Cross-Sector Partnerships in Human Services: Insights and Organizational Dilemmas

Abstract

The article presents a mixed-method study of 15 cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) in human services. The study sought to examine the activities, organizational characteristics, and relationships among organizations from the government, nonprofit, and business sectors at three interrelated stages of the partnership: inputs, processes, and outcomes. The findings indicate that socialization prior to entering CSPs is an important component of building the partnership and attaining its espoused goals. Power struggles inhibit the achievement of goals in CSPs, whereas joint decision making and reaching a consensus contribute to achieving goals and added value in terms of improving the quality of services and clients’ well-being. The article presents insights and highlights the dilemmas that CSPs face with regard to their operation and processes. The implications of these dilemmas for establishing and managing effective CSPs as well as for nonprofit policy are discussed.

Keywords

cross-sector partnerships nonprofit human services

Introduction

In recent years, nonprofit organizations (NPOs), governmental agencies, philanthropic foundations, and businesses have expressed increasing interest in cross-sector partnerships (CSPs), which are perceived as an essential, desirable strategy for coping with public challenges in general and with challenges in the human services in particular (Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen, & Rethemeyer, 2011; Provan & Milward, 1995). CSPs, which mobilize or involve nongovernmental actors in efforts to promote public causes, are defined as multiorganizational arrangements to address social issues (Koschmann, Kuhn, & Pfarrer, 2012; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Such partnerships can be formal or informal. They may include an exchange of resources such as funding, information, and expertise, and they can vary considerably in scope and duration as well as in the number of partners (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). Although the terms cross-sector “partnership” and “collaboration” are frequently used interchangeably, we use the term “partnership” to describe a relationship created through a formal contract between organizations from different sectors that join together and share their resources to promote common goals. The governance and responsibility for the partnership actions are shared among the partner organizations. Collaboration, to our understanding, is a more generic concept and usually less formal and binding than partnership, with no defined shared mechanism of governance (Carnwell & Carson, 2009).

The uniqueness of CSPs derives from the encounter between organizations that are working for common goals but have different institutional logics, identities, cultures, policies, strategies, administrative procedures, and stakeholders. These differences need to be bridged to ensure an efficient and effective operation of the partnership, enabling the attainment of its goals (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Koschmann et al., 2012).

The proliferation of CSPs in many developed countries is part of a growing international perception of the relationships between nonprofits, businesses, and government agencies as a partnership (Bode & Brandsen, 2014; Salamon & Toepler, 2015). This approach emphasizes the interdependence between the potential partners, as well as the need for collaboration which utilizes the relative advantage of each of the partners (Osborne, 2006). It has been argued that CSPs have become a new form of governance and a key mechanism for implementing public policy (Osborne, 2000). In Israel, this approach has become evident in the last decade in the expansion of contracting out of social services to nonprofits and for-profit organizations, and the government’s adoption of several mechanisms aimed at building partnerships with nonprofit human service organizations and businesses, which have served as the basis for the establishment of cross-sector social initiatives (Almog-Bar, 2016).

The theoretical and empirical literature has dealt extensively with issues related to trust among partners (Alexander & Nank, 2009; Provan & Kenis, 2008), as well as with analysis of the driving and restraining forces for establishing CSPs, the barriers that prevent the partners from achieving their added value, and mechanisms for overcoming cultural and procedural gaps. In addition, the literature has dealt with issues related to patterns of decision making and problem solving (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010; Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Crosby & Bryson, 2010; Gazley, 2010; Gazley & Brudney, 2007). In light of their potential aggregated power, CSPs are viewed as an important actor in public policy making (Varda, Shoup, & Miller, 2012). However, although CSPs have gained prominence in many countries in recent years, research evidence indicates that these arrangements are complex and difficult to create and manage (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Gazley & Guo, 2015). Some studies have suggested that CSPs often produce limited results and do not necessarily meet their goals. It has also been argued that there is limited empirical evidence of their effectiveness in attaining added social and economic synergetic value (Koschmann et al., 2012). Moreover, the consequences of the policies designed to govern and enhance CSPs remain unclear (Furneaux & Ryan, 2014).

In light of the lack of research on the relationships between input and process variables and the relationship of those variables to the attainment of the outcomes of CSPs, the current article aims to enhance understanding of the relationships between the different stages of CSPs. Specifically, our study sought to explore the relationship between input and process variables, and shed light on their potential to contribute to achieving outcomes among CSPs in the human services in Israel. Outcomes are defined as the extent to which the partnership attains its espoused goals as a product of the relationship between input and process variables. The article presents insights and organizational dilemmas associated with establishing and maintaining CSPs and discusses their implications for theory and practice.

The Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study is based on the “antecedents-process-outcomes model” proposed by Wood and Gray (1991), followed by Thomson and Perry (2006). We adapted this model to describe and analyze CSPs in human services in Israel. The underlying assumption of this model is that the establishment of CSPs is a developing process with a distinct continuum of stages (Gray, 1989; Thomson & Perry, 2006). For example, Gray’s (1989) three-phase framework involves problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. According to the “antecedents-process-outcomes model” used in this study, the establishment of partnerships is a developing process with distinct stages. Each stage presents issues that need to be resolved if the collaboration is to develop effectively, and each stage is characterized by its own distinct organizational and structural properties (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Gray, 1996). The three main stages of the partnership continuum in our study are forming the partnership (“input variables”), designing its administrative arrangements and procedures (“process variables”), and implementing its decisions and attaining its goals and outcomes (“partnership outcomes”).

