investment, high paying jobs, innovation, entrepreneurship, the availability of capital, knowledge and skilled workforce, as well as knowledgeable, skillful and demanding consumers. Education and Human Investment. Prenatal care, early childhood development, kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12), college, graduate education, technical and job-related training, school- to-work transition, continuing on-the-job and professional training, continuing civic education, and life-long learning for job-related, civic, and personal purposes. Livable Communities. Clean environments, open space, land trusts, historical places, cultural resources, protecting neighborhoods, smart growth and controlling sprawl, sustainable development -- good places to live, work, shop, play, worship, and learn. Diversity and Justice. Equal opportunity, inclusion for everyone in civic life, attention to disparities in wealth and income, educational opportunity, environmental justice, feeding the hungry, assisting immigrants, helping at risk youth, the role of faith-based organizations, closing the digital divide, and specific needs of minorities, people of color, and distressed children, families and communities. Physical Infrastructure. Transportation, water resources management, energy, housing, including both the gray infrastructure of the manmade world and the green infrastructure of the natural world. Serving citizens with efficient, effective, responsive public services such as police and fire protection, health care, social services and state-of-the-art licensing and regulatory processes. Institutions, including government, business, nonprofit, philanthropic, educational, and cultural institutions, and civic capacity, civic infrastructure, social capital, civil society, and citizenship. Indeed, there are few public purposes cross-sector collaborations have not addressed, or for which they may be inappropriate, and little on the public agenda that is beyond the bounds of possible partnerships. What is common to all of these public purposes is that they involve complex arrangements requiring the contribution of organizations and individuals in government, business, and nonprofit organizations. Nor is it clear that some public purposes are more appropriate for cross-sector collaborations than others. Identifying appropriate targets of opportunity appears to be situational; it depends on what is important to a given community at a given time, and whether cross-sector approaches would be necessary or helpful. However, given the ambiguity of changing relationships among the sectors, and given the contemporary climate of public skepticism and mistrust, cross-sector collaborations are most likely to avoid problems of perception and abuse by sticking to purposes widely recognized and accepted by the public. Following are illustrative public purposes suitable for cross-sector collaborations. Quality of Life In determining that increasing the quality of life for everyone was the top priority in the Kansas City region, the Mid-America Regional Councils Metro Outlook asked citizens three questions: what do you regard as priorities for a high quality of life; which factors most need improvement; and which factors require public attention. Survey respondents identified many quality of life factors, such as loving relationships with ones family, to be private responsibilities. Similarly, many of the factors most needing improvement, such as savings for the future and time for family and self, were principally the responsibility of individuals and private institutions. But most of the factors thought to need improvement required a mix of contributions from government, business, and nonprofit organizations, including those placed squarely on the public agenda as most needing attention by area leaders: education, health care quality/accessibility, violence, illegal drugs, public transit, /buses/rail, maintaining existing roadways, poverty, air quality and the environment, Elma Warrick of the Kansas City Board of Education underscored the importance of specifying who is the target of efforts to improve the quality of life. It is startling that as I listen to this conversation about quality of life, she said, to reflect on the fact that there are 4,000 homeless students in the Kansas City school system. Only a few community organizations like the Kauffman Foundation, she pointed out, responded to a 1999 report that demonstrated the depths of the problems facing the public school system. How can we say we want quality of life for everyone when one of the critical institutions in this city is limping along near death, and we cant seem to get the community motivated to do anything about it. Nearly every discussion of the challenge facing the nation and its communities comes back to education. Education and Human Investment Education is widely viewed as not only important in its own right, but key to producing multiple benefits including productive workers, responsible citizens, and successful adults. Knowledge and learning are the epicenter of the new knowledge-based economy and society. Until the 1980s, public education generally was viewed as formal schooling from kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) for nearly everyone, plus college for some, and graduate education for a few. Today, the concept of education has expanded to include human investment across the life span. In essence, education has become a label for a new mindset and culture of pervasive and continuous learning in a knowledge-based world. As the concept of education has expanded, the roles of the three sectors in providing education have changed. Government-operated public schools have assumed socializing responsibilities once the principal domain of the family, neighborhood and nonprofit organizations. For example, many governments have adopted an integrated approach to the operation of school facilities to promote community uses in addition to education, such as providing students with a place to hang out during after-school hours in order to provide adult supervision absent at home because their parents are working. Business has taken a stronger role in structuring schools for performance, principally to guarantee a supply of capable workers. And both nonprofit and for profit organizations have more aggressively entered the field of operating K-12 schools, through contracting, charter schools, or vouchers. In the meantime, shifting economic and fiscal patterns have challenged traditional means of financing education. Some states claim that their inability to tax purchases over the Internet will undermine the sales tax, which has been a principal source of revenue to finance education (although some businesses counter that they stand prepared to help government organize Internet sales taxation, but simply have not been asked to do so). A few states, such as New Hampshire, have no sales tax, but may be compelled to consider adopting one due to court orders finding the traditional property tax an inappropriate (unequal and/or unconstitutional) means of supporting public education. Nearly all state and local governments view advances in technology produced by the private sector as an essential component of education. For example, New Hampshire Governor Shaheen reflected the views of most governors in characterizing education as the single most important priority in an era when economies of skill are more important than economies of scale, and committed New Hampshire to connecting all its schools and libraries to the Internet. She praised Governor Angus King of Maine for advocating a laptop for every 7th grader. The nonprofit sector also recognizes the central and multiple purposes of education for a healthy community. For example, civic leaders in Kansas City examined the Smart Start early childhood education (0-K) as practiced in North Carolina. Recognizing that building the capacity to educate children required informed citizens willing to invest in education, philanthropies in Kansas City supported a community education campaign using up-to-date techniques of media, political campaigning, and social marketing to make the case to the public. Protecting Neighborhoods and Building Community Concerns about