About Us

Lessons Learned

GPY collaboratories are on the cutting-edge of technology-supported collaborative work. The collaboratory partners are working to dissolve boundaries that have traditionally limited research and are employing new innovations and creative strategies to transform collaborative research on youth issues. Developing novel approaches to address youth issues has resulted in numerous positive outcomes for young people and their communities. Sharing the lessons that we are learning along the way is part of the mission of the Global Program on Youth.

Collaboratory Mechanics: Tools for Successful Collaboration

1. Strategies for Effective Collaboration
2. The Challenges of Collaboration
3. The Rewards of Successful Collaboration
4. Sustaining Collaboratories

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN GPY COLLABORATORIES

1. How Technology Improved Collaboratory Work
2. The Challenges of Incorporating Technology
3. How Technology Enabled Intersections & Cross-fertilization Between Projects
4. The Smart Use of Technology

LESSONS LEARNED REGARDING UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY COLLABORATION

1. University/Community Collaboration: University Impact
2. University/Community Collaboration: Community Impact
3. University/Community Collaboration: Challenges

A. COLLABORATORY MECHANICS: TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION

1. Strategies for Effective Collaboration
The collaborations which form the basis of all of the GPY projects are strong and provide a solid foundation for the work that has been done and that these groups will continue to do. Collaboratory partners have shared their advice on building and sustaining collaboration, navigating the challenges of collaboration, and the benefits and outcomes of collaboration. Collaboratory partners shared their strategies for creating authentic, genuine partnerships that are viewed as worthwhile and sustainable by all partners. These strategies included selecting questions for study that are of interest to all of the participants in the collaboration, promoting equality among partners, and allowing groups to set their own rules for doing business on a case-by-case basis. Collaboratory partners emphasized the need to create an environment that encouraged consensus decision making by developing participatory decision-making processes, controlled by the collaboratory participants. Collaboratory partners also strived to assure that the rewards and costs of participation in the collaboratory were shared by members in a way that was perceived as fair to everyone involved.

Collaboratory partners have explained the importance of balancing academic and community interests in the partnership to ensure that all partners enjoyed the benefits of collaborative work. Academic partners found that building and sustaining important relationships was best achieved when they did not push their own agenda onto partners, but rather allowed partners to express their needs and then proposed ways in which their agenda fit in with these needs. Academic partners found that this balance of community and academic interests could be achieved by responding first to the needs voiced by community partners. For example, in the Family Development Project, the community partners expressed their view that direct service was more urgently needed than research. The academic partners responded to this need and reported:

Providing direct service solidified our commitment and dedication, while at the same time, providing us with a venue to interact with and promote our project to parents, staff, and teachers. Also, we were able to use these contacts to later recruit respondents for our studies. In many ways, it enhanced our relationship, provided Head Start with in-kind funding, provided teachers and mental health staff with invaluable assistance in the classroom, and supplied our project with ethnographic data that we have used to enhance our project and the quality of our research.

The EZLink project also found that responding to the community helped them build support for their project. They produced a document outlining their program, policies, and services that individuals at multiple levels (local, city, state, and federal) could read and review. They also developed a Web site to enable public access to the document. They found that when they communicated the benefits of their program to the community and did these outreach activities, they were taken far more seriously than before.

Partners also advised collaboratories to start with small, modest goals and build on successes. One collaboratory found it helpful to begin with solid relationships with a small group of partners and then slowly, planfully expand to a slightly larger group of partners. Other collaboratories found that partners who may have been reluctant to participate in some aspect of a project became more interested in these components after learning of their success at other agencies.

Collaboratory partners found it useful to provide opportunities for all members of the collaboratory team to voice their thoughts and concerns about the project by gathering input from all group members on an ongoing basis. Collaboratories gathered this input in a wide variety of ways, depending on the unique dynamics of their partnerships. However, mechanisms for gathering input were present in all collaboratories. Some collaboratories gathered input through personal interviews and focus groups with parents, teachers, and agency staff. Other collaboratories produced regular progress reports to keep partners informed of progress and solicit feedback and or/critiques of project documents. In accordance with the principles of participatory research, collaboratories engaged partners in all aspects of the research process, including setting the agenda for meetings, developing the research design, data entry, analysis, and interpretation, as well as disseminating findings. Collaboratories scheduled meetings in which project documents and evaluation plans were developed, reviewed, and revised. Collaboratories with international partners ensured that these partners could be actively involved in all phases of the project including instrument design, data analysis, and paper and report preparation. Face-to-face meetings were arranged so that these partners could participate more fully.

All collaboratories found that feeding back the results of their research increased partners' buy-in into the project. In the Youth Group Conflict collaboratory, the principal investigator indicated that he believed the rapidity with which the collaboratory received permission to conduct its pilot in two local schools came as a result of the support of the school principals, who were partners on the project and who were intimately involved in all phases of developing the project. Additionally, the international partners on this project have indicated that they plan on replicating the manual they helped develop after the results of the pilot project in Michigan have been analyzed, which really points to their sense of ownership of the project. The Wayne County Foster Care project reported that full participation in the development, design and execution of the study made the agencies full stakeholders in the evaluation and fostered their commitment to use the findings to improve foster care for children.