As Thomson and Perry (2006) argue, the process-oriented perspective on CSPs is supported by findings from game theory (Axelrod, 1984, 1997; Ostrom, 1990, 1998). Experimental and field research confirms that

individuals temporarily caught in a social dilemma structure are likely to invest resources to innovate and change the structure itself to improve joint outcomes . . . Learning occurs through a continuous trial-and-error process until a rule system is evolved that participants consider yields substantial net benefits. (Ostrom, 1998, p. 8).

The first stage in our conceptual framework (inputs) is characterized by assessing the options, motivation, and commitment of the parties to establish a partnership, as well as by assessing the opportunities for attaining social value (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012). This stage is also characterized by selection of the partners and by negotiation of the structure of the CSP. In addition, each party assesses its compatibility with the other parties in terms of several factors: expectations of the benefits to be derived from the partnership and the need to change, consolidate, and introduce new administrative processes and procedures, thereby overcoming differences in culture and values (Arya & Salk, 2006). Moreover, this stage includes investment of human and financial resources in the formation of the partnership (Gray, 1996).

The second stage (process) focuses on the procedures involved in managing the partnership, which include formulating strategies to overcome resistance and alleviate fear of entering the partnership, defining the rules for working together, developing new governance mechanisms, establishing decision-making processes, developing mechanisms for problem solving and conflict resolution, and creating mechanisms of coordination and communication (Arya & Salk, 2006; Austin, 2000; Gray, 1996; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009).

The third stage focuses on the outcomes of CSPs. Specifically, emphasis is placed on assessing outcomes and measuring the extent to which they have achieved the espoused goals of the partnership and the respective partners. Outcomes of the partnership include improvement of the clients’ well-being, efficient use of resources, introducing changes in service programs, and proposing new, innovative programs.

The conceptual framework based on this model provides perspectives on the activities relating to different stages of partnerships and facilitates analysis of the relationships between different variables. Specifically, we sought to explore the interrelationships between the different organizational and administrative variables that are associated with the creation, ongoing operation, implementation, and sustainment of the partnership (input and process variables) as well as the relationship of these variables to the attainment of outcomes.

However, it is important to note that some scholars have provided a different perspective on the process of partnerships. For example, Ring and Van de Ven (1994) conceived the process of partnership as iterative and cyclical rather than as linear. In their view, a process-oriented definition of collaboration must take into account the nonlinear and emergent nature of collaboration, suggesting that collaboration is multidimensional and that it evolves as the parties evolve over time (Thomson & Perry, 2006). Achieving shared outcomes implies synergetic processes and interdependence between the partners (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2002; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Thomson, 2001; Thomson & Perry, 2006).

To address the multidimensional nature of partnerships, we propose two routes for describing and analyzing the CSPs presented in this article. One route presents the stages in the continuum of the process of partnerships and the relationships between input, process, and outcome variables in quantitative terms. The other route aims to respond to the multidimensional cyclical and iterative process of CSPs by presenting qualitative data from selected case studies of CSPs. The qualitative data aim to expand knowledge on the linear relationship among input, process, and outcome variables by highlighting additional, complementary aspects of CSPs and their dynamic nature.

Method

To reach a comprehensive understanding of CSPs, we utilized a mixed-method research design, which combines a quantitative survey with an in-depth qualitative analysis of CSP case studies. The quantitative research method was used to collect data from a large number of representatives of CSPs, and the qualitative case studies were used for in-depth examination of the CSPs.

Research Sample

The research sample included 15 CSPs among nonprofit human service organizations, governmental agencies, and businesses. The sample was a convenience sample, which does not represent all CSPs in Israel owing to the lack of a comprehensive, formal database.

The sample was selected on the basis of the following criteria. First, we chose CSPs which actively involve organizations from two or more sectors that have a common interest in promoting social issues. Second, we selected partnerships that have displayed an active and long-term collaborative governance mechanism involving all of the partners. Third, we selected CSPs that had been active for at least 3 years (37% of the partnerships were up to 5 years old, 44% were 6-10 years old, and 19% were 11 years old and more). The 15 CSPs in the study initiated and provide a large variety of social services for different populations, such as early intervention services for young children; services dealing with youth delinquency; out-of-home services for youth at risk; services for terror and trauma victims; employment integration of people with disabilities; improving education in geographically and socially peripheral areas; employment services for Arab-Palestinian women; and services for new immigrants. 80% of the CSPs revenue derived from the government and local authorities. The rest of the revenue derived from philanthropic foundations and self-generated revenue.

Of the 15 CSPs examined, four were chosen as case studies for further in-depth investigation. We choose the case study in-depth analysis to address the multidimensional and complicate cyclical and iterative process of forming and sustaining partnerships in general and in human services in particular. The case studies include the following:

The Israeli forum for diversity in employment

This CSP was established in 2009. It aims to promote diversity and inclusion in the Israeli job market, as well as to provide employers in general and businesses in particular with tools and knowledge for promoting diversity. Toward this end, the forum develops knowledge and professional tools relating to diversity in employment and assists in promoting the management of diversity through several service programs. The forum includes more than 100 members, mainly businesses and nonprofits. The founders of the forum and the most active members on the governing board of the partnership are six NPOs, two governmental agencies, and two businesses.