the negative impacts of sprawl are endemic in metropolitan areas. Governments, businesses and nonprofit organizations throughout the country are engaged in a conversation about Smart Growth, or how to balance economic growth and the protection of the environment, neighborhoods, and other quality of life values. The challenge of balancing development with neighborhood values is not confined to suburban and exurban areas, but is also present in central cities. Hopeful signs of revitalization also raise concerns that development initiatives will take place at the expense of local residents, as they did in the heyday of urban development in the 1951. Today those concerns are likely to be expressed as environmental justice, or neighborhood disruption. And the developer is as likely to be a nonprofit organization as a government or business. For example, a community in Rochester, New York, felt threatened by a major development proposed by the University of Rochester, according to Willie Lightfoot, a County Legislator from Monroe County, New York and neighborhood leader. The Genoese River divides the community. On one side is the university, and on the other side are neighborhood housing and a park. The university proposed using some of the parkland to build a hotel and closing a boulevard that crosses the bridge leading to the universitys hospital. Five nonprofit neighborhood organizations joined together as the Common Council, to oppose the project. The city government was also involved. Councilman Lightfoot expressed concern that the university was not accounting for the interests of the neighborhood, and that African-Americans like me will need a badge to walk through the project when its finished, unless action is taken to resolve points of dispute and determine how can we get through this thing so that everybody feels good about it. The challenge of strengthening central city neighborhoods is high on the agenda of philanthropic organizations and has produced comprehensive collaborations among nonprofit organizations, governments, and businesses to build community in distressed areas. Economic Restructuring in Rural Areas Many of the nations rural areas have suffered decline as people and businesses have moved to urban areas. For example, Buena Vista, Idaho, is a town of 10,000 residents that is highly dependent on two food processing companies that together employee about 2,600 people. Jim Gustafson, a county supervisor in Buena Vista, was concerned that declining union strength and increasing immigration had permitted the companies to lower workers salaries and benefits. For example, he reported, companies provided mental health insurance only for mangers and not for workers, while providing alcohol and drug abuse treatment coverage for workers only after an employee has been employed six years, and basic health insurance only after six months. One consequence, he said, was that our community was getting taxed to the limit to support government and nonprofit services not covered by company benefits. Supervisor Gustafson, got the Board of Supervisors to pass a nonbonding resolution asking the companies to improve things, despite their fears it would have a negative impact on our business image. Things improved a little bit, he said, in part because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) stepped in to curb the use of illegal immigrant labor, and in part because the labor pool had gotten tighter as the national economy boomed. One company began to provide health coverage after three months rather than six. But he wondered if there was not a better way to handle such problems through negotiation among all the parties. National Civic League President Chris Gates suggested that such complex issues are precisely the kind that required a new approach to collaboration and constructive problem solving among the three sectors. They are better served, he said, by a consensus-building, or collaborative problem-solving approach, rather than a traditional adversarial style. They require getting better information on the real economic tradeoffs and understanding the barriers to a company or a large nonprofit behaving in a more socially responsible manner. And they often require special skills, such as trained facilitators to help community groups work with governments, businesses and nonprofits to negotiate solutions and develop more collaborative approaches. Serving Citizens Satisfying citizens as customers of government is important not only in its own right, but also because it is central to restoring public confidence in government. Government has abundant opportunities to improve service to citizens by adopting best practices and innovative ideas from other governments, and by engaging business in bringing state-of-the-art technology and service methods to the public sector. Improvements in service in the private sector in recent years, due in large measure to skillful application of new technology, have magnified the relatively poorer service levels offered by too many government agencies. Rich Roberts, CEO of Link2Gov Corporation, noted that in the private sector the point of sale in individual purchasing transactions had shifted from person-to-person to mail in the 1950s; to greater use of the telephone in the 80s; to interactive voice response telephone in the 90s; and most recently to the Internet. Many governments, however, seem to be stuck back at the person-to-person transaction stage. The potential for better service and reduced costs, he claimed, is enormous. For example, using mail to process drivers licenses costs $8-10 per transaction, whereas to do it electronically would cost less than $1 per transaction. Florida has 14 million motor vehicles with a renewal rate of 10 percent per year. Mr. Roberts estimated the potential cost savings for Florida in moving from mail to electronic processing of drivers licenses at about $7 million per year. Other states, he said, have already gone further. For example, Alaska, which is in the front tier of e-governance, charges a $10 inconvenience fee if you come to the point of sale for an in-person transaction, just as some banks did in providing ATM service free but charging $3 to use a teller. Clear voice recognition will soon be state-of-the-art, and could further revolutionize service operations by combining the power of telephone and computer. Closing the Digital Divide While the economic boom of the 1990s increased general prosperity, the benefits of income and wealth have not been equally distributed. Moreover, to the extent the new prosperity depends on knowledge and technology, disparities in the distribution of high technology and related skills or the digital divide -- could sustain or worsen that inequality. The digital divide can be seen most dramatically on an international scale. Rich Roberts said Link2Gov Corporation estimates that one-half of the worlds population has yet to make its first telephone call. In South America, only 4-6 percent of the population has Internet access, compared to some 139 million Americans and Canadians. The plus side for the less-developed countries is that they may be able to leap frog intermediate technologies to more advanced technologies, such as the use of cellular phones. Even in the United States, he estimates one-third of North Carolinas population and 20 percent of New Yorkers still have a rotary dial phone (although many of those same homes also have key pad phones, and most people have access to key pad pay telephones). Some companies, such as Link2Gov Corporation, are in the process of creating telephone interactive call centers for rotary dial phones to access this population. The problem is complicated by the fact that the standard method of payment on the Internet is the credit card, so the poor, who are less likely to have credit cards, are at a double disadvantage. The digital divide also has implications for democratic governance. For example, would voting over the Internet be unfair to those without Internet access, and widen the gap between the higher proportions of the rich than the poor who actually vote? Jan Kreamer said the Kansas City Community Foundation believes the answer to such questions lies in a broad strategy of civic engagement to move people from a passive to an engaged role, in part by providing them better and more timely and user-friendly information. Feeding the Hungry Food banking is a classic example of how creative and productive relationships among the three sectors can accomplish so fundamental a public purpose as helping people get basic nutrition. Food banking began in the 1970s as a partnership among nonprofits, community groups and the private sector, supported by a federal grant. A 1977 national hunger study provided a base for much of the national food banking enterprise. Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina, North Carolina, is a nonprofit wholesale regional supplier of resources to other nonprofit retail direct service agencies helping people in need. The main source of resources is the food industry itself. Second Harvest distributes 500,000 lbs of grocery products every month from its warehouse to some 475 agencies in 17 counties in the Charlotte/Menklenburg region, including 15 in North Carolina and 2 in South Carolina. The warehouse is owned and maintained by Menklenberg County (in which the city of Charlotte is located). It was built brand new as a food bank warehouse in the late 1980s. Anne Register, Executive Director of Second Harvest, says the nonprofit food bank could not possibly operate on its own, and works well with business and with governments at all levels. For example, it worked with the local department of social service to produce a brochure to help people know when they are eligible for food stamps and how to get them. It developed a statewide coalition with six other food banks to persuade the North Carolina General Assembly to provide funding to secure nutritious food products for needy people. Food banking also has developed a sophisticated network across the country and up to the national level. Americas National Harvest, a national network of food banks, helps some 50,000 charities across the United States. Headquartered in Chicago, Americas National Harvest has a staff of public policy experts who are frequently in Washington working with Congress, and with such federal organizations as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the national level. Food bank experts are frequently asked to contact elected officials to provide information. BUILDING THE CAPACITY TO COLLABORATE Successful cross-sector collaboration requires capacity, and different kinds of collaboration require different kinds of capacities. Capacity is the wherewithal what it takes -- to get a job done. It includes, among other things, people, money, skills, technology, authority, legitimacy, power, relationships, and other resources, tools, and instruments. The philosopher Richard Rorty said, My candidate for the most distinctive and praiseworthy human capacity is our ability to trust and to cooperate with other people, and in particular to work together so as to improve the future. That is the essential capacity in cross-sector collaboration. Three broad kinds of capacity are required for successful cross-sector collaboration. The first is for each sector to have the capacity to perform its own core roles and achieve its primary missions successfully. Organizations incapable of performing their own roles well are not likely to make good partners. The second is civic capacity, which was discussed earlier as critical to providing a favorable climate for collaboration. And the third kind includes capacities required to initiate and successfully execute specific cross-sector collaborations. Following are key elements of this third kind of capacity. Leadership Successful cross-sector collaboration requires leadership. Someone needs to take the initiative to identify a public purpose a common problem, need, opportunity, or aspiration -- recognize the value or necessity of getting the sectors together to solve it, convene the players, fashion a collaboration, mobilize the necessary resources, assure that the operation is well managed, and in the end see that the intended goals and results are achieved. That is a tall order. And while no single person or organization necessarily needs to lead on all of those tasks, someone needs to address each of them. Who is to do it? And what kinds of skills does it require? To get a collaboration started requires someone with the vision to recognize the value of getting the sectors together, and the legitimacy, prestige, resources, and/or moral authority to convene the key groups. The possession of those abilities can vary from place to place, over time, and according to the issue at hand. Leadership can from the any level, from the national to the neighborhood. Terry Woodbury of United Way in Wyandotte County, Kansas cited the example of Colin Powell, joining with five presidents of the United States, to challenge the government, nonprofit and private sectors to come together around the issue of quality of life for families and children in the initiative known as Americas Promise. In Kansas City, two mayors responded to that challenge by bringing delegations from their respective sides of the Kansas-Missouri state line to work together as a metropolitan area, rather than affiliate with their respective states. That encouraged people from all sectors across the region to come together every sixty days for two years, to fashion an approach to this problem. And that collaboration, in turn, produced 900 promises of volunteerism and intersected interests around children and families. The Kauffman Foundation and others have supported the effort. It is a wonderful example, he said, of how a national partnership initiated from the private sector became a metropolitan partnership in this city. Leadership can also come from the local level, including from ordinary citizens. Terry Woodbury noted that the successful effort to achieve a unified government for Wyandotte County, Kansas was initiated by two citizens who simply decided it was something that needed to be done. Leadership can come from any of the three sectors. New Hampshire Governor Shaheen believed that government had a responsibility to take the initiative. However, her experience also demonstrated the importance of bringing business to the table as partners early on, both for their own expertise and resources and because their presence is critical in getting other top players to the table. And it is equally important, and no small challenge, she said, to keep them at the table, in part by recognizing their frustration with the pace of government. Bob Allen of Duke Power felt that in his community the business community is in a unique position to call people together because they are seen as a more neutral party than the nonprofit or government sectors. The problem is that business leaders are often reluctant to take the initiative because they are often made to feel unwelcome addressing certain community issues. Much depends on the issue. For example, business has been welcome in education reform, he said, but at other times business is accused of trying to run government and the nonprofit sector. By contrast, Bruce Romer believed that business is the least likely of the three sectors to take the initiative in Montgomery County, Maryland. There are few solid, big corporate firms there, he said, while the many new firms in the biotech and info-tech industries are so busy inventing the genome, that they really have not focused on community issues. Rather it is the nonprofit sector that is most likely to see the need and urgency for action. He cited the recent formation of a nonprofit alliance focused on developing the economy, technology, and human capital as an example. Anne Register of Second Harvest Food Bank noted that the nonprofit sector is usually in the position of asking for something, and so may often take the lead in getting things started. Business is then welcomed to the table, she said, and many good citizens in the business community want to adopt our cause. The key is for business leaders to avoid appearing to try to take over a project or impose their notion of how best to solve the problem or set up and run a collaboration. Her community has also discovered that it is best to include everyone likely to be involved in a project right from the