READINGS
in Independent Living

DiverseAbilities:
An Outcome of Organizational Collaboration and Operational Integration

1999
by Mark T. Obatake, Rebecca Rude-Ozaki, Ph.D., Barbara Fischlowitz-Leong, Donna D. Fouts, and Victoria Suyat
BACKGROUND

Non-profit organizations in Hawaii experienced increased competition for scarce financial resources. Agencies serving persons with disabilities were no exception. Local government reduced financial support for human services, and private donors were urged to increase their charitable giving. In response, donors looked for effective ways to leverage their resources, and they expected measurable outcomes for their investment.

The Hawaii Centers for Independent Living (HCIL) laid off 25 percent of independent living services personnel and the United Cerebral Palsy Association Hawaii (UCPA-HI) closed a nationally recognized supported living program for adults with cerebral palsy in the wake of state purchase of service cuts. The resounding mandate that non-profit human service agencies should do more with less was heard repeatedly. It became clear through strategic planning that individual agencies could not do any more without serious injury to the integral structure of their organizations. The question was raised, "How can we continue to develop and deliver needed services while maintaining sound organizational health?"

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE: A COLLABORATIVE RESPONSE
Coming to the Table

In 1996, HCIL invited administrators of several agencies for a brainstorming session. After a few initial meetings, the players were narrowed from ten agencies to HCIL, the Hawaii Assistive Technology Training & Services (HATTS), UCPA-HI and Winners at Work. Each organization brought specific experiences, knowledge and skills to the table.

The process of collaboration was not simple. It required a strong commitment of time, a release of notions around turf issues, and most importantly, the ability to trust the partners. Some of us did not know each other when the project started. It was our commitment to the project that brought us along so fast and so far. During the first year, we were fortunate to have a person who was committed to the project, but not aligned to one agency, join all of our meetings. This unbiased opinion was greatly appreciated and needed during fevered discussions and tense sessions. For as you can imagine, all of the chief executive officers had strong opinions about most subjects.

The issue of shared leadership was essential to our success. As a team, we willingly made a commitment to learn from and teach each other along this less traveled path. Each member would take on specific responsibilities that related to fields in which they had knowledge or wanted to learn more information. In the beginning, the monthly meetings were hosted by a different agency. This established equality in the group that was important during all levels of negotiations. Ground rules were set and adhered to strictly. This was a team effort and there were times when decisions were made as to whether to proceed with the collaboration or fold. It was the trust that was established through the shared leadership that held us fast.

In the process of developing the conceptual framework, the agencies identified community leaders who would also play a significant role. The Aloha United Way triggered information that focused on the development of entrepreneurial projects. The Weinberg Fellows Program, a local training initiative for executive directors, presented issues of capacity building, assets planning and community outcomes. Local business representatives were invited to attend some brainstorming sessions to further clarify the vision of resources, services and the collaborative process.

The Concept of a Place

The initial focus was to investigate the possibility of shared office space, driven by a joint capital campaign. While evaluating potential sites, a UCPA-HI Board member identified a charitable foundation with warehouse space to lease. The group recognized the value of the foundation as a partner and began to solicit information regarding the facilities. Leasing re-designed warehouse space seemed the best option as funding, lease rates and time elements were considered. We met with an architect to discuss essential design elements, space allocation and operational workflow procedures. Each agency had to barter space and manage budgets simultaneously. Numerous blueprints later, the build-out construction commenced in the empty warehouse.

The Organizational Structure

The facilities, however, were only one part of the total picture. It was clear that the partners wanted to accomplish something more than co-location and sharing defined resources. It was important, however, that we did not lose our individual agency identities. We were not interested in a merger.

Hours were spent identifying principles from mission statements and the philosophical beliefs of the different organizations. Several main principles were identified as "standing ground" for developing the collaboration. If one agency could not identify and commit to the practice of a principle, it would be time to stop. HCIL constructed a survey tool which was completed by those defining themselves as stakeholders. Consumers, family members, staff, board members, business associates, funding source liaisons, and policy-makers were asked to share their insights about the conceptual framework. We asked questions about services, the facilities and organizational interaction. It became clear that consumers and the community wanted convenience and comprehensiveness, a place where most of their needs could be met.

Our group conceived of doing business in an "unusual" manner. What began as a fact-finding effort among the three non-profit agencies and the federal project led to the development of a new non-profit known as DiverseAbilities. Various organizational structures were considered. When researching coalitions, associations, different types of non-profits and for-profit businesses, we realized that they each brought certain advantages and disadvantages. In the end, we decided to form a 501(c)3 organization for two primary reasons: the formal structure would encourage further collaboration and the charitable status would leverage fundraising possibilities. Each chief executive officer of the four partner agencies is a board member of DiverseAbilities.

DiverseAbilities was conceived as a platform organization--as opposed to an umbrella--to promote the individual missions of its member organizations. HCIL, HATTS, UCPA-HI, and Winners strongly believe that we can best meet the current economic challenge and accomplish our individual missions through collaboration with one another.

How the Collaboration Works

On a practical level, communication is the primary means for accomplishing activities. The chief executive officers meet on a weekly basis and have assigned formal leadership roles. Agenda items for these meetings include facility operations, program development, fundraising, advocacy issues, and staff morale. Staff members from each of the agencies participate at the committee level, bringing recommendations for implementation to the DiverseAbilities board.

