| Partnership for Regional Livability |
|---|
September 21, 1999
Compiled by Julia Parzen
| Core Assumptions | Experience | Lessons |
|---|---|---|
| The regions are "ready" for the kind of partnership PRL envisioned. We can get to projects in four months. | For a variety of legitimate reasons, we rushed the process assuming the regions were ready to sit down with the feds. We found the regions were at very different stages of readiness. The Bay Area had a head start in building a local civic infrastructure based on Irvine support. Denver and Chicago did not. All four had unanticipated bottlenecks and steps to getting to a well-defined "ask" of the feds and in building a broad base of local support. Alot of progress was made in four months, but nothing like getting to deals. | It is hard work developing a broad regional consensus about project goals, content, and process. It helps to have an existing broad regional collaboration already cooking regional projects, but not that many regions have one. It could severely limit PRL's scope if it only worked with such regions. Perhaps there should be a pre-project phase for capacity building/leadership development where potential regions get some help up-front along the lines of best practices, leadership workshops etc. There definitely needs to be a longer time frame to get to implementation on these projects, at least a few years and a different time frame for each region. The nuances in each region must dictate the steps and the timeline. The pressure to pick a project in a short time can help to fragment natural regional networks. PRL ought to build on those networks, not fragment them into project specific bits. These networks could incubate new regional projects. The pressure to pick a project in a short time can help to fragment natural regional networks. PRL ought to build on those networks, not fragment them into project specific bits. These networks could incubate new regional projects. |
| The feds will take care of cultivating their capacity to hold cross-agency conversations in support of regional projects. | The federal leaders in PRL have found that it takes time to set up federal teams. The feds have grappled with how to have a coordinated conversation at the federal level and deal with different agency structures, a mix of appointees and career staff, and the dynamics between headquarters and region. A key challenge is that whatever feds do is an add-on for people who are working long hours already and being evaluated for other work. There may need to be incentives, rewards, and ways to protect feds. | PRL has to be as much about federal capacity building as regional capacity building or creating federal-regional partnerships. If it's not possible or wise now to build a larger, more formal home for regionalism at the federal level, then at least PRL should help to build a home outside of the federal government where regional-minded feds can drop in and find nourishment, information, inspiration, and partners. A Wingspread meeting in December may be a first step in this direction. |
| If you bring together interested regions and feds, it will be clear how the feds can add value. | It has been hard for the regions and feds to surface innovative ways to work together. Some of the regions thought the feds would tell them what are the best federal hooks and partners. The feds thought the regions would tell them. The regions and the feds need more capacity to design innovative solutions that are integrative across disciplines and bottom lines. Both the regions and feds found Scott's memos which teased out potential regional-federal partnership opportunities very helpful. | PRL should build a strong capacity to provide innovative ideas, a network of individuals that thinks about these things, communicates, educates, and practices. One or two circuit riders won't do it. Nor will a host of academics. Perhaps we should produce an innovations opportunities memo for every regional project as it emerges which identifies bests practices adapted to local conditions. Also build a network of individuals that are able to help regions think about and design innovative solutions that are integrative across disciplines and bottom lines and take advantage of federal authorities. |
| The regions will submit a reverse RFP to the feds inviting federal involvement in specific ways before a regional-federal dialog begins. | The "Reverse RFP" idea has continued to be preferred by the federal participants in PRL. It has the benefit of providing the feds with a certain amount of distance from the problem definition process (insulating the federal government from a charge of meddling in local issues), while giving them a specific "spec" to work off in pulling together teams. Nevertheless, in all of the regions to varying degrees, there has been a move to involve federal officials in the definition of problems and identification of potential solutions. | There is a balancing act between having very well articulated projects the federal leaders in PRL can use to attract new federal partners and getting the federal partners involved early enough in each venture that they can truly become partners in the undertaking the way the regions want. PRL needs to figure out how to ensure the quality of federal involvement in a process with a lot of flux and manage regional expectations about the federal ability to deliver resources at the end of more open processes. |
| Regional-federal partnerships will lead to replication and the reinvention of the federal role at the regional level. | The value of the four leading edge projects as system-changing experiments is not clear. If they result in federal-regional agreements and there is federal value added, then they will demonstrate something about how to engage the federal government in an ad hoc, unofficial way in regional activities. However, coordination by federal agencies is not the same thing as fundamental reinvention nor do they necessarily lead to that dynamic. | PRL needs a vision for how the first site projects will lead to system change. Whether or not PRL is trapped in a go-slow, go-careful mode when it comes to engaging the feds, it would help to have some vision for what federal reinvention around the power of regionalism might look like. |
| The PRL core conditions for moving ahead with a federal partnership with regions is that the projects are of regional significance, well defined, and under development; there is broad, civic support for the projects and bi-partisan political support; the federal government can add value without new authorities; and there are interested regional federal agencies. | While this has turned out to be alot to ask in a short time, these criteria still seem necessary to make it comfortable for the feds to participate, except perhaps that projects be already under development. However, there is not agreement about what these things mean, especially what is broad or bi-partisan political support. | PRL needs to be clearer about the standards for participation in the partnership and the meaning of the language at every step. See further below for discussion of whether projects need to already be under development. |