outset, no matter who takes the initiative, so that all feel a part of it and can have their views voiced from the very beginning. Leadership, in fact, not only can come from any of the three sectors, but also from all three in a kind of leadership of the whole. Bob Kipp said that the key to successful collaboration and partnership is to recognize the different characteristics of the three sectors. In the best partnership each of the partners retains its own identity, but all come together for a purpose. He cited the Union Station renovation in Kansas City as an excellent example of such collaboration. It brought together very different points of view on how you conduct affairs and arrive at decisions. So each sector had to agree on a way to work together just to find a way to work together. Consequently, as important as who takes the lead is how they lead. Barbara Dyer, president of the Hitachi Foundation, observed that new economy firms emphasize speed, accuracy, and results. So when successful entrepreneurs turn their attention to changing society, they tend to have little patience with institutions of government and nonprofits, especially if they are the principal financial donors. In fact, business leadership often wants to bypass those institutions to get results more rapidly. This can create tension and misunderstanding among leaders in the three sectors, and risks preventing government and nonprofits from playing their critical roles as stewards of the public. Jan Kreamer of the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation confirmed that such tensions exist, and saw them as opportunities. The new corporate donors, she said, bring valuable new attitudes, new enthusiasm and a penchant for action; we can do something, they stress. Veteran players in philanthropy and nonprofits need that energy and the accountability that comes from being challenged to produce real results, faster and better. And the best of them like it! It is useful to have generous, hard-nosed types who also have compassion, commitment and a sense of urgency, she said. They may be suits, but they dont care any less. The trick is to combine this new energy with a measure of reason and its own accountability to assure that the action is respectful of critical values that philanthropic and nonprofit organizations need to observe. Rich Roberts of Link2Gov Corporation confirmed that the impatience of many of his colleagues in business inclines them to want to bypass government. His business, by contrast, sees government as a valued customer -- and a steady source of income. He would urge business leaders to recognize that certain foundation blocks rooted in the public and nonprofit sectors serve to anchor the good intentions and action-orientation of business people. These include the need for consensus and stability. The good steward in business will work to spread fixed costs over numerous government customers, and serve all of those customers well by maintaining state-of-the-art technology and business practices in the goods and services they provide government. Governor Shaheen was encouraged with a new leadership style she has seen emerge in the public sector over the past five years or so: more pragmatic, flexible, consensus building, and willing to do things differently. Gail Christopher, director of the Ford Foundation-Kennedy School Innovations in American Government Project, argued for a new type of leadership with a different skill-set from the past. Effective leaders today, she said, need to set aside old stereotypes about the three sectors. The central challenge is to find new leaders who understand the new realities of how the economy, society, and government function in fact. An example noted by Duke Powers Bob Allen is that many problems are global and regional rather than just local, and because business leaders operate on these scales they can bring a valuable perspective on such issues. The scope of problems, and the fact that there are so many voices that want to be heard, argues for community wide planning, rather than just expecting government to solve problems. Differences in leadership style, perspective, and organizational culture, in sum, can produce tensions, but also offer opportunities to tap and blend a variety of strengths. The key seems to be to assure that all the key players are at the table, and that at least some of the key leaders, or third parties, have the special skills required to convene and facilitate a diverse group of people from different organizational cultures who are not familiar with one another. Citizenship If leadership is required to get a cross-sector initiative off the ground and to shepherd it through to a successful conclusion, citizenship is required to provide the base, support, and action arm of leadership. Leadership and citizenship are closely linked. Effective leadership is often in short supply because citizens are not inclined to support it. Chris Gates of the National Civic League pointed out that while everybody says they want it, when leaders step up to take responsibility, we immediately start to tear them down. After years of being a critic of government, Curt Johnson became chief of staff to the governor of Minnesota and discovered that government is a lot harder than it looks. Many people come into government prepared to make major changes, but they are advised by attorneys and others to just shepherd things through, abide by the existing guidelines, and dont stir up any more trouble than necessary. You find yourself shying away from taking on the big problems with all that entails, and just trying to get through without getting killed. He suggested the root of the problem might be that citizens are ambivalent about government: We arent sure if government is the problem or the solution. Citizenship can refer to the citizens of a given to community, to individuals who are also citizens within participating organizations, or organizations themselves as citizens working with a broader collaboration of other organizations. The central feature of citizenship in each case is the responsibility of the member to the group. The Conference Board has noted that some companies see corporate citizenship as a way to integrate different concepts of management that refer to different corporate constituents, for example, customer relations, employee relations, public relations, investor relations, government relations, community relations, supplier relations, and media relations. The renewed focus on the corporate brand is not just a marketing device, but also an attempt to provide a symbol and highlight performance expectations that can connect the different elements and constituents of the corporation. The concept of corporate citizenship can help connect the different elements of corporate activity that bear on community involvement and social responsibility, such as government relations, direct charitable contributions, contributions in kind, employee volunteerism, environmental impacts, public relations, marketing, workplace practices, and ethical practices. How a corporation defines these relations will play a major role in whether they view cross-sector collaborations as an opportunity to achieve broad corporate and social goals of community improvement, pursue more narrowly defined marketing objectives, or simply do the minimum necessary to avoid the negative reputation of not caring about the community. Businesses can also play an important role in encouraging their employees to become more active citizens in the community. Some firms provide space in their facilities for community volunteer centers enabling their employees to volunteer. This can also commit the company to the notion that volunteering is important to employees, to the community, and to the firm itself. For example, Duke Energy provides an electronic bulletin board, matching specific employees with specific volunteer opportunities. The North Carolina Business Association for Education works with businesses to encourage their employees to get involved in the education of their children, and to serve as mentors for other children. But as firms downsize, they have fewer employees available to volunteer, at least during business hours. One way nonprofits