The East Scarborough Storefront (ESS) was chosen to explore and determine the critical factors and dynamics of partnership and collaboration which lead to a successful formalized inter-organizational service collaboration. ESS stands out as a unique example of non-profit work, emerging out of a coalition of community members, local faith-based organisations and community-based service providers who identified an area marked by an increasingly vulnerable population of newcomers with high needs who were under-served by agencies.

The Wellesley Institute in collaboration with the ESS conducted a brief qualitative study of the ESS. Our research objectives were as follows:

  • Explore how research and capacity building can mutually learn from and benefit one another
  • Document the learning from the process of coming together and collaborating for community agencies as part of the ESS
  • Identify the factors in the external environment that initiated the project
  • Identify the specific factors that have made the ESS a successful collaboration and model of community capacity building
  • Capture the learnings from this process and share them in the Wellesley Institute’s report on Interagency service collaboration in the NPO sector
  • Make recommendations to funders on how to create policy and programs that lead to effective collaboration amongst service providers.

We conducted a series of individual Interviews with key stakeholders connected to the ESS. These participants reflect a range of perspectives from: critical personnel involved in the day to day coordination and ongoing management of ESS, representatives of agencies who are active partners in the ESS, members of the local community and members of the core working group who helped to establish the storefront.

In addition to these qualitative interviews, a document review was conducted of all relevant written materials relating to the development and daily operation of the storefront, including policies and procedures manuals, committee meeting minutes, staff reports and publications produced by the ESS.

Finally, a ‘historical scan’ was conducted with former and current members of the agency group. A ‘historical scan’ is an experiential exercise where participants (collectively) trace the central events in the history of a project. Through the exploration of critical events and contextual features (social, historical and cultural) organizing values are identified, helping to give shape to the chronological history from the perspective of shared experiences.

Analysis

Sixteen Interviews were conducted in total. Transcription was done for all tapes available[1]. Reviewing the transcripts helped to formulate a preliminary sense of the overarching themes. These themes helped to give shape to initial codes which were then applied to the transcripts in preparation for analysis. All of the Interviews were coded using an initial set of ‘open codes’. Particular attention was directed towards those terms and discussions intent on capturing dimensions of partnership, collaboration and cooperation within the storefront and the challenges that have accompanied these processes.

The analytic strategy draws greatly on Grounded Theory to elaborate upon the ideas that emerged during coding and the reviewing of transcripts (Corbin 1986). Grounded Theory involves the practice of constant checking and confirming findings. This begins in the context of data collection; where impressions and observations are explored and emerging ‘theory’ is assessed with participants over the course of the interviews.

This process continues through the analysis of text materials (interview transcripts, meeting minutes and project documents and the graphic representation of the historical scan). Interview transcripts are reviewed with an eye towards tracing themes and patterns in the evolution of the ESS. Particular emphasis was placed upon charting the dynamics which have contributed to the formation of working partnerships, the development (and promotion) of a sense (or spirit) of cooperation as opposed to competition, the ‘value added’ that participation in the ESS yielded and the sustainability of established partnerships over time.

For the document review, written materials were initially read to capture a sense of the history of decision-making, governance and the processes of operation. Critically these materials were reviewed again with an eye towards identifying patterns and themes related specifically to the concepts of collaboration and partnership and how these are realized in practice for the ESS.

A historical scan is a more interactive means of gathering insights on the evolution and sustainability of the storefront. Through an exploration of critical events with members of the agency group (past and present) we examined the points of significance in the history of the storefront; moments that stand out as particularly rewarding as well as situations and points of challenge. Participants were asked to articulate the history of the ESS, reflecting upon the critical events identified in the course of the exercise, towardshighlighting points of learning that have particular relevance around collaboration and its sustainability over time. The data ‘product’ that emerges from this exercise is a map of sorts which marks in a graphic way the critical junctures in the history of the storefront; foregrounding the pivotal moments that have given shape, structure, and meaning to the project.

Core Themes

Social service agencies (and their representatives) form networks and working alliances with some regularity. Such initiatives may be limited in scope and duration depending upon resources available. While there is a lack of comprehensive research evidence available regarding the formation of such networks, we may speculate that such coalitions and forms of collaboration are not uncommon. What may be unique in the case of the ESS working group lies in their commitment to share ownership of such efforts with the community through the establishment of formal arrangements. These arrangements ensured that an equal voice was given to agency representatives and community members in the governance structure of the ESS, where the composition reflected equal participation by community members and agency representatives.