Collaboratories recognized that all group members must reap tangible and intangible benefits from participation. Collaboratory partners worked to illuminate the benefits of participation by making it clear how the group's work is improving the efficiency and effectiveness of practice, focusing on project rather than technology for technology's sake, and engaging in alternative methods of dissemination to fit the needs and interests of the service provider, family, parent, and teacher audiences.

Collaboratory partners had to exercise political sensitivity related to ethical concerns, political pressures, confidentiality, the timing of the release of research findings, the presentation of findings, and other aspects of the project. Sensitivity to political issues within the target community and between service providers in that community was an important part of building trust between partners. Collaboratories had to provide a comfortable arena-safe harbor-in which service providers could openly and honestly exchange thoughts and ideas, outside of the normal "collaborate and compete" environment of most communities.

Collaboratory partners also used a variety of tactics to support and ensure the full participation of partners by planning for staff turnover, new members, evolution of goals, growth, and technical assistance needs. Collaboratory partners continued to emphasize the need for at least some face-to-face meetings between partners to maintain and further trust in a collaboration. They continued to emphasize that there is no substitution for face-to-face meetings but indicate also that it is important to be flexible with contact methods in accordance with partners' available technology. Collaboratories reported that they used direct mail, email, and their Web site to stay in touch with their partners.

Partners have noted that their collaborations have evolved and changed over time. They have had to reduce and clarify relationships with community members, better articulate their mission and vision, plan and clarify their relationship with community residents, maintain very regular contact with community partners, and understand partners' needs for support and personal recognition. They emphasized that the mission, purpose, and activities of the program must be superbly consistent and coordinated internally through regular meetings and annual review. Two collaboratories have found that the addition of staff and/or part-time consultants has helped maintain relationships as well as increase the number and quality of relationships with partners. This is important because outreach is an on-going requirement of a community impact project. In order to accommodate turnover, one collaboratory reported that they always maintained an open door policy with collaborative partners.

2. The Challenges of Collaboration
Collaboratory partners had to negotiate the pitfalls of collaboration to achieve these successes. They faced challenges related to developing expanded mission statements as the collaboratory and its vision grew. Collaboratory partners also had to recognize the time constraints faced by their partners, help them see how important their participation in the project was, and hope that they viewed the project as important enough to warrant their time and effort. Time also became an issue and a frustration for collaboratories when certain aspects of the working required more time than originally anticipated.

When results of the research conducted by one project proved to be unpopular and contrary to some partners' expectations, the other partners' on this project had to work through these responses and defend them to proponents of the old system. This situation required collaboratory members to be politically sensitive.

Working with affiliated providers to implement service changes that were the result of research and evaluation was also challenging. Some providers resisted the changes, viewing them as extra work. Recognizing these changes could be a burden, collaboratory partners worked to streamline the new processes, conducted focus groups with parents and teachers, and provided an educational intervention to help these groups understand the importance and impact of complying with the new process. Collaboratories had to work hard to build trust with community partners, parents, and schools. Sometimes, mistrust was the result of previous negative collaborative experiences. Trust issues had to be overcome through the methods outlined above for creating genuine, authentic partnerships.

Collaboratories were challenged by limited resources and competition for space and funding. For one collaboratory, obtaining data proved to be very difficult due to high turnover among staff and organizational leadership in partner organizations. Partners discovered the need to plan for continuity of services in the face of staff and volunteer turnover. The EZLink collaboratory reported:

A talented graduate student created an exciting "Geek Corps" comprised of her technologically oriented spouse, employees and friends. The Corps was deeply involved in a major technology initiative at an elementary school in southwest Detroit. We did not integrate the Corps into the life of EZLink, nor did we define parameters of the Corps. Thus, when the graduate student experienced multiple (tragic) life issues, the Corps essentially vanished - and so did the support for the wireless environment within the school. Unfortunately, we had insufficient staff or volunteers to continue the support, and so that project is currently on indefinite hold. That's not good! We will probably resume support of the program in the spring/summer, while at least maintaining good relationships with the school administration.

Another collaboratory also learned from a similar mistake. They inadvertently decreased interactions with a community partner, assuming that she would increase her own capacity and skills as diminished oversight. They discovered that they had done so too abruptly. The community partner interpreted their distance as disinterest. They also underestimated the need for public recognition that some community partners needed. They have remedied this with regular meetings in their efforts to mend a cracked, but eminently fixable relationship.