can compensate is by working harder to establish contact and better ties with the growing number of small and medium size firms. Knowledge and Understanding Cross-sector collaborations need a solid base of knowledge about economic and social trends in general and about conditions in the specific context in which they operate. For example, in order to break down barriers to collaboration and improve understanding of common challenges facing the region, the Mid-America Regional Council in Kansas City created a tool called Metro Outlook to provide a base of information. Metro Outlook is organized around the principle of promoting a rising quality of life for everyone in the Kansas City metropolitan area. This was the priority concern identified through surveys and conversations with citizens throughout the region. To achieve this, the Council believes, requires giving balanced attention to distinct but interrelated social, economic, and natural systems. The intent is for Metro Outlook to: 1) create a framework to organize and contain the regions data and information; 2) deepen understanding about the components of regional progress; 3) coherently communicate that understanding; 4) suggest higher leverage policy interventions; and 5) tighten the linkage between policy and consequences. Terry Ward of H & R Block in Kansas City agreed that the regions Metro Outlook data base provides valuable information, but he also argued for better information, knowledge, and understanding about specific segments of the community, such as parents, families, and neighborhoods. We are assuming that there are institutions serving such people, but we really dont know who is being served, he argued, due to a lack of clear definitions, and specific information on the situation and needs of such groups. Collaborations also need information on both successful and unsuccessful experience elsewhere, including best practices (or helpful practices) and pitfalls to be avoided in specific kinds of collaborations in specific contexts and circumstances. Perhaps most important, stakeholders in all three sectors need to develop a mutual understanding of one another, and their respective agendas, cultures, and operating practices. There is a substantial gap in knowledge and understanding about the cultural differences among government, business, and nonprofit organizations. It can be especially difficult for the three sectors to understand the incentives and related time perspectives of the others. For example, people in government can fail to appreciate the intense pressure on businesses and to some extent nonprofit organizations -- to generate revenue through the sale of their products. Government officials are more accustomed to receiving an allocation of funds each year and being responsible for how it is spent. Business people, by the same token, can fail to understand the complexity of political forces that government leaders need to contend with in securing the funds they need to do their jobs through a politically charged budget process and in operating in an arena of intense media attention and contesting interest groups. The three sectors also tend to work in different time perspectives. Businesses are driven by strategic objectives, economic and product cycles, and frequent performance reporting. Governments tend to be driven by election cycles, budget cycles, and news and polling cycles. Nonprofits tend to be driven by varying time cycles of various constituent cultures and by their own and donor funding cycles. These and other timing factors shape daily operations and cultures that can be strikingly different. Sharing information about each sector with the others can help build mutual understanding, and can also be helpful to each sector in its efforts to improve its own performance and learn how to operate in a more complex and rapidly changing environment. Government and nonprofit organizations could benefit from learning about advanced businesses practices in planning, financial management, information management, procurement and outsourcing, and performance-based management in general. All three sectors could probably learn from one another in the areas of human resources management, team building, ethics and cross-boundary collaboration within organizations and service industries. Communication and Network Management Specific skills are required to initiate collaborations and guide them through the various stages to full operation or completion, including the management of networks, and means of achieving better communications and interactions among diverse groups. These skills include visioning, strategic planning, convening, facilitating, deliberating, attentive listening, consensus building, brokering, mediating, negotiating, contracting, monitoring, evaluating, assessing, reflecting, learning and collaborative problem-solving . Traditional methods of civic dialogue tend to be inadequate to these and related tasks, and frequently are counterproductive. For example, traditional public meeting formats such as public hearings are structured in a manner that promotes adversarial relationships. New approaches are required that encourage more constructive and fluid communication, and facilitate consensus-building and collaborative problem solving. All the stakeholders on a given issue need to come together in a safe civic space to address common concerns in an informal, non-confrontational way. Each should have the opportunity to say: here are my concerns, here are my interests, here is what Im worried about, and here is what I would like to see happen. One of the clearest messages that arose from the series of dialogues was the need for radically improved methods of community dialogue. Willie Lightfoot, the County Legislator from Monroe County, New York whose neighborhood was threatened by a university development, highlighted this point: What made me get up when you were talking about getting everybody involved, was that we tried to do that in our community with a town meeting. The idea was to make sure everybody was involved, from all five neighborhoods. But something seemed wrong about it. Maybe because everybody wasnt really involved. People still feel they are getting shut out. Chris Gates acknowledged that words like town meeting and strategic planning were losing their meaning, or were being co-opted for inappropriate purposes. Leaders in one community the National Civic League worked with worried that if we propose another strategic plan people are going to go berserk! So the Civic League worked with the community to organize an initiative called the community conversations project, where people get together to talk, but do not necessarily engage in planning. Bruce Romer noted that traditional public meetings and public hearings are structured on a we-they arrangement that promotes an adversarial relationship. Even the room arrangement and format -- where one person presents a position and then the audience reacts -- tends to foster confrontation. Montgomery County, Md. created a new approach called an open house, designed to encourage more constructive and fluid communication on given subjects. The room is set up as an open house where people move from table to table to learn about different dimensions of a project, and they use that opportunity to make their points about the project at those various stations, he explained. At the end of the day there is more consensus than you might realize, and you avoid the adversarial atmosphere of the traditional public meeting. The problem faced by Buena Vista, Idaho, in balancing economic growth with social equity also underscored the need for a new approach to community dialogue. As Chris Gates noted, taking on the biggest employer in town is never an easy task. In fact, it is precisely such difficult, complicated, textured, complex situations that do not respond well to formal, zero-sum processes that depend on Roberts Rules of Order, motions, resolutions, ordinances, and the like. To address such circumstances, he said, many communities have turned to other processes that are consensus-based, such as facilitated collaborative problem solving. Janine Lee of the Kauffman Foundation agreed that the ability to discuss issues with