Abstract
Purpose. This study described the structure and funding of three successful interagency groups providing school-linked medical and social services. It sought enabling factors, as well as obstacles and the means used to surmount them. The literature search found six skills and processes commonly recommended: (1) involve all key players, (2) move at a pace that allows strengthening of relationship, (3) plan to strengthen communication, (4) set norms, (5) use group process facilitation, (6) plan to manage conflict and resistance. Presence of these in successful groups was noted, as was advice to new collaborators. Methodology. Descriptive case study methodology was employed. Background information was gathered from archival records and interviewing a contact person. Collaborative meetings were videotaped, along with a focus group on the research questions. Findings. Few interagency collaboratives existed in rural Northern California. Six cases were found, and three took part in the study, along with one as a pilot case. All three anticipated major increases in future funding from Medi-Cal and SB 910. Consistent obstacles were time and money constraints, the ensuing conflicts, and ways that groups responded to these challenges. All groups worked to involve all key players. Proactive planning for the management of conflict characterized all three groups. All groups used superordinate goal setting and the development of trusting interpersonal relationships to overcome obstacles. Consensus decision-making was universal, though group process facilitation was not the rule. Groups operated informally, and tended to be unfamiliar with group process vocabulary. Two patterns of success were evident in the groups studied. One relied on long-term, high-trust relationships among the group that came together to complete the task. The other relied on the vision and organizational skills of a single individual. Conclusions and Recommendations. Collaboration on school-linked social services promises to be dollar-wise and effective. Building relationships, and clarifying superordinate goals are recommended practices. Study of leaderless collaboratives in more metropolitan areas would provide contrast to this study. Further study of patterns of successful behaviors in initially leaderless groups of other kinds is indicated.