3. The Rewards of Successful Collaboration
Collaboratories have found that this approach is both culturally sensitive and appropriate when working with community partners who have historically been underserved and disempowered. Because of the methods of collaboration used and described above, a wide range of sectors within Battle Creek were successfully engaged for work on both the teen pregnancy issue and the resulting community literacy issue. One community partner in this collaboratory commented on the unique alliance that has been created and sustained through their collaboratory project:

The interesting thing is we have a really incredible cross-section in our collaboration from a woman who is from Natural Family Planning and she goes beyond abstinence to chastity and Planned Parenthood is also at the table and it runs in between. We have a physician. We have other funders, we have the health - - so it's a variety of people and I think, because we have really talked about multiple strategies, we've kept people at the table.

A policy document - called DetroitCONNECTED - was created and distributed and it galvanized a collaboratory of industry, commercial, government, education, faith-based and community service entities in Detroit. Additionally, a viable 501c3 community entity was created to continue the work of EZLink. Another Ann Arbor was able to develop a theme for technology application and create a digital history of public school desegregation in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The Youth Group Conflict collaboratory was able to develop partnerships with multiple schools within the University of Michigan as well as other universities and international partners. Hundreds of volunteers and community members have been mobilized to achieve outcomes to help children and youth. GPY provided collaboratories with the time to invest in these relationships, the technology and resources to offer skeptical partners, and human capital which denoted commitment and dedication.

Because of this support, almost all of the collaboratories reported that the collaborative relationships that they developed and nurtured were long lasting and would lead to further collaborative efforts. As one principal investigator stated:

In terms of labor, [the collaboratory] was extremely labor intensive to implement and manage. It has made each of us more competent and confident in our efforts and produced life-long professional relationships that allow us to reach across North America to share knowledge and opportunities to better understand and promote the well-being of our youth.

The collaboratory projects also built on and strengthened already existing relationships and fostered additional trust among the agencies that had collaborated successfully in the past. These stronger collaborations have been better able to bring attention to agreed upon issues of study as a unified voice. Community partners developed a better understanding and a sense of ownership of the problems of children and youth, their causes, and potential solutions. With this newfound understanding, partners were able to move away from blaming parents or schools or providers for community failings that resulted in negative outcomes for children and youth. Partners were able to align community resources to help parents, schools, and providers achieve desired results. Collaboration broadens networks of contacts. People are able to accomplish more together than they would have been able to do alone. Collaborative work also builds momentum around important issues and encourages people already focusing their efforts on these issues. One community partner commented on the importance of the collaboration for sustaining her efforts on behalf of children and youth saying, "I would have given up by now if I was in it all by myself." Another community partner of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention collaboratory said:

We can't do it without a collaboration and there's no question about that… When you're talking middle school and high school, if a child is not involved in sports, they're done by 2:30 and they've got from 2:30 until the next morning at 7:30 when we [teachers] see them again so, it's got to be the neighborhood people that are kind of helping to watch out for kids. It's got to be the employer that has expectations. It's got to be the churches that are there to help as guidance. So it's got to be a community effort or we're just not going to make much of a dent.

4. Sustaining Collaboratories
Sustainability was a central focus for collaboratory partners. Because their work is focused on improving the health and well-being of children and youth, it is vitally important that their successes are preserved, sustained, and replicated. Innovative strategies for sustaining collaboratory work continue to emerge, as the needs of children, youth, their families, and communities evolve. These strategies were developed and adapted to ensure that the positive aspects of collaboratory work radiate, maximizing the impact on children and youth.

Collaboratories have mobilized their partners, who represented a diverse cross-section of entities, in order to secure funding and support to continue and expand their efforts. Funding and support secured has been both monetary and in-kind. Collaboratory partners represent a diverse range of entities. Additionally, all partners have been fully involved in all aspects of the project. Therefore, partners have a strong sense of the quality and importance of their shared work and are motivated to fundraise through their networks, offer suggestions about fundraising and cost-cutting, help raise matching dollars for grants, or contribute their own resources in-kind. Because collaboratory projects achieve results for children and youth on multiple levels (policy, practice, community, etc.), these projects are attractive to funders. With the help of academic partners, some collaboratories have been able to develop fundraising plans that are professional and comprehensive.

Sustainability of technology-supported collaborative efforts is a valid concern for non-profit organizations. Partners in GPY collaboratories have been able to work together to help secure the technology needed for their community-based partners to participate fully in the collaboration. All collaboratories are composed of child and youth-focused entities from different sectors (policy, practice, research, community), resulting in a diverse collaborative body, where some partners may have limited technology resources and limited budgets. Other partners have technology capacity that they can share or avenues for developing or securing donated technology for partners in need. If the collaboratory partners are not able to gather sufficient technology resources to support their work in this manner, then their joint advocacy to funding sources and decision-makers outlining the need and benefit of technology for technology-poor partners is likely to be more effective than these partners individual advocacy efforts. Also, GPY collaboratory projects continuously emphasize that the simplest technology resources (Internet and E-mail) were the most useful and the most critical to the success of their work. Equipping all partners in a collaboratory with just these two resources will go a long way to facilitate the group's work.