The communication infrastructure also includes informal gatherings in the 8-foot wide hallways and a wide area network Intranet telecommunication system. The extra wide hallways invited staff and consumers of the partner agencies to mingle with each other, casually talking about available services and resources. This natural process of relationship development paved the way for formal protocols to be developed. When finding the time for meetings became a constraint, joint projects were expedited with the use of the Intranet. Presentations, grant proposals, position papers, and other documents were collectively completed by e-mail and file transfer protocols.

One of the critical aspects of DiverseAbilities is the mindset of the chief executive officers. We continue to think in individual terms, while simultaneously considering the well-being of the collaboration. We take into account the welfare of the other individual agencies involved in the partnership. It is common practice for each of the chief executive officers to network with people, read informational literature, and attend professional development seminars, then share what he or she has learned through these various activities with the other agencies of DiverseAbilities. As an example, HCIL informed Winners of a request for proposal. Winners applied for and was awarded a grant for a Parent Information Center from the Rehabilitation Services Administration. HCIL could have applied for the grant competition. Instead, we realized the capacity of Winners, their agency's strategic plan and program strengths, and positioned the grant application accordingly. This collaborative mindset provides each executive the benefit of valuable advice, a wealth of experience and the added insight of a would-be competitor.

Leveraging strategies have provided a fundamental benefit for program development. Each of the partner agencies possesses facilities and equipment specific to the individual agency. Among the four agencies, and within the DiverseAbilities facility, various mixed-use rooms and equipment are collectively made available for program activities. HCIL could not afford to own or lease all of the shared resources that DiverseAbilities has to offer. HCIL is able to plan for a wider range of program activities--consumers service meetings, skills training classes, workshops, public forums, professional consultations, recreational activities, focus groups, picnics, etc by scheduling the available resources of DiverseAbilities. Thus, resource usage becomes mainly an issue for scheduling, not costs. Program related activities have increased for HCIL by 30 percent after the development of DiverseAbilities, while total HCIL revenues have remained the same.

HCIL is considered a smaller-sized business as an individual agency. With the advent of DiverseAbilities, the buying power and cost leveraging capacity for HCIL has increased. Several purchasing accounts and service accounts were consolidated to save costs. Vendors and other for-profit service companies have begun to perceive of HCIL as a bigger business (e.g., personnel, revenue base) whenever DiverseAbilities is involved. Better cost-effective accounts can be negotiated. In another regard, HCIL and the other agencies of DiverseAbilities have been viewed as being more representative of the general disability community. From the infants of the 0-3 program through vocational development, assistive technology and independent living, DiverseAbilities covers all phases of human development. Other service agencies and the general public have sought the involvement of one or more of the DiverseAbilities agencies to access the larger disability community.

The DiverseAbilities service integration is still in its infancy. Simple information and referral is, however, more qualitative. As consumers within an individual agency identify goals, other service needs (beyond the scope and mission of the agency) become apparent. Consumers are then informed of additional service options from the partner agencies and asked if referral is wanted. The initial staff member can immediately go with the consumer across the hall to meet a staff member from the partner agency and begin to discuss possible service requests. Accountability is improved and service lapses can be resolved more quickly. The consumer is not separated into service pieces, but provided with a continuity of options in a friendly manner. In essence, quality (defined by convenience, accuracy of information, timeliness, and relationship focused) is maintained and delivered. Not only does the consumer benefit from this process, but there is also a quality improvement element as staff members from one agency indirectly train staff members in another agency.

Better service is the bottom line. In any outcome driven format, the primary thrust of a meaningful measurement needs to be associated with the consumer's achievement of goals. Do consumers accomplish their goals in a way that is satisfactory to them? Through the services of the individual partner agencies and the combined services that DiverseAbilities enables the partner agencies to collectively deliver, people with disabilities have set and achieved goals in education, independence, and vocation, improving their lives with assistive technology and a personal confidence that comes from being valued. This is the most significant outcome of the new collaboration.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Mark Obatake, Executive Director
Hawaii Centers for Independent Living
414 Kuwili Street, #102
Honolulu, HI 96817
808.522.5404
808.522.5427 (Fax)

This document may be reproduced for noncommercial use without prior permission if the author and ILRU are cited.

The mission of the IL NET is to provide training and technical assistance on a variety of issues central to independent living today--understanding the Rehab Act, what the statewide independent living council is and how it can operate most effectively, management issues for centers for independent living, systems advocacy, computer networking, and others. Training activities are conducted conference-style, via long-distance communication, webcasts, through widely disseminated print and audio materials, and through the promotion of a strong national network of centers and individuals in the independent living field.

ILRU is a program of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR), a nationally recognized, free-standing medical rehabilitation facility for persons with physical and cognitive disabilities. TIRR is part of TIRR Systems, which is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to providing a continuum of services to individuals with disabilities.

Substantial support for development of this publication was provided by the Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. The content is the responsibility of ILRU and no official endorsement of the Department of Education should be inferred.

©2005 ILRU Program, All rights reserved
Contact Us: IL NET or ILRU
713.520.0232 (Voice) 713.520.5136 (TTY) 713.520.5785 (Fax)