Hotam (stamp)

This initiative was established in 2010 as a CSP between the Ministry of Education, a philanthropic foundation, and three other nonprofits. It was designed to address the challenge of inequality in educational opportunities in Israel. Toward this end, several programs were developed which enlist high-quality, visionary, and motivated young leaders to become teachers. Hotam provides the participants with specialized training and ongoing mentoring, after which they are placed in schools on the social periphery of the state.

Resilience centers

This project was established in 2007 as a CSP between six governmental ministries, three regional councils, the Israeli Trauma coalition, and philanthropic foundations. It aims to deal with the community-wide trauma experienced by 60,000 residents of the region near the southern border with Gaza, who have faced constant physical threats, injuries, and death as well as damage to infrastructure for the past 15 years. The seven resilience centers are operated by local nonprofits. Within the resilience centers, residents of the area can receive the trauma therapy they need and attend workshops that strengthen the community and build resilience. The centers also organize workshops devoted to training professionals in self care.

Masira

(“journey” in Arabic) was established in 2006. It aims to advance the status of people with disabilities in Arab-Palestinian society in Israel. The partners in Masira include 11 nonprofits, three government ministries, local authorities, and local businesses. The CSP develops and operates community services for people with disabilities, which are adapted to the unique conditions and culture of Arab-Palestinian society. It has also established an organizational and social infrastructure for advancing the status of people with disabilities in Arab society.

Instrument

We used several instruments to collect the data. In the quantitative part of the study, the research instrument was a questionnaire, which consisted mainly of closed questions as well as a few open questions about the inputs, processes, and outcomes of the CSPs. The final version of the questionnaire was formulated on the basis of feedback obtained in a pretest conducted among 10 key figures representing the partner organizations.

In the qualitative part of the study, data on each of the four CSPs participating in the case studies were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the directors of the partner organizations or through interviews with other senior officials involved in the CSPs. The interview protocol consisted of questions relating to the establishment, operation, processes, relationships, and outcomes of the CSPs.

Field Work and Data Processing

Data were collected from July 2014 to January 2015 by experienced interviewers, who obtained information from 124 key persons in the CSPs, including the directors of the individual organizations as well as the directors of the specific partnerships. The questionnaires were administered by telephone and took approximately 45 min to complete. The response rate to the questionnaire was 81%. Of the key persons who were not surveyed, six were out of the country at the time of the study, and the rest declined to participate either because they had already moved to a different job or because they thought they lacked sufficient knowledge to share with us. Indices were constructed on the basis of common theoretical perspectives reflected in the responses to a given question. The weighted indices signify the extent of importance that the participants attributed to a specific issue. In addition, 43 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted by telephone with representatives of the four CSPs participating in the case studies. Each of these interviews lasted approximately 60 to 90 min, and all of them were tape-recorded. The interviews and documented materials were analyzed on the basis of qualitative thematic content analysis. In this way, we identified key issues and arguments that emerged in the interviews. To ensure reliable results, the data analysis was conducted by two researchers (Ryan & Bernard, 2000).

Findings

1. Quantitative Findings

Table 1 presents the input, process, and outcome variables examined in the study. First, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the variables mentioned in the “input” column was a motive for entering the partnership with other organizations. The findings indicate that the most significant motives were professional considerations based on common ground and mutual understanding of the potential contribution of the partnership to attain the organizations’ goals. Financial considerations were also ranked high following the lack of adequate resources and the need to raise more funds needed for the operation and for sustaining the partnership. Other significant motives were the willingness to better serve the organizations’ clients following the understanding that the ultimate beneficiaries of the partnership are the clients and willingness to gain access to decision makers who have the authority and power to allocate the desired resources. Working in partnership also has the potential to mobilize more easily and effectively resources needed for the organizations. The less significant motives which were not perceived by the organizations as important for forming partnerships were willingness to learn from other organizations and joining the partnership as part of a current trend in public policy.

Table 1.

Distribution of the Input, Process, and Outcome Variables (M, SD).

Input variables	Process variables	Outcome variables
Motives for collaboration	Setting goals and decision making
Professional considerations (5.00, 1.130)	Reaching consensus (4.56, 1.302)	Improving clients’ well-being (4.43, 1.448)
Better services to clients (4.83, 0.707)	Negotiation and compromise (4.16, 1.717)	Efficient use of resources (4.40, 1.074)
Shared values (4.40, 1.003)	Imposed by partner (1.96, 1.973)	Developing new service programs (4.09, 1.414)
Access to decision makers (4.13, 1.725)	Imposed by external authority (1.90, 2.074)	Promoting enrichment of workers (4.07, 1.170)
Mobilizing resources (4.10, 1.413)	Sharing resources and information	Attaining advanced work methods (4.05, 0.825)
Financial considerations (4.04, 2.089)	Sharing resources (4.28, 1.616)	Improving service quality (4.04, 1.532)
Economizing on organizational resources (3.58, 2.06)	Sharing information (4.20, 1.000)	Creating new strategic options (3.95, 1.812)
Learning from other organizations (2.22, 1.919)	Sharing responsibility (4.10, 1.387)	Mobilizing resources (3.75, 1.811)
Joining partnerships as a current trend (1.60, 1.01)	Sharing provision of services (4.01, 1.524)	Capacity building (3.52, 1.932)
	Sharing capacities (3.98, 1.376)	Redesigning structure and administrative processes (2.38, 1.756)
	Sharing power and authority (3.89, 1.427)	Changing service programs (2.76, 1.717)
	Publishing joint position papers (3.84. 1.727)	Better understanding of clients’ needs (4.14,0.859)
	Coordination and communication
	Communication (4.23, 1.148)
	Close coordination (4.01, 0.998)
	Ad hoc activity (3.59, 1.448)
	Trust among partners
	Trust (4.42, 0.745)
	Mutual respect (4.56, 0.666)
	Empathy (4.52, 0.704)
	Competition (2.4, 1.25)
	Mechanisms for overcoming resistance
	Joint meetings to clarify goals(4.54,2.549)
	Preliminary meetings with leaders to mitigate fears (4.11,2.237)
	Appointing task force to bridge gaps(4.48,2.676)
	Use of external consulting (2.60,2.472)

