Building Systems Level Partnerships
…information for practitioners on
developing partnerships to assist in
implementing evidence-based practices.
June 2009
Publication #2009-33
BUILDING SYSTEMS-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS
Part 5 in a Series on Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Out-of-School Time Programs: The
Role of Organization-Level Activities
Mary Burkhauser, M.A., and Allison J. R. Metz, Ph.D.
BACKGROUND
As out-of-school time programs become larger and more complex, they are collaborating more and more
with outside individuals, groups, and organizations—in other words, with systems-level partners.1
Partnerships among out-of-school time programs, schools, and the community have been recognized as a
feature of high-performing programs.2 In addition, systems-level partnerships can play critical roles when
programs decide to implement new evidence-based practices or activities.
In an effort to expand what is known about systems-level partnerships, Child Trends recently conducted a
review of research on this topic. Child Trends also collected data on systems-level partnerships as part of
a study on the role of organization- or management-level activities in the effective implementation of out-
of-school time programs.i This brief presents findings from that study and the review of research and links
these findings to effective strategies for building systems-level partnerships in out-of-school time
programs.
WHAT ARE SYSTEMS-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS?
Systems-level partnerships refer to formal or informal relationships between an out-of-school time
program and another organization, group, or individual. Systems-level partnerships can help to ensure that
an out-of-school time program has the financial, organizational, and human resources it needs to support
the work of practitioners and the program as a whole.3 For example, program directors of effective out-of-
school time programs interviewed by Child Trends’ staff reported partnering with community leaders,
who advocated on their behalf to obtain resources such as grant money and rent-free office space.4
Systems-level partnerships are formal or informal relationships between an out-of-school time
program and another organization, group, or individual.
i For this study, Child Trends’ researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with nine program directors of
evidence-based out-of-school time programs (that is, programs that have been experimentally evaluated and demonstrated
positive outcomes). Child Trends also held a Roundtable with program staff from eight additional evidence-based out-of-school
time programs. The purpose of the interviews and Roundtable was to gather information to better understand how facilitative
administrations, systems-level partnerships, and decision-support data systems can help bring about the successful
implementation of evidence-based, promising, and innovative program models in the out-of-school time field.
1
Systems-level partnerships have been identified as one of six core implementation components—or
implementation drivers—necessary for helping practitioners implement evidence-based and innovative
services effectively. These core components include:5
Staff selection and recruitment
Facilitative administration
Pre-service and in-service training
Systems-level partnerships
Coaching, mentoring, and supervision
Decision-support data systems
This brief focuses on the fifth driver: systems-level partnerships.
WHY ARE SYSTEMS-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS IMPORTANT FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS?
Out-of-school time programs can derive numerous benefits from systems-level partnerships. Evidence
from the available research and from a recent Child Trends study on effective implementation strategies
has found that systems-level partnerships are a feature of many high-performing programs and that these
partnerships can assist programs as they implement evidence-based practices. It is important to note,
however, that only a limited amount of rigorous research on systems-level partnerships is available within
the out-of-school time field. Additional research is needed to determine best practices for identifying and
building relationships with systems-level partners.
Systems-Level Partnerships Are a Feature of High-Performing Programs
Partnerships between out-of-school time programs and schools are a feature of many high-
performing programs and may positively affect student outcomes. One study found that out-of-
school time programs that forged partnerships with schools had several advantages over programs
that did not. In particular, the programs with school partners were better able to leverage physical
resources, such as rent-free space or supplies; financial resources, such as donations or other funding
opportunities; social resources, such as established relationships with difficult-to-recruit, high-risk
teens; and intellectual resources, such as grant-writing expertise or mentoring experience.6,7 Another
study found that out-of-school time programs connected to schools tended to score higher in staff
engagement, engaging/challenging activities, and high-quality homework time. Students participating
in programs more strongly connected to schools, teachers, and principals tended to score better in
areas such as homework completion and overall effort, initiative, and relations with peers.8 One
program director reported partnering with local schools to access student data, such as tardiness,
suspension, and report card grades in order to monitor student progress and collect information to
share with parents.9 Additionally, when asked to name the organization with which they would
partner to create “the perfect community partnership,” one answer frequently given by directors of
high-quality programs was “schools and school districts.”10
Partnerships between out-of-school time programs and community organizations are a feature
of many high-performing programs. One study found that high-quality out-of-school time
programs tended to have strong partnerships with neighborhood and community organizations.11
Directors of high-performing out-of-school time programs interviewed by Child Trends staff all
reported having at least one, if not multiple, formal community partners.12 Some out-of-school time
programs recruit program participants by partnering with organizations or local systems that work
with the same target population, for example, partnering with the local police department in order to
recruit high-risk youth.13 Other programs partner with local colleges and universities to recruit
qualified program staff or with members of the local health and business communities as a way to
augment program services. For example, through a partnership with the Mount Sinai Adolescent
Health Center (AHC) in New York, one program was able to offer its participants wellness and long-
term mental health care.14
2
Systems-Level Partnerships Can Help Programs Implement Evidence-Based Practices
Systems-level partnerships can assist programs in a variety of ways as they work through the process of
implementing an evidence-based practice or program. Implementation activities that may benefit from
systems-level partnerships include deciding which evidence-based program or practice to implement;
training staff members to implement a program or practice effectively; and obtaining funding to promote
program sustainability.