Additionally, some collaboratories are sustaining their partnerships by beginning work on new, jointly identified issues of urgent concern in their community, finding new partners, and adjusting the group's focus in response to emerging needs. Energized by the success of their partnership on the original issue, these partners are ready to move forward on another project to benefit their community. Support for community-problem solving efforts included data management, record keeping, networking, facilitating relationships between partners, big picture vision, and attention to long-term goals and planning. These supports in addition to funding and resource development also proved essential to the sustainability of a collaborative initiative.

Collaboratory projects also worked to sustain their efforts by replication and/or developing components that were easily replicable. The EZLink, Family Development Project, and Youth Group Conflict collaboratories developed manuals that were available to assist other organizations interested in replicating their work. The collaboratories also created new resources to sustain their projects, such as the Family Development Project's database for Head Start agencies. Collaboratories have also contributed to their sustainability by recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities for synergy and cross-fertilization between projects. For example, the principal investigator of the EZLink project reported that his familiarity with technology allowed him to assume a leadership role with the Comnet and the Another Ann Arbor collaboratories. Some collaboratories developed revenue generating activities that partially supported their work and some community partners assumed responsibility for running programs or maintaining resources developed by the collaboratory. In fact, most collaboratories employed two or more of these strategies toward sustaining their efforts.

GPY collaboratory partners successfully leveraged the initial investments made in their projects into approximately $2,720,000 in additional investments in their collaboratory efforts, their communities, and their partnerships.

B. THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN GPY COLLABORATORIES

1. How Technology Improved Collaboratory Work
Technology allows collaboratories faster and more efficient data collection, real-time communication with partners around the globe, dissemination of research results to broader audiences, and expansion of technology access to communities previously excluded from the IT revolution. With technology, collaboratories are able to perform complex work across distances and to disseminate their findings and activities to broader audiences.

Technology has been invaluable to collaboratories in disseminating their findings to broad groups, especially Web sites. Basic project information, completed documents, reports, data, press releases, strategy sheets, initiatives, outcomes, services, mission statements, announcements, and position papers have been made accessible and downloadable through Web sites. For example, the Youth Group Conflict Reduction collaboratory plans to make its manual available on its Web site for all schools, youth-serving practitioners, researchers, policymakers, etc. This guide will serve as an important resource to many communities seeking innovative strategies to reducing conflict among young people. Additionally, technology-supported dissemination allows collaboratories to improve information flow and hold successes longer, rather than watching them dissipate because mechanisms to spread the word are not available.

Web sites are an essential tool because collaboratory partners can point any person interested in their group's work to comprehensive information about their efforts through the Internet. Partners report that they have referred interested individuals from all over the country to their Web sites numerous times and have used it to introduce potential partners to the project. Collaboratories also used e-mail campaigns to get the word out about their work. One partner reports:

We have received email from across the country and internationally with regard to our project, many by practitioners, students, and non-researchers. Some have requested additional information. Thus, technology allowed us to reach a broader audience, particularly practitioners who may use the internet to access information rather than academic and professional journals.

Web sites also allow collaboratories a degree of visibility. Increasingly organizations without web presence or access find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of publicity. As one partner commented, "Our Web sites provide us instant credibility in the digital age."

Technology had a profound impact on communication and information sharing between collaboratory partners who were often juggling busy schedules and multiple responsibilities. E-mail was used to communicate with international collaborators and with all the local persons involved with the project. These communications included meeting announcements, meeting minutes, requests for action, recording meetings, sharing documents, consultations. In the absence of travel funds, information technology and the use of e-mail made it possible to maintain communications with international collaborators. Technology enabled regular contact between partners despite the international nature of the MexUSCan project and allowed them to meet requirements for expedient information exchange. As the project unfolded, especially toward the end, the flow of information in all directions was possible. The use of technology (IT) proved to be essential for communication throughout the course of the MexUSCan project, especially with language compatibility programs to ease communication between international partners who speak different languages.

Additionally, the use of the Community Zero Web site was a valuable tool in sharing information and connecting both members within a community and connecting communities with similar issues and interests together. This Web site worked as a hub to keep members connected and informed of important events and publications in between meeting sessions. Collaboratory partners intend to maintain their Web sites and e-mail contacts. One collaboratory partner reported:

Once the community was comfortable with the Web site, they began adding pertinent content and members frequently accessed the site between meeting sessions. The quality of discussion and content posting significantly increased as the activities of the community partners increased as well.

Technology also assisted partners with data collection and research. Geographic Information Systems were used to help collaboratories map problems they were studying, including teen pregnancy statistics, transportation systems, school locations, and community assets and needs. Collaboratories used the Internet to research many relevant topics including best practices and school performance statistics

Technology made work easier for collaboratory partners. Inefficient, time-consuming, staff-absorbing paper and pencil methods of record keeping and reporting were identified by collaboratory partners as drains on the time, money, and other valuable resources of partner agencies as well as collaborative efforts. They are a poor use of resources and are complicated and increase room for error. In response to a problem of this type, the Family Development Project collaboratory created a database and revised classroom observation forms through technology that streamlined reporting, improved record keeping, and eliminated "hundreds of hours of manual work, which allowed staff more time to dedicate to important priorities, including serving the children in Head Start." The EZLink collaboratory created intranets for work teams that improved information sharing, prototyping, and document development. MexUSCan also used technology to document its research efforts. The collaboratories focused on developing tools that would be easy to use and would not be costly or difficult to maintain.