civility is good. She cautioned, however, that civility should not be permitted to sacrifice candor, which is essential in getting to the bottom of what is really standing in the way of progress. The idea of having a high premium on civility, she said, sometimes prevents us from saying the things that need to be said. We need to be able to talk about the issues of race, for example. Clyde McQueen stressed the importance of finding ways of meaningfully engaging poor people in the civic dialogue. Many people in poor areas, especially in the central cities, are not engaged in civic life, and lack the skills to effectively promote their own interests. Part of the problem is simply lack or resources. Individual donors are more inclined to give more to things like symphonies than to social services or programs designed to build capacity in distressed communities. How do we engage those people in the civic discourse, he asked, in a way that permits them to feel comfortable in talking about their needs, and then translate their needs into public policy. Industry and Service System Structure Well-designed markets, industries, social service systems, and policy arenas can channel the energies of each sector with a minimum of conscious collaboration, and help focus intentional cross-sector collaboration on necessary and manageable goals. The process of structuring such systems itself can often benefit from, and occasionally require, cross-sector collaboration. Designing effective systems can be a collaborative venture in which government solicits the advice of business and nonprofit organizations, so long as the process is carried out within the legitimate political framework of democratic government. For example, the move toward privatization and deregulation requires skillful structuring in order to ensure competition that motivates higher service and lower costs. The experience with the deregulation of energy in California reflects the importance of integral and comprehensive system design. The issue is not simply whether to privatize, deregulate, or employ the various tools of competition but rather how to do so effectively. Businesses and nonprofits regularly complain about the government regulations and the reporting and paperwork requirements imposed by government contracting. Such regulations, they claim, are barriers to successful collaboration. Government often gets tied up in its own red tape. Bruce Romer described how Montgomery County, Maryland tried to cut through the time consuming procedures involved in hiring short-term government employees by negotiating a broker contract with the countys nonprofit Mental Health Association. The county asked the association to develop a list of people with the kinds of expertise potentially needed, and then simply contracted with the association to hire the people the county needed. Its working, he said, but it also invited a whole new wave of critics, including our public employee unions who dont like what were doing because they view it as a way to avoid union positions. No good deed goes unpunished, but we continue to try. Performance and Accountability Performance-based collaboration requires means of defining performance, monitoring progress, and establishing accountability for results. Defining performance begins by establishing a clear link between the public purposes to be served, the collaborations goals and functional objectives, and the missions and interest of the partners. Accountability for performance also requires establishing a way of assessing progress, tracking costs, and of holding partners accountable for living up to their obligations, and the collaboration as a whole accountable for results. Addressing these factors with clarity is important in resolving different perceptions of performance in the different cultures of business, nonprofits, and nonprofits. Businesses tend to be performance, or results-oriented (effectiveness), and usually define results in terms of costs associated with measurable accomplishment: what was achieved at what cost, and what is the ratio of results to investment (efficiency, productivity, return on investment)? Rich Roberts of Link2Gov Corporation said his accountability as a businessman begins with the fact that his investors demand a return on their investment in his company. He is also accountable to his customers, including governments: the free market determines the next firm to be contracted by any government for whom he works. But businesses themselves define results and costs in various ways. And as noted earlier, in todays turbo-charged performance culture businesses may be under intense pressure to define their performance in a manner that can take an extremely narrow and short-term view of the proverbial bottom-line, a position that may even be counterproductive to the companys long-term interest or entail a degree of risk that may be appropriate for business but is unacceptable to government or nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits are also generally concerned with both results and costs, but are more inclined to view performance in terms of effort expended in behalf of constituents (throughputs and values). One of the principal challenges for nonprofits today is to balance the need and desire for financial resources with a commitment to core mission, especially when funding sources tempt them to deviate from their mission. Governments are far more inclined to define performance in terms of resources expended (inputs) and compliance (throughputs and values). The resources are typically defined in line-item budgets as dollars and staffing, and provide elected officials and budget managers with tangible factors for making decisions and tracking accountability. Compliance requires following laws, rules, procedures, and budget instructions in a manner that respects public values, avoids legal and technical violations, satisfies political constituents, and can sustain media scrutiny. In theory, government budgets and compliance guidelines are designed to address specific public purposes, and usually that is their intent. Public purposes, after all, include such democratic values as freedom, privacy, fairness, and due process of law. However, they are frequently preoccupied with resources and processes at the expense of tangible results, including both program outputs and social outcomes. Strenuous efforts have been made in recent years to orient government toward performance defined more in terms of results, and with some success. As note earlier, the Government Performance and Results Act now requires every federal agency to produce a five year strategic plan, an annual performance plan specifying intended results (including agency outputs and social outcomes), and an annual performance report indicating progress toward achieving those results. The Results Act also requires federal agencies to consult with their stakeholders, including state and local governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations and citizens, in writing these documents Some states have experimented with more comprehensive, results-oriented strategic planning processes and performance management systems. For example, Oregon developed a comprehensive approach to performance measurement with a strategic plan called "Oregon Shines," and the specification of indicators and targets called "Oregon Benchmarks," which enumerate desired social outcomes for the state as a whole, not just for state government. Progress toward those outcomes is monitored by the "Oregon Progress Board," which is chaired by the governor and comprised of government and community leaders. Governor Shaheen described the challenge of achieving accountability in this dynamic new era. Flexibility and innovation are important. And yet, government needs to assure accountability for the use of taxpayers money and the protection of democratic values. The dilemma, she said, is how permit individuals and organizations greater flexibility to be innovative and to develop creative and tailored solutions to particular problems, and also develop different accountability approaches that are applicable to those circumstances. If the law is not to determine accountability, then what should? Bruce Romer, the