Note. On a scale from 1 “low” to 5 “very high”.

Second, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the variables mentioned in the “process” column express their views about setting the goals of the partnership and making decisions, sharing resources and information, the level of coordination and communication, and trust among the partners. The findings indicate that the goals and decisions were mostly reached by consensus or through negotiation and compromise between the partner organizations. Goals and decisions were imposed by official external authorities or by one of the partners to a very minimal extent. The findings also reveal high levels of sharing resources and information among the partner organizations as well as high levels of coordination, communication, and significant levels of trust among the partners. The most prevalent mechanisms for overcoming resistance of workers to engage in partnerships relations were joint meetings and workshops to clarify goals and mitigate fears and hesitations. The use of external consulting to overcome workers’ resistance was less significant.

Finally, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the partnership attained outcomes that each of the partners would not have been able to attain on their own. Most of the participants (95%) reported high levels of perceived outcomes attainment. The most significant perceived outcomes achieved by the partnerships to a very great extent were improving the clients’ well-being; better understanding of clients’ needs; developing new programs and initiatives; improving service quality; attaining advanced work methods; promoting enrichment of workers; and creating new strategic options for the development of the partnership. The following perceived outcomes were ranked lower: mobilizing resources; capacity building; redesigning organizational structure and administrative processes; and changing service programs.

In the next phase, we analyzed the relationships between the variables (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Relationships Between Input, Process, and Outcomes Variables.

Independent variables	Dependent variables	Significance*
Sharing resources	Attaining common goals	.290**
	Better services to clients	.298*
	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.205*
Sharing information	Better services to clients	.207*
	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.231*
	Fear of losing resources	−.295*
	Lack of consensus on goals	−.234*
Sharing capacities	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.360*
Sharing iniation of programs	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.234*
Joint decision making	Better services to clients	.193*
	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.247*
	Efficient use of resources	.225*
	Sharing resources	.227*
Tight coordination	Better services to clients	.209*
	Attaining common goals	.229
	Sharing resources	.399*
	Sharing capacities	.556*
Open communication	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.197*
	Better services to clients	.229*
	Sharing resources	.329*
	Sharing information	.351*
	Sharing authority	.192*
Trust	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.240*
	Sharing resources	.212*
	Sharing information	.421*
	Close coordination	.431*
Mutual respect	Better understanding of clients’ needs	.233*
Enrichment of workers	Willingness to serve clients better	.251*
Preliminary meetings with leaders to mitigate fears	Collaboration in initiation and operation of programs	.263*
Power struggles	Fear of change	.277*
	Lack of appreciation and suspicions	.272*
	Difficulty perceiving the added value	.334*
	Fear of exposing the organization	.294*
	Fear of losing resources	.237*
	Fear of collaborating with others	.283*
	Resistance to the partnership	.252*
	Access to decision makers	.206*
	Sharing resources	−.244*
	Sharing information	−.242*
	Sharing capacities	−.265*

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

The findings presented in Table 2 clearly indicate that sharing resources, information, and organizational capacities as well as joint initiation of new service programs, joint decision making, tight coordination, open communication, trust, mutual respect among the partners and enrichment of workers all correlated positively and significantly (although some of the correlations were modest) with achieving the outcomes of the partnership. Positive and significant relations were found between joint decision making, tight control, open communication, and trust with process variables as sharing resources, capacities, information, and authority. The greater the extent of joint decision making and the higher the level of trust among the partners, the higher the readiness to share resources, information, and capacities. Preliminary meetings with leaders to mitigate fears correlated positively and significantly with the process variables defined as collaboration in initiation and operation of programs. Power struggles correlated positively and significantly with fear of change, fear of exposing the organization, fear of losing resources, and fear of collaborating with others as well as with resistance to the partnership. That is, the greater the extent of power struggles among the partners, the greater their fear of change and fear of losing resources. Power struggles correlated negatively and significantly with access to decision makers and with sharing resources, information, and capacities. That is, the greater the extent of power struggles, the less the partner organizations were willing to share resources and information.

The findings also indicate negative and significant relations between sharing information and process variables as the fear of losing resources and lack of consensus in decision making. The greater the extent of sharing information, the lower the fear of losing resources and the lower the lack of consensus on goals. This means that the readiness to share information and maintain open channels of communication helps in overcoming fears of losing resources and enhances the attainment of goal consensus among the partners.