Collaboratories also used technology, like Geographic Information systems, creatively to increase community resident knowledge and understanding of social problems affecting children and youth. PhotoVoice was used as a means to promote community empowerment and change. Technology has also eased the process of archiving projects and documents generated by collaboratories and developing Web sites that best suit each collaboratory's needs.

One important benefit of using technology in approaches to affect positive change for children and youth is that, for many of the partners and the youth involved, this is a unique opportunity to access technology. At-risk children and youth, their parents, communities, and youth-serving agencies are often on the wrong side of the digital divide. Participation in a collaborative effort that is facilitated by technology helps them upgrade their technology skills through training and provides an opportunity for securing more technology resources with the help of partners. Collaboratories involve people who are at-risk for marginalization during the current information-technology revolution. Collaboratories help them develop the skills that they need to take full advantage of new opportunities in the information-technology driven economy, marketplace, workplace, and social sphere.

GPY collaboratories provided thousands of hours of formal and informal training to partners, children, and youth as part of their contribution to the collaborative effort. Partners received training in everything from basic computing skills to advanced applications. Additionally, many collaboratories recognized and agreed that securing technology resources for some of their partners would help them achieve their broader goals of improving services to children and youth. Therefore, innovative, technology-infused solutions to assist partner organizations in better serving children and youth were developed and implemented. Collaboratory partners worked together to identify, donate, develop, and secure funds for these solutions. One example of the success of technology resource development on behalf of collaboratory partners with limited technology capacity is the Family Development Project's Head Start database. This database has been so effective and so useful to the Head Start partners that it could easily serve as a national model to all Head Start organizations.

2. The Challenges of Incorporating Technology
These strong incentives to using technology to facilitate collaboratory work were not without challenges. Collaboratories were challenged by ongoing issues related to technology like maintenance, technology compatibility between partners, upgrades, the threat of viruses, and license fees. Also, partners found that while technology can help facilitate the accomplishment of shared tasks by remotely located people, it can never completely substitute for face-to-face interactions. Face-to-face meetings allow partners to build trust and understanding that is invaluable to the successful accomplishment of the partners' shared goals. The nature of participatory collaboration means that face-to-face interactions, in terms of planning and executing the evaluation and interpretation of its findings are clearly necessary. The technology was a way of facilitating communication in between the face-to-face meetings.

Additionally, not all collaboratory partners had the same level of technological skill. Sometimes partners were not aware of all the resources that were available or of the correct questions to ask. Some collaboratories reported that they had to adjust their expectations with regard to the degree that technology would be used to support their work in light of the skill levels and technology resources of their partners. Collaboratories had to recognize the barriers among some partners to technology that could potentially delay work and keep these partners from fully utilizing the potential resources available to them. One collaboratory reported:

We were weak…in our underestimation of how wide the gap was between the university and our partner agencies. While we were equipped at the university to utilize a range of technology, from video-conferencing to advance web-applications, we found that the use of basic hardware and operating systems were a challenge to our partners. Internet technology was greatly underutilized, with the exception of email, which was also underutilized. Even with email though, nothing was better than a simple phone call, as sent mail often went unanswered for days.

Collaboratories planned to invest time and effort into training partners to effectively use and maintain the technology needed to accomplish the groups' work. Partners focused on using technology that was most accessible for their partners and working closely with available IT support staff to facilitate the use of technology. One principal investigator reported:

Because of the lack of technological skills and resources among our partners, we were not able to fully implement our plan. For example, we created a Worktools site, but it was never fully accessed by our partners. Rather, the community Web site was the most effective tool for networking.

Collaboratory partners also tapped all available resources to provide equipment, hardware, and software to partners, consultation around connectivity, internet resources, and increased use of academic literature and publications through links. The Family Development project actually found that helping its partner agencies with technology opened doors to new collaboratory partners. Additionally, the EZLink collaboratory has minimized upgrades, technology maintenance costs, and the threat of viruses by exploring open source software.

Some partners were also challenged by technology compatibility issues in terms of computing and word processing equipment, the need to find e-mail and web-based methods to efficiently share / transfer large amounts of data, and the need for translation programs to accommodate various proficiencies in bilingual Spanish - English, especially to accommodate Spanish language nuances that existed between nations.