| The main value added of PRL is facilitating federal involvement in regional projects. | To date, much of the value added of PRL has been in technical assistance around innovative regional solutions, facilitation support for the regional projects, setting of deadlines, and cross-site learning. The information project has emerged which has as high a potential value added for the four regional projects. We have also seen a number of potential opportunities for value added. The regional collaborations seem to share a common framework and are attracted to each other and the potential to learn from each other. Also, the regions and some of the federal players have expressed a desire for help in developing innovative solutions (Bay wants help designing markets; Atlanta, help extending GRTA's reach beyond transportation; Chicago, help identifying creative approaches for curbing air pollution; and Denver on cutting-edge workforce strategies). | PRL has begun to rethink its core purpose to reflect this broader potential for value added. The proposed revised statement of purpose for PRL is "to help regions to succeed in accomplishing their regional livability goals from the bottom up by facilitating the building of these assets: diverse regional leadership, foundation leadership, federal agency support, private market investment, new tools and incentives, and learning networks." |
| Because there is a great deal that is not known about how to do the work of creating regional solutions to intractable problems, PRL should focus on learning as an integral part of the project. | The work to date of PRL has only reinforced that there is an astonishing amount to learn about how to operate effectively at a regional level. It is not just a matter of transferring what we know how to do at the national or community level. It requires the creation of new capacities to produce new solutions to big problems. PRL has also found that there is a shared set of questions across the regions about how to make this work. It has not been hard to capture the process lessons at the PRL level. What has been hard is to tap into the regional lessons about such things as how did the regions get the governor and mayoral buy-in, how did they build inclusiveness, how did federal agencies get together around projects, and how did the regions address the core issues. | PRL should see as its goal figuring out what is the "operating system" of vision and values, capacities, relationships, and tools that regions can use to appreciate their economic, social, human, and natural capital. PRL needs to find a better way to capture region-level lessons, especially non-process lessons. |
| The way PRL will grow is by adding more regions with which to work on federal-regional partnerships. | The replication model is one way to think about expanding PRL. However, the feds are uncertain about how much regional engagement they can effectively manage at one time and there may be other value-added strands as valuable as federal-regional partnerships. A different approach, which does not breach the fed's picket fence, but allows PRL to pursue other value-adding opportunities, is the menu model. | PRL may want to offer qualified regions a menu of possible services and manage demand for each service in ways that match it to supply. |
| Foundations can use their assets of connections, knowledge, and capital to provide leadership at the regional level, and act as neutral conveners and financiers to help build the capacity for collaborative planning and consensus decision-making across diverse sectors. | The regions say this has been the case. The Foundations involved in PRL have been helpful with financial support from an early time, brainstorming on strategy, thinking through local politics, identifying people with whom projects should connect, figuring out how to bring people in, and adding legitimacy in getting people to talk and participate. The feds agree that the foundations have provided a means for people in the federal government to think about and try new things. Having the foundations willing to drive the process, to serve as intermediaries, and to grease the skids provides federal agency people with an especially good environment in which to try to achieve the goals of the Partnership. Bringing feds and locals together around projects, there seems to be a need for a third party kind of process. It is an interesting role for foundations to help build the capacity to negotiate this kind of partnership. At the same time, there are many challenges for foundations doing this work. Foundations are experts in creating new intermediaries, while what regional work requires is building networks. It is a real challenge to do something so open-ended that changes all the time and doesn't have a clear end or much to show in terms of impact in the short-term. Doing this sort of work, the foundation invests its name and reputation differently than simply by funding projects. It is a challenge when keeping the regional institutions we support in the center of the debate to make sure that different perspectives are heard, including those of other grantees. A foundation may hear from grantees who disagree, but it also may hear from trustees who are embedded in the civic life of the regions and have concerns. | Foundations need help in figuring their way through this very different kind of process. Collecting the lessons will help other foundations considering taking a regional perspective to see there are solutions to the challenges. PRL should help foundations figure out how to work in this arena. |
| Part of PRL's definition of readiness of a region is having a local foundation champion. | It really helped Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Chicago to get going that they had a local foundation champion of substantial size. It is not just the money foundations bring (this did make sure people could get to PRL meetings and such). They also provide connecting infrastructure. Denver did not have one and started more slowly. However, with PRL's help local folks pulled together a network of support from smaller foundations. | Having a local foundation champion is easier, but it may not always be possible. If a region does not have a local foundation champion, the most valuable thing for PRL to do is be a neutral convener for local funders to see how PRL and the local projects fit into their current priorities and bring new ideas for how to address these issues. |
| Another part of the definition of readiness is an already cooked project of regional significance. | Some of the regions like the Bay Area had an existing project in which to plug PRL. Some did not. Where the project was not yet developed or there was not an existing regional network "cooking" projects, it has taken more time to identify a federal role. On the other hand, it has been difficult in some cases to figure out how to integrate PRL into an existing project. It can be very useful, for example, for the feds to be at the table early on in a project's development, as in Denver. | We don't know yet whether this "readiness" criteria should change. |