2. Qualitative Findings

Qualitative analysis of the interviews relating to the four case studies revealed the following themes.

Motives and driving forces for establishing CSPs

The qualitative analysis pointed to a convergence of organizational and personal motives for entering and establishing CSPs. In each of the cases, the interviewees indicated that they viewed the partnership as a means of promoting and implementing comprehensive social change at the national level. Whether the partnership aimed at creating diversity in employment or improving teaching in the national education system, CSPs were perceived as a strategy that facilitates mobilization, pooling, and leveraging of resources and forces at a level that can later be transformed into social and policy changes.

These motives were strongest among smaller, peripheral organizations that felt they do not have the power needed to access policy makers to introduce second-order change. For instance, in the case of Masira, one of the representatives of a small nonprofit explained,

We want to create something national and comprehensive. When there is a comprehensive partnership, the ability to influence is much greater. Resources in this area are limited, and through partnership it is much easier to organize. There is also less loneliness in a partnership. We are talking about a subject that is very peripheral; it is not a mainstream issue in Arab society, although it is very important. It’s a lot easier to work as a group, both for organizations and for people with disabilities.

Other motives related to organizational interests, such as improving coordination and reducing competition and improving the organization’s reputation. One of the nonprofit representatives explained that “partnership is a tool for advancing the organization’s mission in the policy arena and influencing policies.” As explained by a government official, the main interest of the government for entering CSPs is “connecting to field initiatives which enable us to attain goals that the ministries are interested in but are not entirely capable of achieving on their own.” Government representatives mentioned that professionalism and knowledge accumulated by social service nonprofits are key drivers of partnerships, in addition to the entrepreneurial ability of nonprofits to promote initiatives in a relatively flexible manner and the potential of CSPs to leverage government funds through philanthropy. In some cases, even when it was possible for nonprofits and businesses to propose social services without the government, and even in cases where this created some difficulties in establishing the projects, representatives of nonprofits and businesses believed that the government is a major player in the formulation of social policy and that it is necessary to promote social projects with government involvement. As one of the nonprofit managers explained,

In the context of social services, social nonprofit organizations in Israel have no real influence if they are not working in collaboration with the government, given that most of the education system today is owned by the State of Israel. If you see yourself as committed to the matter, you must work with the Ministry of Education whether you like it or not. You’ve got to find a way to do it in partnership with them.

Cross-sectoral differences in logic and work procedures

The qualitative analysis indicated differences in organizational logic and in work procedures. The government was perceived as a rigid and bureaucratic entity that focuses mainly on “routine.” Guided by this perception, the nonprofit interviewees suggested that to adjust to the governmental culture and work procedures and to achieve the goals of partnership with the government, there is a need for careful preparation, patience, time, and large budgets, as well as for an ongoing investment in building trust. A nonprofit representative explained,

You have to come to the government with all the dowry . . . the bride (the project) should be organized, beautiful, and everything; then they will think about it . . . But the government will not allocate resources for development or innovation. They have to deal with the routine.

In some cases, the government expected nonprofits to raise more funds for the joint projects, assuming that nonprofits can raise funds easily through philanthropy. In the case of the resilience centers, a government representative explained, “The nonprofits should be responsible for bringing core budgets and for showing their seriousness. The current state where they only bring residual budgets is wrong.”

Intersectoral power relations and struggles, resistance, and conflict

The interviews revealed complex and delicate power relations between the partner organizations in all of the case studies. These include power struggles over funding, responsibility for, and ownership of the projects as well as differing views regarding work procedures. Interviewees from NPOs emphasized the need to expose and discuss power and struggles in the initial stages of the partnership. They indicated that if hostility remains covert, this will inhibit partnership building. In general, the representatives of organizations in all three sectors agreed that clarifying and discussing differences in organizational logic, perceptions, and work procedures as well as identifying the main conflicts between organizations as early as possible are critical to building and sustaining CSPs over time. For example, in two cases, the resilience centers and Hotam, a significant amount of time was devoted to clarifying the different views and expectations about the projects as well as to discussing the differences among the partners prior to designing the processes of partnership. Interviewees from these projects claimed that these discussions created a feeling of inclusion and sharing and facilitated the process of enlisting partners for the projects. It also helped create a sense of shared ownership of the project, in addition to building trust during the very early stages of the project.

The relationships between nonprofits and government organizations were perceived as particularly complex, especially because the government was the main funding source in most cases. The fact that a joint project is mainly financed by the government gives the government a relative advantage in its relations with nonprofits and undermines the status of nonprofits as “partners” and collaborators. Nonprofits become dependent on the government, and their ability to function as an independent professional partner may be adversely affected.

In light of the differences between the partners, the interviewees noted the important role of intermediary bodies as mediators between the government, nonprofits, and businesses. These bodies were veteran, affluent, and politically powerful organizations in the nonprofit sector and in philanthropy that maintained good relations with the government and the business sector. Due to their close relations with the government, the intermediary organizations played a significant mediating role in the partnership when gaps and disagreements were discovered, especially between nonprofits and the government. For example, in the case of the Masira project, some of the nonprofits that were active among the Arab community in the northern region of Israel tried to develop a service center for people with disabilities in an Arab city, but did not gain support and approval from the government. After joining the CSP, they worked together with JDC Israel, an intermediary organization that maintains close relations with the government. These relations were helpful in mediating disagreements with the government and facilitated the process of building the center in that city, which later expanded to other Arab localities.