The MexUSCan project faced international compatibility problems with its technology use. They originally planned to hold regular conferences with participants from all three countries by utilizing synchronous video and audio sessions, as well as utilizing a central symposium program. Toronto partners had adequate access to information technology, although regular internet communication was slow to develop. Partners in Mexico had inadequate software and hardware to use the internet. Beyond the stage of acquisition of the necessary hardware, they ran into numerous problems and were unable to accommodate the needs of an international project. MexUSCan continues to work with its partners on these issues.

3. How Technology Enabled Intersections & Cross-fertilization Between Projects
In spite of these challenges, the impetus has remained strong to incorporate IT in collaborative efforts to solve social problems that affect children and youth. Technology improves information management and communication in a way that makes possible the examination of social problems in new ways and from different perspectives. These examinations give way to the development of comprehensive and innovative solutions to society's most perplexing social problems. Technology also provides an avenue for the inclusion of a much broader base of advocates in the collaboration, which affects the quality and feasibility of the problem-solving strategies developed and implemented by the collaborative partners. One principal investigator reported that his participation in the collaboratory strengthened his resolve and firm belief in the potential of technology to create and promote family, youth and community empowerment, capacity development and social change. With a Web site to provide a global audience for the work of a collaboratory and with smart use of technology that ensures its sustainability in any setting, the impact of a collaboratory's work is far-reaching and sustainable. In fact, collaboratories have reported that the partner communities have been able to take over the ownership and maintenance of their internet-communities.

The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project provided an example of the role of technology in helping its partners make connections across communities. Community members in Romulus who were interested in reducing teen pregnancy in their city learned of the Battle Creek teen pregnancy attitude survey from a cross-posting on the communityzero Web site. Technology gives this collaboratory the power to link community efforts that will continue to provide intellectual and financial leverage into the future.

The MexUSCan project also reported interest among its collaborators in promoting ways to foster student exchange across North America via cyberspace and other methods that facilitate cultural exchange. This effort would apply to all youth interested in Latino issues, and who express a desire to learn about their Latino neighbors, in both culture and language. Technology makes this type of international exchange, engagement, and information sharing possible.

4. The Smart Use of Technology
Collaboratories only used technology when it provided a real, tangible benefit. As one principal investigator said:

We have found - through continuous meetings with community residents and members - that promoting technology for technology's sake is insufficient. The technology must enable the residents to secure something real and meaningful in their life - that is what must be communicated and understood by us.

Technology was incorporated into the GPY collaboratories according to the unique needs of each project and the ability of each collaboratory to sustain the technology in the long-term. Collaboratories are now reporting that, for example, the Web sites that were developed collaboratively are now maintained by local community partners, contributing to their long-term sustainability. Some partners also integrated theory into their technology components to ensure that the technology resources that were ultimately developed were as useful and user-friendly as possible. For example, information system theory and cybernetic principles were used throughout the Family Development Project's database development. Without a proper theory base, the database could have been just as inaccessible as the paper records if careful design considerations had not been made.

In many cases, collaboratories had to develop or adapt technology to meet their unique needs. These technology solutions were the result of experimentation. Collaboratories experimented in Wi-Fi, open source software, Yagi antennas, infrared, and "backpack labs" through which a viable technology lab can be established with a backpack full of PDAs, keyboards, and infared printers. These experiments have resulted in the incorporation of GIS and GPS into class development, community mapping and community information systems. Experiments in web-based invoicing and databasing led directly to the successful innovative work in developing an open source interactive database for Title IV programs (www.mdch.org), sophisticated Web sites, and curriculum development. These experiments and their exciting results illuminate the future potential of the work of GPY's collaboratories. For example, by shifting to open source operating systems and applications, the EZLink collaboratory will be using global standards rather than US standards and will be poised to provide services globally rather than locally.

C. LESSONS LEARNED REGARDING UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY COLLABORATION

1. University/Community Collaboration: University Impact
In contrast to the tradition of researchers working in 'silos' and interacting with different fields of study infrequently, GPY collaboratories are models of interdisciplinary collaboration. The distinctiveness of the collaboratories comes from the intentional and reciprocal relationship between the university's intellectual and social capital and professional and community perspectives Initiatives such as the GPY collaboratories can have substantial community impact and create positive change. They can also reflect the academic and professional missions of the School of Social Work and other university departments.

Perhaps the most noteworthy impact that GPY has had on the School of Social Work is that it has fostered the realization that technology and technology support must be integral components in learning, teaching, and researching social work and of the immense value of working collaboratively with community partners. The School of Social Work has continued its commitment to making technology a priority and has raised the level of expectation with regard to information technology support, as the technology needs of collaboratories quickly outpaced available campus-based support. For this reason, technology support is now required to be a part of all out-going proposals for funding from the School of Social Work. Thinking through the implications of technology at the proposal development stage, similarly to the way that budgets and evaluation plans are considered, can have significant advantages to successful proposal competitions and implementation.