Chief Administrative Office of Montgomery County, Maryland underscored the reality that government has a broader public responsibility than the other two sectors, even though he sympathizes with the concern expressed by businesses and nonprofit organizations about burdensome regulation. One of the most important challenges we have as public administrators and legislators, he said, is to find the right balance of laws and regulations that protect society and yet allow maximum flexibility for nonprofits and businesses. The laws and regulations are usually there to cover abuses, both real and perceived, in our society. He cited as an example purchasing regulations that are designed to keep distance between the government as purchaser and the vendor. Such laws were passed for good reasons, but he acknowledged that they often inhibit more creative relationships and problem solving. We need to challenge ourselves to be creative. Sometimes we succeed and sometime we just invite additional criticism. But if government has a special responsibility to hold business and nonprofit organizations accountable, how is government itself to be held accountable? What are we to do, Rich Roberts asked, with the government official who refuses to scrap old mail processing equipment in order to buy up-to-date electronic transaction technology that will significantly improve service to citizens? Governor Shaheen responded that My board of directors is the legislature and the public, and they may not be willing to invest more money to do things differently. If, in fact, such an investment makes sense in terms of reducing cost and improving service, then they need to be educated. Jan Kraemer empathized with Mr. Roberts frustration, noting that she had stood in line for three hours for a drivers license in Missouri. But she said she also understood the reality of politics and the democratic process, as the governor laid it out. The answer, she argued, is to learn how to engage and educate the public and political leaders, so that they will be willing to provide the capital and support to reengineer systems and cultures. Ethics Given the diversity of cultures among the sectors, the ambiguity of goals, and the absence of effective accountability mechanisms, cross-sector collaboration is especially dependent on high standards of ethics. And just as performance orientations vary among the sectors, so do approaches to establishing and enforcing principles of ethics and conduct. Public distrust of government in recent decades has produced a complex array of ethics laws and procedures that essentially take a negative approach to ethics by defining appropriate public behavior in terms of what should not be done. Enforcement involves a host of institutions and procedures to assure compliance with strict requirements of disclosure and conduct, which can be an impediment to cross-sector collaboration. The negative approach to defining ethics is also prevalent in businesses and nonprofits, in some instances as a consequence of public law, regulation, and government contract procedures. Scandals in both the business and nonprofit sectors have also produced their own added controls, mimicking and often reinforcing the experience in government. These are realities that anyone in the public arena needs to contend with, whether working in government or participating in of a cross-sector collaboration. However, there is also a positive approach to ethics that defines conduct in terms of what should be done, with an emphasis on achieving high performance and embracing such values as inclusion and respect for the individual. The positive approach can be found in all three sectors. Businesses have the advantage of generally being able to more clearly define, measure, and reward high performance. Nonprofit organizations tend to attract people who are motivated by the mission to meet social needs. Neither business nor the nonprofit sector is nearly as burdened by negative ethics regulations as government. Yet government continues to attract and retain people who believe deeply in the positive public service ethic of contributing to the common good and making a difference. The most important positive ethical principle of crosssector collaboration is that all the partners be committed to the public purpose for which the collaboration was formed. Government leaders bear the principal responsibility, that obtains in all of their actions, of assuring that any collaboration to which they commit the government be genuinely in the interest of the entire community, and not just of a narrow or exclusive constituency. To the extent that a narrow segment of the community is a targeted beneficiary of the collaboration, that special benefit needs to be justified as generating an equally important benefit to the entire community. Nonprofit leaders bear the special responsibility of assuring that they are both committed to the collaborations stated public purpose and of linking that purpose to the mission and values of their own organization, which enjoys a privileged public status. Business leaders bear the responsibility of assuring that their participation in a collaboration is genuinely based on their commitment to serve its public purpose, and that that commitment guides all their actions related to the collaboration. It is also an ethical responsibility of business leaders to assure that their participation can be justified as contributing to the immediate or long-term goals of the business itself, the more so if it is a publicly traded corporation. It is here that the contribution of money and in-kind resources needs to be carefully but broadly linked to the businesss performance and strategic objectives, which may include improving the community in which it operates. Having made the link between the broader public purpose and their own organizational missions and values, leaders in all three sectors bear the further responsibility of not pressuring their partners to engage in a relationship that would violate their partners respective organizational missions or values. It is especially important that a cross-sector collaboration rigorously maintain its focus on an important public purpose at a time when the relationships among the sectors are changing and increasingly ambiguous, when the contribution of nonprofits and businesses to public purposes is more widely recognized and subject to public scrutiny, and when the actions of government are widely suspect by the media and the broader public. Cross-sector collaborations always involve a blend of organizational self-interest and broader public interest. It is important for the reputations of the organizational partners and their leaders, and for the public trust of their respective sectors -- government, business, and nonprofit -- that both organizational and public interests are being truly served in a fair, balanced and appropriate manner. This is important not only because that is the essence of a legitimate cross-sector collaboration, but also in order to satisfy the broader public and responsible governmental authorities that the collaboration is genuinely serving legitimate public purposes. Successful collaborations find a balance between the negative and positive approaches to ethics that also respect the standards and blend the different cultures of the three sectors. It is important to be clear about the specific ethical principles to be followed by all the partners, including such issues as public access to information, public participation, respect for diversity, avoidance of collusion, and accountability for public funds. The principles need to be compatible with the ethical codes of each organization, and be supported by a clear mutual understanding about means of enforcement. It is especially important, given the public nature of cross-sector collaboration, to respect governments need to ultimately assure accountability for the use of public funds to the media, voters, taxpayers, and citizens in general. CONCLUSION: LEARNING HOW TO CHANGE Successful cross-sector collaborations learn to operate in and help to shape an environment of change. Collaborations have to contend with several kinds of change simultaneously. First, the driving forces of change