Trust and interpersonal relationships

The in-depth interviews supported the quantitative findings on the high level of trust between the partners and emphasized that trust is a key factor in establishing, building, and operating CSPs. Trust was largely based on prior professional and personal acquaintance, as well as on the professional reputation of the partner organization, which contributed to the creation of a common language. For example, in the case of the resilience centers, government interviewees claimed that because the organizations in the Israel Trauma Coalition had already been providing a variety of direct trauma care and counseling services for many years, and because the Coalition was known to be a leading professional organization, the government was motivated to trust the coalition even before knowing specific personalities involved.

In most of the CSPs that we examined, the interviewees attributed the development of the partnership to the high level of interpersonal trust rather than to interorganizational trust. The focus was on specific personalities who know how to recruit partners and manage partnerships. The solid personal relationships and trust as well as the high personal commitment of the individuals to the initiatives and to each other were perceived as a major driving force for sustaining the partnership. One of the nonprofit representatives explained, “I always say that I do not choose projects or partnerships, but I choose people. Partnerships are about people. They rise and fall because of people.”

However, there were also interviewees who mentioned the limitations of building trust on the basis of close personal relationships between specific personalities. First, the interviewees pointed to the uneasy experience of partners who fail to reach the level of very close personal relationships that exists among the other partners in the CSPs. In these instances, representatives of organizations tend to feel left out, become alienated, and sometimes even leave the project because they feel they are not part of the “inner circle.” Second, turnover of officials can pose a problem and endanger the continuity of CSPs that are dependent on solid personal relations between specific personalities. A government official explained, “This partnership is too connected to people and not connected enough to the Ministry’s agendas . . . It is not embedded in health, it is not embedded in welfare—it is too personal.”

Discussion

The article focused on describing and analyzing the relationships of inputs and process variables to the outcomes of CSPs among nonprofit human service organizations, governmental agencies, and businesses. CSPs pose strategic, professional, organizational, and structural challenges for organizations that choose this option to solve problems which have not been solved through traditional mechanisms (Babiak & Thibault, 2009). At the same time, they provide opportunities to operate in a different way and utilize the relative advantages of each partner to attain goals that they would have had difficulty attaining by themselves. In the discussion, we will examine different factors associated with input and process variables and discuss their relationship to the effectiveness of partnerships as expressed in the outcomes of CSPs. We will also present insights emanating from the qualitative analysis of the case studies.

Our findings indicate that one of the strongest motives were shared values, as reflected in the partners’ desire to provide high-quality services and improve their clients’ well-being (Huxham, 1996). This applies especially to social welfare organizations, where the “raw material” is the clients whose well-being they aim to change, maintain, or improve (Hasenfeld, 2010). The main motives for partnerships were also related to the perception of CSPs as a strategy that enables mobilization, pooling, and leveraging of resources that can provide access to decision makers who have the power to lead comprehensive national social and policy changes.

Organizations also have financial motives, which are the result of economic uncertainty (Thomson & Perry, 2006). They perceive the partnership as an opportunity to increase the resources at their disposal, to improve the quality of their services. Partnership gives organizations a relative advantage in approaching funding sources, which might perceive partnerships as a joint effort to pool organizational and human capacities to achieve economic and social value that individual organizations have difficulty attaining on their own (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). As such, CSPs are important means for mobilizing resources—especially for nonprofits, which operate in relatively lean and highly competitive environments (Bryson et al., 2006).

As for the process variables, the most common way of making decisions in the CSPs was reaching a consensus and compromise between the partner organizations (Provan, Isett, & Milward, 2004). As long as the partners succeed in creating a climate of agreements, compromises, and joint decision making, they can have an impact on achieving the partnership’s outcomes (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). It appears that partner organizations resist using coercive power which might undermine the rationale and the raison d’etre of the partnership.

Partnership also means that the organizations are willing to share knowledge, information, material, and human resources as well as organizational capacities, which were positively and significantly associated with the partnership’s outcomes (Gazley, 2010; Guo & Acar, 2005; Sanyal, 2006). It also means that the partner organizations are willing to expose their abilities and relative advantages, so that the advantages of the individual organizations can be utilized to create new value (Thomson & Perry, 2006). The same is true for coordination and communication, which are perceived as highly important for achieving the synergetic value of the partnership (Vigoda-Gadot, 2003). Exchange of resources and information requires open channels of communication as well as formal and informal mechanisms of coordinating the partnerships’ activities which are associated with attaining the partnership’s outcomes (Koschmann et al., 2012).

Important process variables that affect the development of CSPs are differences in institutional logic and work procedures, as well as intersectoral power struggles. Interorganizational and intersectoral power relations are a central characteristic of CSPs. Like all organizations, CSPs are complex arenas of power struggles and politics, in which the respective partners aspire to control the partnership by employing a variety of strategies and tactics to strengthen their position. It appears that when the government is the main funding source for CSPs, the power relations cause nonprofits to become dependent on the government and their ability to function independently may be impaired. Nonprofits should be aware of these emerging power relations and their impact on the organization’s activity.