The School has begun to adapt a more effective business model of paying for technology support received beyond the general package. Research projects within the School now identify technology and technology support needed at the project conceptualization phase as well as the associated costs. Previously, projects assumed that the technology support provided by the School would be both available and sufficient. The new approach allows both the School and the researchers to better assess technology needs, the degree to which the School is able to meet those needs, and which needs will be fulfilled outside of the School. This approach minimizes underutilization of available technology and support as well as frustration about perceived inadequacies of available technology and support.

Although the Global Program on Youth is housed in the University of Michigan's School of Social Work, this project has engaged and benefited students, faculty, and staff from every corner of campus. The impact of the Global Program on Youth has truly been university-wide. This is especially significant because GPY proposes a new method of teaching, learning, research, and community engagement. This new method holds enormous potential for scholarship, translational research, and improving the quality and frequency of university and community interactions to the benefit of both parties.

The impact of the GPY collaboratories on the University has been noteworthy. One principal investigator found that his familiarity with community applications of geographic information systems (GIS) developed into an opportunity to work with the Center for Mental Health Research in the establishment of a GIS research group. This project has resulted in the identification of eight senior and junior faculty with specific interests in application and use of GIS. In another example of the university-wide impact of the collaboratories, the Family Development Project has become well-known on campus as a leader for service learning.

Some collaboratory projects have presented their work to students, faculty, and staff in other schools and departments, disseminating important information and examples of how university students, faculty, and staff can become engaged in community work with a positive impact. One GPY collaboratory helped pave the way for the development of a dual degree program between the Schools of Social Work and Information, further integrating interdisciplinary educational experiences for students into university curriculum. In fact, collaboratory partners are often surprised when they are approached by other members of the university who are interested in their work and would like to learn about how they can become involved. Through GPY, the University has become more linked to local communities as well as to other community projects from across North America. These occurrences reinforce the value of the collaboratory approach not just for communities, children, and youth but also for academics, who would like to engage with the community and find opportunities to exploit the practical value of their research for the benefit of children and youth. Collaboratories enable two-way access between the University and the community.

The collaboratories have also been able to inform community service efforts in other schools, helping well-meaning academics establish projects that will be feasible, beneficial, and realistic despite resource constraints faced by communities. This service of GPY collaboratories has helped maximize other university/community partnerships by sharing information and keeping other academics from heading down the wrong path with their work. One collaboratory had conversations with School of Information students, faculty and alumni who were very excited about their library-based technology initiatives. They were, however, absolutely dumbfounded by the realities the GPY collaboratory presented about the decreasing number of branch libraries in Detroit, the fact that many communities do not have an easily accessible library nearby, that at least two of the libraries had restricted public access, that the libraries had significantly reduced hours of service, and that the available computers/Internet access were far outweighed by demand. Academic colleagues in the School of Information learned that it is best for community access initiatives to complement library, school, and commercial connectivity initiatives.

2. University/Community Collaboration: Community Impact
Community partners including parents, teachers, school administrators, children, youth, and community agencies benefit immensely from partnerships with engaged academic institutions. Universities contain a wealth of intellectual, financial, in-kind, technological, and human resources that once mobilized toward the goal of community development for children and youth, can have a transformative impact on the institutions that most affect children and youth. GPY collaboratories have improved and innovatively re-designed practice, policy, and systems to improve short and long-term outcomes for children and youth. This multi-dimensional impact is a unique feature of the collaboratory approach and is perhaps the best argument for utilizing this approach to address the many complex and entrenched problems that are at the root of the obstacles and barriers faced by the nation's children.

The University provides a theoretical and scholarly context for community services projects, which improves the interventions developed by community partners and lends credibility to the advocacy efforts of child and youth-serving agencies. Academic partners in GPY collaboratories were able to help Head Start stave off state-level funding cuts. Academic partners were able to develop a feasible technology plan to benefit the children and youth of the city of Detroit and rally policymakers' support for that plan. Academic partners were able to provide critical and credible research about teen pregnancy in Battle Creek that changed the school district's sex education policy. One community partner in the Teen Pregnancy Prevention collaboratory underscored the importance of their collaborative research for the community by saying:

The reason that we conducted the study is that we knew that if we were to take national data and distribute it, people would say, "Well, that's some place else." And so in order to inform the community that--"No, this is people right here saying this."--We wanted to get local data and that has been very helpful. We found that in addition to supporting comprehensive human sexuality the residents also support access to contraception for teens who are sexually active.

Academic partners were able to provide research that resulted in important improvements to the foster care policies in Wayne County.

In addition to volunteers and a comprehensive knowledge base, collaboratories provided valuable training to community partners on topics such as asset mapping, research on best practices, and help with procuring needed media coverage. University partners have been able to introduce community partners to people and resources outside of the community including various schools within the University of Michigan, from other institutions across North America, and abroad.

University partners in the EZLink collaboratory have helped create a business plan for the development of small business centers (a Kinko for Kids center) as well as plans for a community technology center (CTC) for wireless broadband provision in neighborhoods. These initiatives are designed to be revenue generating while providing internet access at very affordable prices ($120 year per family). They have created a plan that appears to be scalable (requiring investments of from $5000 - $25000). They are also initiating some discussion for franchise possibilities with small neighborhood internet cafes (www.meeteryeatery.com) in Detroit.