Collaboration is not uncommon, I mean, social service agencies work in networks and coalitions all the time. Some better than others. But those are usually very limited types of coalition[s]. This was a bigger deal because people were making a commitment to provide services, to provide staffing, to provide insurance for their people and their clientele in a much longer term partnership … It was basically about community taking ownership. Because the steering committee was made up of seven people from the agencies, seven people from the community. (Interview 10)

This concept of shared ownership emerged early in the development of the storefront, underpinning the core framework of the project. The notion of equal input from community and service providers was made explicit in the initial funding proposal and later in the model of decision-making process used at the ESS. Ultimately this framing of roles and responsibilities has helped members of the ESS to work together in a way to promote norms of cooperation. These concepts have been realized in both the driving principles of the project’s mandate and in the practical actions of service delivery.

In seeking to uncover the dynamics that have facilitated meaningful collaboration, we identified several core themes across the data sources: the identification of need and the emergence of the project; defining ‘community’ (and its role in the project); processes for decision-making and governance; the establishment and support of a vision over time; the role of leadership; the ‘complementarities’ of service delivery; relationship capital; and critical challenges over time. These themes intersect and overlap considerably, with one area helping to define another.

‘Overwhelming Need’

Initial ideas for developing the ESS began with the recognition that the community of East Scarborough in the late 1990’s was one of considerable, unmet need. In a stretch of hotels in the Kingston-Galloway area, newly arrived refugees and recently homeless individuals and families came to epitomize the state of disconnect between the level of need and the ability to provide services within the local community.

There were 13 motels under contract on Kingston road, with the government under the hostel services at that time. And so many refugee families came to Canada, and that was their first point of housing. So there were families of 5 living in one hotel room. It was horrendous. And because a lot of the motels were on Kingston road, right around this area. They ranged from probably Brimley road, east of the Pickering border. You could see, some of these refugee families walking along Kingston Rd. almost bewildered. Like, ‘Where have you put us?’ and ‘Where do we shop?’ and ‘Where do we go to the doctor?’ and ‘How do we get our ID?’ and ‘How do we get an apartment?’ (Interview 3)

This concentration of individuals and families brought a new visibility to the problems emerging in the community of East Scarborough, reflecting a growing population who were not only underserved by agencies, but un-engaged.

We started to help the folks in the hotels and we got to know them. We door knocked and by doing that we found out how isolated they were and how under serviced they were. Even forgetting finding healthy food access, and stuff like that. So we started doing outreach in the motels and that’s how the seed of the Storefront came to be. (Interview 3)

Converging with this need were significant challenges in the provision of services, with few resources poised to adequately serve a population increasing in size and diversity across a broad area. Services were limited in their ability to meet the needs of this population, swamped by the numbers who were seeking services and constrained by insufficient resources. Beyond the limitations of individual agencies, these service challenges also reflected a wider socio-political context of a non-profit sector facing significant budget cuts and ‘downsizing’ by the provincial government.

It was actually fascinating what happened was there was a unanimity and cohesiveness amongst us because we knew they were these serious, serious problems they were facing the community and it wasn't as though the broader community was unaware. They were very, very much aware. But still nothing was done. The politicians knew about it but there was this lethargy, this inactivity because no one was ready to take hold and begin leading and our group realized that we had to do that and approach it from the bottom up. (Interview 15)

In 1999, an informal collection of agencies, comprised of the Caring Alliance (a network of individuals representing different faith communities), agency staff from Toronto Public Health, local social services agencies, community planners and local residents came together to begin planning the development of a ‘community-driven, multi-service, information and referral service’.

The working group looked to build upon previous service frameworks that had shown promise in the East Scarborough community (Women’s Place, formerly of the Morningside Mall), as well as in other communities in Toronto (e.g. Dufferin Mall Youth Services Centre and the York Gate Information Centre at Jane-Finch). The vision for the storefront was to create a model of a ‘one stop’ community services centre.