The findings also indicate that one of the most effective mechanisms for dealing with power struggles as well as for overcoming resistance and mitigating fears to attain the desired outcomes is to hold preliminary meetings with the administration of the organizations before entering the partnership. This can be done through a process of socialization, which includes workshops, collaborative work, and conferences. In these settings, workers are exposed to the new goals and work procedures, and they are given relevant information about what they will be doing in the partnership. The process of socialization enables the workers to assimilate the new values of the partnership and adapt to the organizational, administrative, and structural changes. Our findings revealed that socialization prior to entering the partnership is significantly and positively associated with the workers’ willingness to share resources and information, as well as with building trust between workers and attaining the outcomes of the partnership. The qualitative analysis of the case studies also indicated that to overcome resistance and create an atmosphere of inclusion and partnership, it is highly important to raise awareness of the differences and to discuss them, as well as to engage in efforts to bridge the gaps and create a supportive organizational climate which enables the partnership to operate efficiently and achieve its goals. Bryson et al. (2006) argued that because conflict is common in partnerships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if the partners use resources and tactics aimed at equalizing power and managing conflict, particularly in the early phases of planning and organizing the work to be done. Although our findings support this proposition, they also suggest that during the initial stages, the partner organizations need to invest time as well as emotional and mental energy in socializing their members to the new values of the partnership. The socialization process and orientation are directed toward overcoming resistance and mitigating the workers’ fears while entering a new type of relationship (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004).

One of the main factors that plays a critical role in achieving the outcomes of CSPs is building trust among the partners (Alexander & Nank, 2009; Provan & Kenis, 2008).

In this study, trust among the partner organizations was found to be a crucial factor in determining the success or failure of the CSP in terms of attaining its goals and synergetic value. The quantitative analysis and the case studies revealed a high level of trust among the partner organizations and indicated that trust is based on professional and personal experience as well as on appreciation, which have an impact on attaining the outcomes of the partnership.

In addition, interpersonal trust, which is based on relationships between specific personalities, has important implications for CSPs. In other words, when the operation of CSPs becomes solely dependent on the relationships between certain individuals, a turnover in staff or sudden change in the close relationships between individuals may endanger the operation and sustainability of the partnership. Thus, although interpersonal trust is crucial for building CSPs, it should be assimilated at both the personal and organizational levels.

In terms of partnerships outcomes, we distinguish in this study between two sets of outcomes. The first is process-related measures of outcomes and the second is programmatic outcomes. “Process-related outcomes” are products of the structural, organizational, and administrative collaboration between the partners, creating a value oriented toward an efficient operation of the partnership’s machinery. In the study, these are “efficient use of resources,” “creating new strategic options,” “attaining advanced work methods,” and “capacity building.” These outcomes serve as a platform for achieving “programmatic outcomes” that have a direct impact on the partnership’s clients. In our study, these are “improving clients’ well-being,” “improving service quality,” “better understanding of clients’ needs,” as well as “developing new service programs” and “changing service programs.”

In addition, the case studies indicate that the participants believed the partnerships had a substantial social impact. They viewed the partnership as a means of furthering and implementing social change at the national level, which enables mobilization and leverage of resources that facilitates social change. These impacts highlight the inherent potential of CSPs to promote social action and show that the products of working together are greater than the products of working separately. The findings also indicate that CSPs are especially important for smaller, peripheral nonprofits and for organizations representing minorities who have greater difficulty promoting social changes at the national level. Notwithstanding the challenges of partnerships, initiating and joining CSPs can provide opportunities for such organizations to impact social policy and achieve social changes.

The findings of the study also revealed that a more supportive policy environment is needed for CSPs to fulfill their potential as a policy strategy. Although the current policies relating to government–NPO relations in different countries are replete with the language of partnership and collaboration, in many instances, they display distinct power inequities. There is a large degree of variation in the success of these collaborations, and even though it may appear that the collaboration has been achieved, it may well be in name only (Furneaux & Ryan, 2014; Phillips & Smith, 2014). The study highlights the need to develop clearer and more supportive governmental policies for the creation and promotion of CSPs. Such policies can help establish structures and rules for managing and operating CSPs and can mediate the differences in organizational logic as well as the inherent power imbalances in these structures. There is also a need to develop accessible knowledge infrastructures, financial resources, and support mechanisms that can help medium-sized and small organizations in the civil society sector operate within CSPs. In addition, more forums are needed for holding meetings among organizations from different sectors and familiarizing them with CSPs as a potential basis for future partnerships.

In conclusion, the article sought to enhance understanding of the relationships between the different stages of CSPs. Specifically, the study sought to explore the relationship between input and process variables and shed light on their potential to contribute to achieving outcomes among CSPs in the human services. In our case, outcomes were defined as the extent to which the partnership attains its espoused goals as a product of the relationship between input and process variables (D’Aunno, 1992; Forbes, 1997). As the findings of our study indicate, appropriate inputs and efficient transformation in the process stage (the black box) yield desired outcomes for CSPs. The most important inputs are bridging the differences and gaps between the partners, socialization of the partners to the partnership, and establishing a psychological and formal agreement to match expectations. We believe this stage in the life cycle of CSPs is a precondition for the ability of the partnerships to achieve their desired goals, in addition to the establishment and assimilation of efficient mechanisms for shared decision making and administrative procedures.