identified at the outset of the paper are affecting virtually every phase of life. Second, the environments and contexts within which collaboration occurs are changing. Third, the sectors themselves are changing, and each at different rates and in different ways. Each sector has to contend with the complex changes occurring within its own market, industry, service area, or policy arena. Fourth, the relationships among the sectors are changing, and with them the norms and expectations of how the sectors are to relate to one another. And fifth, the process of social change itself is changing. Given the pervasiveness and dimensions of change, learning how to change, and learning how to cope with and live with change, is a core capacity for collaboration in its own right. Learning how to change requires mastering the related elements that shape collaboration, with a special emphasis on: Keeping the context clear, so that appropriate adjustments can be made in response to important changes in the environment, including potentially changes in collaborative goals and public purposes, and changes in the mix of players who need to be involved; Focus on performance and public purposes, so that even if means to these ends need to change, the change of means is not permitted to divert energy from the accomplishment of collaborative goals and outcomes; Knowledge and information that provide the transparency, feedback and learning required for appropriate adjustments; Adaptability, flexibility, innovation, and continuous improvement, in keeping with the changes, progress of the collaboration and what is learned about them; Performance, ethics, and accountability, emphasizing the positive focus on achieving public purposes while respecting the need to provide safeguards that protect public resources and values; Communication, to assure that all stakeholders, including citizens and the public more generally, are appropriately advised and/or involved in decisions to make adjustments, and understand the implications of changes in goals, strategies, or activities for the collaboration and broader community. Negotiating the white-water rapids of change requires balance and integration. It would be futile to deny or attempt to stop the rapid and accelerating pace of change, driven as it is by powerful economic and technological forces. Those forces have already redefined the structure, operations, and culture of business, and have affected government and nonprofit organizations directly, and indirectly through the influence of business. The challenge is to balance changes in the economy and business sector with appropriate and commensurate changes in the government and nonprofit sector. A strong economy has created abundant new wealth for society as a whole. In achieving this success, business has created a new set of tools and capacities, some of which that government and nonprofit organizations could adopt to improve their own performance. At the very least, government in particular needs to understand those tools if it is to shape markets and social service systems that realistically account for them. Balance also requires government and the nonprofit sectors to protect the cherished values of democratic governance and a humane society, and to address important issues that might not otherwise receive appropriate attention from business. Leaders in all three sectors also need to anticipate the unintended consequences of rapid transformational change. Economic prosperity may have obscured fundamental changes in the traditional structure of social problem solving that could be harshly exposed in the next economic downturn. As Union Institute Director Mark Rosenman pointed out, shifts of activity to the market may have caused a loss of democratic control, rising gaps in wealth and income, and an increasing importance of global affairs of a magnitude far beyond the scope of traditional government and nonprofit organizations. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to consciously adapt to and constructively shape the process of social change itself. In the end, this may prove more daunting than forces of technology or global competitiveness. It is not enough to focus on the problems that confront communities, such as the quality life, economic prosperity, environmental protection and assisting individuals, families, and neighborhoods in distress. It is also necessary to understand the issue behind the problem: the process of social change itself is changing. The Importance of Cross-Sector Collaboration Cross-sector collaborations therefore face a two-fold challenge. The first is to determine which public purposes are to be addressed and how? And the second is to fashion a new model of change that effectively engages all three sectors and the public at large in fashioning more effective means of achieving those purposes. Fortunately, people in all three sectors are having the same conversation, and asking the same questions: What is the appropriate role for us to play in social problem solving? What roles are we playing now? How do we move from where we are to where we need to be? The transcending lesson from this series of dialogues is that collaboration among the sectors will continue to be important not only to address critical public purposes that no one sector can achieve alone, but also to fashion a new set of relationships that will help the three sectors and the public at large shape a productive and just society in an era of rapid change. ( Dave Renz, The Kansas City Case, in Warren F. Ilchman and Charlie Clotfelter, eds., Trust, Service and the Common Purpose: Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector in a Changing America, (Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 1998) PAGE  PAGE 45 "&134P Xq";s { Y Z y _a,.=sH8Hpj ! !!!@!!!!!!!"$"""56>*\]6] 56\] 5CJ\CJ 5CJ,\CJ,5\U"#$%&1234OPU E`$a$ !$a$mlEF  h i j Y Z /0,._`GH  & F ! !  !``h`h``78LMNop""##,$j$$$% & F  !``` hh^h`h & F  !^  & F ! !"###,$>$j$q$$$$$%!%~% &--....@/Q/v/////0000^1p11122p3r3}335%6c7d78h;;<==>{>>>?? A AAADDDDEFF F FFIIIIVJiJkJKK&K8KBKDKMMMM OBO5\aJ6] 56\][%~%%))---...../Q///0^112w2x2p3q3`h`h & F & F  !` ! & Fq3r3|3}355555 7!7#7c7d7h;i;j;;;====??$h`ha$$a$h^h`` !????zB{BFFF F FHHTJUJVJiJjJMMPPSSUUU !h`h`BOZOPP^PiPPRR1S^SSSUUUGVWWXXYZ@ZV[X[[[\L\Y\\\\']K]Q]]]]]]]]]__cci jjjnQoRoYo\oopppppuq}qqqArPrs&sstxxxxy,yzz{|~~~~~~~aJ6]5\ 56\]56>*\]ZUUUWWXV[W[[[[[[\\]]``}c~cffiiijj$*$a$`jllnnQoRooprqArsssxx{{~~~~~~G $ !a$` & F & F !``~w}4GHeÆņ?L "$1BQ’"$%?@s٘ژ/͙25ԝ֝Rhjik@\56@\] 5@\@ 5\aJaJ j*0J6]H*5\>*56>*\] 56\]LGHIefІ҆؊ڊۊAB’٘ژ̙͙ & F  !``QRhi̤`^  !^ ! & F & Fh^hkDFnoabz{?j{1NPɭ̭®î= "!v²q2>εhwȽɽ\@\5@ 56@]56>*\]5\6] 5@\ 56\]@56@\]N=>?./0NO q2*$`  !`h^h & F & F & F*$ !h`h`$a$ efgxyκ():;rs#$D`` !$*$a$*$`()8:l=@ABO9:@QRRS/1degnos(`a:V5=! &   q;>  e!"""##/#v#56>*\]@6]aJH* 56\]5\YDElmn ?@OP=>@QR``WX12 /0`a|} $ !a$$a$``JKst9:TU    `  !h`h  !`` !`$a$KLyz  """"""$$''(^ !`((--11111[6\6Z8[8S9T9==??XBYBZBBBDDHH```v# )!)++-p.1112\6[88l9:BB*B1BB~CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDD DDDD$D&D1D3D*\]6]aJ5\ 56\]VH J JLLNOOOQQSSXVYVZVVVWWZZ^^^^^a``h`h !`aacceeggsktknnlpmprrvvH{I{J{Q{R{||b~c~^ !``bc5e6eefg$hnnkplprrssvvBwCwJ{R{#||}}}h>?u%bҒ:;`w &_uCbە =:S;c %Ù Iޚ @GLWX>*6]56>*\]@B*OJQJaJph@OJQJaJ @OJQJ 56\]5\aJN^_uv  ؉ىabђҒӒ  9:;  ߚ & F$a$`ߚ  [\QRrstjkmijkluvwh]h&`#$` !` & FX[\[$JKSʣˣ)+Aqjmnũ'hilmstuwx~0JmHnHu0J j0JU j*0J 56\]6]5\$h]h#0P,/ =!"#$% i4@4 NormalCJ_HmH sH tH 2@2 Heading 1$@&5\8@8 Heading 2$$@&a$5\2@2 Heading 3$@&5\:@: Heading 4$@&^5\2@2 Heading 5$@&6]<@< Heading 6$@&56\]aJ<@< Heading 7$$@&a$ 5CJ\<@< Heading 8$$@&a$ 5CJ \<A@< Default Paragraph Font, @, Footer  !FR@F Body Text Indent 2 `5\<C@< Body Text Indent `,B@", Body Text5\8&@18 Footnote ReferenceH*2@B2 Footnote TextCJLS@RL Body Text Indent 3 ` 56\]&)@a& Page Number"#$%&1234OPU EFhijY Z / 0 , . _`GH78LMNop, j !~!!%%)))*****+Q+++,^--.w.x.p/q/r/|/}/11111 3!3#3c3d3h7i7j7779999;;;;;z>{>BBB B BDDTFUFVFiFjFIILLOOQQQQQSSTVWWWWWWWWXXYY\\}_~_bbeeeffhhjjQkRkklrmAnooottwwzzzzzzG|H|I|e|f|Ђ҂؆چۆABŽٔڔ͕̕QRhi̠=>?./0NO q2 efgxyζ():;rs#$DElmn ?@OP=>@QRWX12 /0`a|}JKst9:TU    KLyz  ##$$))-----[2\2Z4[4S5T599;;X>Y>Z>>>@@DD F FHHNKOKMMOOXRYRZRRRSSVVZZZZZ]]__aaccsgtgjjllmlnnrrHwIwJwQwRwxxbzcz^|_|uv  ؅مabюҎӎ  9:;  ߖ  [\QRrstjklw0@0^@0^@0^@0^@0^x@0^@0