So we came up with the idea that why don't we find a space, a Storefront or an old supermarket or something, like a mall or something like a plaza, something, and everybody can share the space and there was space that everyone could share. This fixture could become a community hub, a community space and the community would have to have some control over how that space was shaped, how the services were provided, the quality of relevance of the services and things like that. And so the idea of a Storefront project came about. (Interview 10)

For health and social care agencies, service provision often operates under the constraints of stretched resources, where providers struggle to balance the needs of their client group, the boundaries of their mandate and the financial limitations that defy their ability to bridge the gap.

In Toronto this has been acutely felt within the inner suburb communities, where the population may be dispersed over a broad geographic region. Services are, as a result, also dispersed broadly. The transportation system across Scarborough is famously under-resourced, often proving difficult to navigate in a timely way. For residents this can translate into logistical challenges that may limit the use of health and social services. For individuals who are marginalized or disadvantaged such barriers may prove difficult to get around, particularly when exacerbated by the lack of money for transportation, or available child care options. For newcomers – a growing sub-group of population – a lack of English language proficiency may further limit accessibility to both transportation services and the service agencies. These challenges coupled with the diversity of the population fostered a situation where agencies could offer limited services in limited settings, if at all.

Early discussions of ‘need’ recognized the obstacles and limitations that existed for services in the East Scarborough community: ‘People had been unable to provide services, wanted to provide services, had clientele in the area but had no space to set up shop, had no resources at that point in time’ (Interview 10).

The willingness to think broadly about need, defining this as much as a community issue as a service sector one, has played a central role in shaping and confirming the mission of the ESS.

The notion of a ‘community hub’ was particularly attractive in its ability to bring together and begin to address these two constructs of ‘need’: the health and social concerns facing residents and the needs that exist around services and service provision. For residents a community hub offered ‘one stop’ services, a feature that service providers were quick to note the advantages of:

For people in the area, a lot of young people, certainly, who are not working donot have money for TTC if they can get into some kind of a program for servicehere that's great, you know? They can walk here. And you know besides theemployment services for youth there are the other services like mental healthservices, women's abuse and that kind of thing. That's also wonderful, youknow? Because for people especially with mental health issues it's really difficultto get them to go somewhere but if they've already been here they know wherethis place is, they will feel welcome here by the staff definitely and they won't beso afraid to come back and see someone from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (Interview 9)

For providers there are considerable advantages to having other community services also housed within the same setting. The potential for complementary programming heightened the appeal of the storefront model, suggesting the ability to provide coordinated, comprehensive services particularly for populations where there may be multiple needs or heightened vulnerabilities or disadvantages. The often criticized ‘siloing’ pattern of health and social services can become effectively re-configured within a shared physical space to create a setting where each agency serves as a resource for one another.

In its most simplistic form, this means providers can access information and referral sources for their clients more easily, thereby facilitating greater continuity of care. For the community member or client an array of services under one roof simplifies the process of navigating the services system, which is likely to improve service use and follow up.

Such settings can play an important part in establishing a more coherent service sector. Expanding the working knowledge of services and resources can help to give shape to more complex relationships between agencies, ultimately opening the door to greater potential for partnering and collaborating. Agency representatives may have limited networking opportunities when operating out of their head office. The benefit to the ‘umbrella’ function of the ESS is its ability to bring together providers from a range of complementary agencies – but also as one participant above, the ability to provide a space for the partnership to be housed should not be underestimated.

I think what makes [it] really unique or what would be the pieces that really keep the agencies alive is that it gives them an opportunity to know what everybody else is doing. It’s huge because before these kinds of partnerships, and there's a number of them around now, and they’re not big partnerships all along, but, none of them have their own unique space. (Interview 12)

For the service provider the exposure to new agencies and the chance to collaborate (formally or informally) enhances the ongoing professional development of professionals. This can translate into the gradual evolution of networks, where providers gather first hand knowledge of complementary services. Moreover, the providers understanding of the community can change and develop as participation in a hub like the storefront enables them to ‘step back’ and consider the ‘bigger picture’ of service provision and acknowledging community strengths and needs.

Unique to the ESS has been the dimension of inclusion. As a core principle, this has functioned as central driver to the work of the Storefront. In practice, the construct of inclusion has guided the working definition of the community, and the constituents that the ESS serves. This in turn inspires the governance structure and practices of the project.