University partnerships have been so beneficial for community partners that some have even formalized their relationships with their academic partners through letters of agreement and through academic partners being named as official partners during federal site visits to the agencies. Academic partners participated in focus groups during these site visits and shared their experiences with officials. This formalization of relationships will ensure that partnerships continue in the long-term.

The principal investigator of the Conflict Resolution Collaboratory captured the truly reciprocal nature of university/community collaboratory work, saying:

This is one of the great strengths of this project as the schools involved in the project have worked with us for 1 ½ years to develop the manual and the details of the pilot project. They see the University as working closely with them to design a program that will benefit the schools and their students. They have provided extraordinary cooperation through assigning administrative staff to work with us, recruiting students as participants, and obtaining teachers to collaborate with a social worker in facilitating the actual groups. They have arranged for us to address teachers meetings to secure teacher cooperation and they have obtained permission of authorities for the execution of the project.

3. University/Community Collaboration: Challenges
University/community collaborations are not without challenges. As partners from the MexUSCan project reported:

Probably our greatest challenge in implementing the MexUSCan collaboratory was encouraging University - community collaboratives in already overwhelmed and understaffed communities. We engaged in research activities that required University - community partnerships however competing needs, organizational resource limitations, philosophical differences and other barriers both within and between partners and sites presented multiple layers of challenges.

In addition to the general challenges of collaboration, university/community relationships have their own unique dynamics that can at times pose obstacles. For example, university research that is conducted in collaboration with the community under study is fairly uncommon. This approach, where the community is integrally involved in all aspects of the research from data collection to analysis to dissemination, often conflicts with traditional models of research. Because university/community collaborative research is unusual, locating a funding source can be difficult. GPY allowed its collaboratories to implement this approach and to reflect on this process. By publishing the results of this research and providing living demonstrations of its effectiveness, GPY collaboratories are modeling how university/community collaborations not only stimulate positive community change but also produce academically sound research. The success of GPY projects will motivate other funders to reconsider university/community collaborative research.

Unfortunately, GPY collaboratories approached some potential community partners who had had previous negative experiences with university/community collaborative enterprises. In the experiences of these communities, university partners energetically pursue opportunities to collect data through community connections but neglect to develop and/or implement practical applications for that data that benefit the community or credit the community partners in dissemination efforts or even communicate research results to community partners. Some community entities were suspicious that university partnerships would not benefit them at all and may even be burdensome. University partners in GPY collaboratories are staunchly opposed to these methods and truly endorse participatory research that provides tangible benefits to community partners, including parents, schools, school administrators, and child and youth-serving agencies that are already working with stretched resources. University partners in GPY collaboratories recognized the needs of their community partners and strived to meet those needs by mobilizing university resources toward the benefit of the community. Those resources included technology, technology support, applied research, data to strengthen advocacy efforts, research to inform and improve practice, dissemination opportunities, skilled volunteers, and training. GPY collaboratory partners sought to fully engage the academic institution to implement positive changes for children and youth. However, the suspicions of community partners persisted. GPY collaboratory partners had to invest time, effort, resources, and personal contact to engage community partners. Academic partners had to spend time listening to community partners, responding to their concerns, and developing plans for partnerships that would be viewed as constructive for everyone. The principal investigator of the Family Development Project commented:

Detroit's children are its greatest asset and they do not grant permission for a university to conduct research on their children lightly. When we first began our relationship with Head Start, we were told by experienced researchers and respected scholars that what we were proposing was impossible. No one gave us a chance to develop a research project with the Detroit Public Schools, but that has been probably our most successful collaboration. No doubt the barriers were many. At every level of meeting with Head Start parents, teachers, staff, and administrators, our affiliation with the university has lead to challenges related to trust, how we will use the information we have obtained, what direct benefits will be derived, and how long we will stay in these communities. It is certainly one thing to read about the barriers to community-university partnerships and actually having to have to answer to the community around these barriers. Approaching our partners with humility, modifying our research agenda to meet partner needs, involving our partners in all aspects of the research process, negotiating our level of access, working not only with administrators, but also achieving buy in from parents, teachers, and staff have all been successful strategies for overcoming these barriers.

When engaging community partners, GPY's academic partners have found it helpful to focus on the research topic. When a topic of mutual interest to university and community partners has been identified, the roles, contributions, and responsibilities of both the academic and community partners can be clarified and limitation in those contributions and responsibilities can be defined. Important to this notion is the expectation that the community voices will be represented, that meanings will reflect the culture of the communities from which the data emerges, and that community leaders serve as educators and equal partners.

Last updated: 04/25/05

University of Michigan Global Program on Youth, School of Social Work Building, Room 3743
1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106 ssw.global@umich.edu

W.K. Kellogg Foundation

© 2002 by The Regents of the University of Michigan