Notwithstanding the multidimensional and complex nature of CSPs, we believe that the input–process–outcomes model used in our study sheds light on organizational processes and outcomes in these partnerships. Further studies in this area can enhance understanding of the factors and processes that have an impact on the effectiveness of partnerships in terms of achieving desired outcomes. We have also suggested that future studies explore the driving and restraining forces involved in attaining desired outcomes in different national contexts. Comparative studies can also enhance understanding of these processes in CSPs in general and in human services in particular.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research presented in this article was supported by a grant from the Government–Civil Society Initiative, a joint venture of the Prime Minister’s office; Welfare, Finance, Education, Health, Law, and Absorption Israeli governmental ministries; and the JDC Israel Institute for Leadership and Governance.

Author Biographies

Michal Almog-Bar, PhD, is the head of the Center for the Study of Civil Society and Philanthropy in Israel, the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research focuses on nonprofits–government relations, advocacy activities of human service organizations, and cross-sector partnerships.

Hillel Schmid, PhD, the Centraid-L. Jacque Menard chair in Social Work for the Study of Volunteer and Nonprofit Organizations and Prof. Emeritus at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His areas of interest are the management of nonprofit organizations, adaptation to changing environments, leadership, organizational change, advocacy, and philanthropy.

References

Alexander

Nank

(2009). Public-nonprofit partnership: Realizing the new public service. Administration & Society, 41, 364-386.

Almog-Bar

(2016). Policy initiatives towards the nonprofit sector: Insights from the Israeli case. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7, 237-256.

Andrews

Entwistle

(2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 679-701.

Arya

Salk

J. E.

(2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 211-234.

Austin

J. E.

(2000). Strategic alliances between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 69-97.

Austin

J. E.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part 1.Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726-758.

Axelrod

(1984). The evolution of cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod

(1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Babiak

Thibault

(2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 117-143.

10.

Bode

Brandsen

(2014). State-third sector partnerships: A short overview of key issues in the debate: Introduction to the special issue on state-third sector partnerships. Public Management Review, 16, 1055-1066.

11.

Brinkerhoff

J. M.

Brinkerhoff

D. W.

(2002). Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective: Evolution, themes and new directions. Public Administration and Development, 22, 3-18.

12.

Bryson

M. J.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M.

(2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.

13.

Carnwell

Carson

(2009). The concepts of partnership and collaboration. In Carnwell

Buchanan

(Eds.), Effective practice in health, social care and criminal justice: A partnership approach (pp. 3-21). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

14.

Crosby

B. C.

Bryson

J. M.

(2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211-230.

15.

D’Aunno

(1992). The effectiveness of human service organizations: A comparison of models. In Hasenfeld

(Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (341-361). Newbury, CA: Sage.

16.

Forbes

D. P.

(1997). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 183-202.

17.

Furneaux

Ryan

(2014). Modelling NPO-government relations: Australian case studies. Public Management Review, 16, 1113-1140.

18.

Gazley

(2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 653-673.

19.

Gazley

Brudney

(2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 389-415.

20.

Gazley

Guo

(2015, November). What do we know about nonprofit collaboration? A comprehensive systematic review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ARNOVA, Chicago, IL.

21.

Goldsmith

B. S.

Eggers

W. D.

(2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

22.

Gray

(1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Gray

(1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government, and communities. In Huxham

(Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 57-79). London, England: Sage.

24.

Guo

Acar

(2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependence, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 340-361.

25.

Hasenfeld

(2010). Human services as complex organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Huxham

(Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Huxham

Vangen

(2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.

28.

Isett

Mergel

LeRoux

Mischen

Rethemeyer

R. K

. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), 157-173.

29.

Koschmann

Kuhn

Pfarrer

(2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37, 332-354.

30.

Mohr

Spekman

(1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135-152.

31.

Osborne

S. P.

(2000). Public-private partnerships: Theory and practice in international perspective. London, England: Routledge.

32.

Osborne

S. P.

(2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8, 377-387.

33.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Ostrom

(1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1-22.

35.

Parmigiani

Rivera-Santos

(2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37, 1108-1136.

36.

Phillips

Smith

S. R.

(2014). A dawn of convergence? Third sector policy regimes in the “Anglo-Saxon” cluster. Public Management Review, 16, 1141-1163.

37.

Provan

K. G.

Isett

K. R.

Milward

H. B.

(2004). Cooperation and compromise: A network response to conflicting institutional pressures in community mental health. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 489-514.

38.

Provan

K. G.

Kenis

(2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229-252.

39.

Provan

K. G.

Milward

(1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.

40.

Ring

P. S.

Van de Ven

A. H

. (1994). Development processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 90-118.

41.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2000). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Salamon

Toepler

(2015). Government-nonprofit cooperation: Anomaly or necessity? Voluntas, 26, 2155-2177.

43.

Sanyal

(2006). Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations as local and global actors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 66-82.

44.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Crane

(2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalization of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 413-429.

45.

Thomson

A. M.

(2001). Collaboration: Meaning and measurement (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University Bloomington.

46.

Thomson

A. M.

Perry

J. L.

(2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.

47.

Varda

Shoup

J. A.

Miller

(2012). A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public affairs literature: Implications for public health practice and research. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 564-571.

48.

Vigoda-Gadot

. (2003). Managing collaboration in public administration: The promise of alliance among governance, citizens and businesses. Westport, CT: Praeger.

49.

Wood

D. J.

Gray

(1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applies Behavioral Science, 27, 139-162.