| PRL will provide technical support to the regions during project development through consulting teams for each region. | In the short term, it turned out we needed one person (Scott) to play that role because things moved so fast. Now we may need to go back to the original concept. Requests for technical support have come in on short notice, and PRL could not respond in the way it wished. | It might make sense to build in t.a. from the beginning of a regional project's involvement with PRL, rather than putting it together in an ad hoc way. This will ensure we don't miss opportunities to bring new ideas to the table. PRL could prepare a Targeted Regional Innovations Plan for each region including best practices memos adapted to local situations, access to creative swat teams, and on site workshops. |
| Because the feds are going to respond to regional proposals, most of the reporting on progress will be from the regions to the feds. | Concentrating on reporting from the regions to the feds left the regions in the dark at several points about the efforts the feds were making to prepare for and respond to their proposals. It set up an uneven relationship. It made it hard to manage expectations. It created frustration for the regions. | It is critical for there to be balanced reporting of progress from all parts of the Partnership. |
| Establishing benchmarks and deadlines helps a complex network move forward. | Several of the partners commented on how the deadlines and conference calls helped them move their own process forward. These are big overwhelming processes involving lots of people. Having an external reason to push things along can be helpful. However, pushing the regions quickly to projects left them little time for building a broad base of engagement in the regions which did not already have one. | It is valuable to set benchmarks. At the same time, PRL needs to rethink what it takes for a region to be ready to choose a project for the Partnership. |
| Having a circuit rider assigned to stay in contact with each region and help will facilitate the process. | The regions said the circuit riders gave them a higher level of confidence, made PRL seem real, and helped to move things along. Regional coordinators stayed in touch with the regional teams and each other. Weekly meetings surfaced problems quickly and requests for help. Also provided a place to figure out what other minor strategic investments to make. At the same time the regional coordinators are watching carefully for when they should step aside. | It is important to facilitate this process of finding new ways for foundations, regions, and the federal government to work together. The facilitators should have no agenda of their own other than moving people toward value-added partnerships. They should move aside once there are strong relationships |
| There will be cross-cutting issues across the regions. | The four projects made it apparent that accessing, analyzing, and communicating information was a critical building block for the regions. A common interest emerged across the regions in exploring the potential to work with federal agencies on a strategy for comprehensive mapping -- i.e. crime, housing, environment, etc. -- by region. The strategy would include finding a way to coordinate across agencies and ensure data bases can talk to each other. PRL is framing such a cross-cutting project. Regional folks like tracking the progress on other issues in other regions because they may become issues in the future in their own regions or may already be issues, but not ones where there is a clear path forward at the time. | There are opportunities through the four sites to help build the capacity of regional efforts more broadly, such as providing better information. PRL should continually look for those opportunities and be prepared to exploit them. |
| PRL will help the regional sites to identify approaches for negotiating regional agreements, how to use facilitators, and how to structure the agreements. Putting expectations in writing will be important. | All regions want a collaborative engagement with the federal government to identify good ideas and direction before there is a negotiation over project commitments. Even when they are ready, it has become clear that the negotiation process will be complex to think about. The regional teams include government, but they are collaborations of a variety of civic, business, and community leaders. | We are at the edge in terms of creating a new model of negotiation. The foundations may play a key role in supporting some kind of facilitator for each region to support these conversations. What seems to be making sense is horizontal negotiations at the regional and federal levels and vertical negotiations between the regions and the feds. |
| The regions will choose from among existing projects one to propose to PRL for a federal partnership. | was very difficult for the regions to choose amongst projects. Different local stakeholders cared most about different projects. This needed to be a give and take with the feds laying out their criteria for projects as well. An interesting thing happened in Atlanta. Atlanta folks came to see the GRTA project as a lead for its other 2 proposals which are natural continuations. Also this kind of alignment could provide an exciting way to expand replication within a region, i.e. by growing additional projects out of the first one. | All of PRL requires openness and give and take between the regions and the federal participants which is not the usual way of doing business. An effort on the part of PRL staff to explore alignment between a region's projects may be useful too. |
| The feds will choose a few projects from the four regions to carry forward. | It has been very difficult to choose projects, especially because there was not clarity early on about what could be the federal value-added for each project. As a result, many of the projects have moved forward to some degree, in spite of the concern on the part of the feds about their capacity to respond to more than a few projects. The reason for encouraging multiple projects was to ensure that if one project was rejected there would be another. But because the project development involved so much more work than anticipated, there has been some pressure to do more than one project in a region. | It may not be a good idea to encourage three or four ideas to be developed by each region. |
| PRL will itself require minimal and short-term financial support. | PRL has taken far longer than the four months for which it was originally funded to bring projects to the point of deals. It has been hard for PRL to respond to all of the requests for assistance because it has not had a technical assistance budget. | PRL should not have started with funding for only four months. This is long-term work. PRL needs a technical assistance budget. At the same, PRL should be set up to go "out-of-business" once a strong network of relationships is in place which can sustain itself. |
Last updated November 16, 1999.