1. CROSS-SECTOR PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY: MAKING ALIGNED CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY WELL-BEING JOLIE BAIN PILLSBURY, PH.D. VICTORIA GODDARD-TRUITT, PH.D. JENNIFER LITTLEFIELD, PH.D. STUDENT University of Maryland School of Public Policy James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership

2. Acknowledgements  The Leadership in Action Program is implemented by The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership (Academy) at the University of Maryland in partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Casey Foundation)  This research is supported by the Academy and the Casey Foundation

3. Introduction  This paper presents a framework for cross-sector performance accountability that helps communities to realize results.  The research highlights an approach to performance management where public sector leaders join with leaders from other sectors to hold themselves accountable for their collective performance to measurably improve conditions of well-being at the community level.

4. Outline  Theory of Aligned Contributions  Four Quadrants of Aligned Actions  Implementation Framework  The Leadership in Action Program  A County Level LAP  Research Methods  Findings  Next Steps  Implications  List of References

5. Theory of Aligned Contributions

6. Four Quadrants of Aligned Actions For Results Low AlignmentHigh Alignment High Action  High action that contributes to results  Does not work to be in alignment with others  High action that contributes to results  Works to be in alignment with others Low Action  Low action that does not contribute to results  Does not work to be in alignment with others  Low action that does not contribute to results  Works to be in alignment with others

7. Implementation Framework A call to action  An invitation from a credible source to join and be publicly accountable  A legitimizing force recognized by leaders from public & private sectors A container  A place, time, materials and support structure that creates a meeting environment to work together.  A holding environment creates a non-hierarchical, structured environment that allows decision making process to address power imbalances while dealing with conflict A capacity to collaborate  Results-based Accountability Competency  Race, Class & Culture Competency  Leading from the Middle  Collaborative Leadership Competency

8. The Leadership in Action Program (LAP)  LAP is a competency-based leadership development program that mobilizes leaders from multiple sectors and the community to rapidly accelerate results for children and families.  This presentation presents findings from an assessment of a county level LAP program to determine the efficacy of a leadership approach in holding leaders in cross section work accountable for performance management that leads to results

9. A County Level LAP  “ LAPpers”  Public sector (12)  Private, non-profit sectors (13)  Private, for profit (1)  Funders (2)  All children in the County enter school ready to learn  County Early Learning and School Readiness Commission  Population Indicator-CRCT

10. Research Method  Unit of Analysis  Tracked commitments made  Initial interest: level of commitments related to action and alignment  Research parameters  Qualitative and descriptive methods  Grounded approach to development of coding scheme with 84% inter- rater reliability  Ordinal Scale  Data collection source: leader’s action commitment forms and session notes

11. Findings: Action Level  Anticipated increase in the number of high level action and aligned commitments  Anticipated decrease of the low level commitments as the sessions progress  Significant change occurred after session 3 in the predicted target session for the development of the capacity to collaborate  Decrease in the total number of actions seen in session 8 and 9 reflect a consolidation of strategies by the leaders as they prepared to integrate and institutionalize their performance management system.  Further hypothesis that the decrease was also an artifact of the design of the tracking system

12. Findings: Level of Alignment

13. Findings: Matrix of Action and Alignment The TOAC predicts that a critical mass of multi-sector leaders taking aligned action (high action, high alignment) at sufficient scope and scale creates performance accountability for results Low Alignment Medium Alignment High Alignment High Action 018 (5%) 98 (27%) Medium Action 85 (23%) 100 (27%) 36 (10%) Low Action 21 (6%) 4 (>1%) 0

14. Preliminary Research Conclusions  Preliminary support for a theory of aligned contributions  The implementation of the theory allows public sector leaders to become part of heterarchical, voluntary network  The network holds accountability for performance related to community wide conditions of well- being through a performance management system of public accountability for commitments to aligned action.

15. Next Steps  Expand analysis to more sites  Analyze the relationship between types and levels of commitments to progress on action commitments  Use other units of analysis e.g. leaders, achievement of performance measures and population results  Comparative analysis of LAPs

16. Implications for Public Administrators  A heterarchical approach to performance management of cross sector networks is possible.  Successful network performance is more likely when collaborative leadership development is integrated into the operation of the network.  Public accountability is very difficult; however, network performance management is possible when there is attention paid to the development of capacity and individual skill building.

17. References   Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, Special Issue: 56-65.  Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). The Impact of Leadership Development on Early Childhood Education. www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter.aspx.  Babies Born Healthy Leadership in Action Program. (2007). Babies Born Healthy Leadership in Action Program. International Conference on Urban Health.  Baltimore Leadership in Action Program Progress Report 2005 – 2007 (2007).  Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Adminsitration Review, Special Issue: 44-55.  Dooley, K. D. (1997). A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organization Change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, Vol. 1(1).  Eoyang, G. H., & Berkas, T. H. (1998). Evaluating Performance in Complex Adaptive System. In M. a. Lissack, Managing Complexity in Organizations (pp. 2-13). Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.  Friedman, M. (2005). Trying Hard is Not Good Enough. Victoria, BC Canada: Trafford.  Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.  Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line. Harvard Business School Press, 1-13.  Human, S., & Provan, K. (2000). Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise. Administrative Science Quarterly.45(2), 327 – 65.  Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: the Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York: Routledge.  Kickert, W. J., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Public Management and Network Management: An Overview. In W. J. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. Koppenjan, Managing Complex Networks (pp. 35-61). London: Sage Publications.  Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks. In W. J. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. Koppenjan, Managing Complex Networks (pp. 1-13). London: Sage Publications.  Kontopoulos, K. (1997). The Logics of Social Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Littlefield, J. (2009). The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Leadership in Action Program: Leading to Progress in Children Entering Kindergarten Ready to Learn? Working paper.  McQuire, M. (December, 2006). Collaborative Public Mangagement: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, Special Issue: 33-42.  Pillsbury, J. B. (2008). Theory of Aligned Contributions: An Emerging Theory of Change. Draft White Paper (www.sherbrookeconsulting.com).  Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. In B. M. Staww, & L. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 295-336). Grennwich, CT: JAI Press.  Stone, C., Doherty, K., Jones, C., & Ross, T. (1999). Schools and Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: The Community Development Challenge. In R. F. Ferguson, & W. T. Dickens, Urban Problems and Community Development (pp. 339-369). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

18. Thank You  Jolie Bain Pillsbury  jolie@sherbrookeconsulting.com  Victoria Goddard-Truitt  vtruitt@comcast.net  Jennifer Littlefield  jnlittle@umd.edu