Systems-level partnerships can assist programs as they decide which evidence-based practice or
program to replicate or adopt. Programs sometimes require outside assistance as they identify and
prioritize program needs and participant outcomes, explore “what works” in the out-of-school time
field, and contact consultants with expertise in a specific intervention. In one Child Trends interview,
the director of an out-of-school time program that helps young people find jobs in their community
reported that partnering with community employers provided insights into what they were looking for
in an employee. In turn, the program drew on these insights to inform its services.15 The experience of
the San Francisco Beacon Initiative, which promotes youth and family centers in the city’s schools,
provides another example. The program partnered with the Community Network for Youth
Development (CNYD), an intermediary, which, in turn, worked with principals, youth, and families
to identify and prioritize outcomes and develop the program’s theory of change.16
Systems-level partnerships can provide staff training opportunities. Staff training (both pre-
service and in-service) constitutes one of the six core implementation components mentioned above,
and an earlier brief in this series presented research on the importance of staff training for out-of-
school time programs.17 Evidence supports a connection between systems-level partnerships and the
ability of some out-of-school time programs to improve staff training.18 For example, staff members
of New York City Beacons, a school-community-family initiative, were able to attend workshops and
training sessions on how to support academic and enrichment activities because of the program’s
partnership with the Youth Development Institute (YDI), an intermediary organization.19 In the Child
Trends interviews, program directors of evidence-based out-of-school time programs also spoke of
collaborating with outside organizations to obtain additional training for their staffs.20 As an
illustration, one program director reported “cross-training” his staff with another out-of-school time
program, in which each program’s staff members provided training in their own areas of expertise.
Systems-level partnerships are often critical when it comes to finding financial support and
promoting sustainability. Although, over the years, federal investment in out-of-school time
programs has increased, funding continues to be a barrier to program sustainability.21,22 In a recent
profile of 32 out-of-school time programs that successfully sustained themselves through varied
funding strategies, several of the strategies reviewed required systems-level partners.23 One funding
strategy, for example, involved building a base of community support and gradually increasing
program visibility through the creation of task forces, advisory committees, and other collaborative
structures. Indeed, program directors interviewed by Child Trends staff reported that systems-level
partnerships contributed to their program’s sustainability by providing direct financial and in-kind
contributions, as well as by expanding the program’s visibility and influence.24
WHAT STEPS CAN PROGRAMS TAKE TO BUILD SYSTEMS-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS EFFECTIVELY?
Given the wide range of potential roles that system-level partnerships play throughout program
implementation, it is to be expected that out-of-school time programs can build targeted systems-level
partnerships through a variety of strategies. On the basis of available research evidence and the Child
Trends study on effective implementation strategies, we recommend the following strategies to support
the use of systems-level partnerships as an implementation driver.
3
Look to schools and the community. Partnerships among out-of-school time programs, schools, and
community groups are consistently found to be features of high-performing programs. Such
partnerships can provide valuable resources.
Seek out partners that can contribute to program sustainability. Because it can take time to
develop a strong working relationship, such partnerships should be sought out and forged as soon as
possible. Consider the following systems-level sustainability strategies:25
Do not depend on one source of financial support. Diversify your base by reaching out to
multiple potential partners.
Team up with other community organizations in order to access federal and state funding.
Increase visibility through the creation of task forces, advisory committees, or other
collaborative structures.
Cultivate key champions within the community and/or government.
Collect and communicate results.
Vet all potential partners. One program director compared selecting program partners to selecting
program staff, noting that in both situations she looks for “compassion, commitment, and alignment
with the program mission.”26 It is the quality of the partnerships and not their quantity that is most
important. Partnerships that cannot deliver the needed resource, whether it is high-quality staff
training or an effective fidelity assessment, may not be worth the time and effort it takes to build a
strong relationship. Another program director advised against “lopsided” partnerships that add little
value, as well as partnerships that may steer the program away from its mission.27 Programs should
consider the following questions when vetting potential program partners:28
Are the mission and overall vision of this organization aligned with the program’s mission and
vision?
What aspect(s) of implementation will this partnership affect?
What resources will this partnership bring to implementation efforts?
What is the quality of these resources?
What outcomes are expected if the partnership is effective?
Maintain clear channels of communication throughout the implementation process. All program
partners—whether they are the lead organization in an initiative or are in a consultant role—should
maintain clear and regular channels of communication. Although some partnerships are more formal
than are others, roles and expectations of all partners should be made clear from the beginning, and
changes in expectations should be communicated as soon as possible.
CONCLUSION
Systems-level partnerships are one of six implementation drivers necessary for supporting practitioners’
effective implementation of innovative, evidence-based services. (The others, as noted, are staff selection
and recruitment; pre-service and in-service training; coaching, mentoring and supervision; facilitative
administration; and decision-support data systems). To achieve optimal results—for out-of school
programs, for their staffs, and, ultimately, for the young people served by these programs—attention must
be paid to all six of these drivers. More research is needed to determine best practices for identifying and
building relationships with systems-level partners. At the same time, it is pertinent to acknowledge that
some clear ideas have emerged about effective strategies for working with systems-level partners to
implement practices effectively and achieve positive outcomes.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING SYSTEMS-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS
• Look to schools and community organizations. Partnerships among out-of-school time
programs, schools, and the community are consistently found to be features of high-
performing programs. Such partnerships can provide valuable resources.
• Seek out partners that can contribute to program sustainability. Partners that
contribute to sustainability are essential; because it can take time to develop a strong
working relationship, such partnerships should be sought out and forged as soon as
possible.
• Vet all potential partners. It is the quality of the partnerships and not their quantity that
is most important. Partnerships that cannot deliver the needed resource, whether it is high-
quality staff training or an effective fidelity assessment, may not be worth the time and
effort it takes to build a strong relationship.
• Maintain clear channels of communication throughout the implementation process.
All program partners, whether they are the lead organization in an initiative or serve as
consultants, should maintain clear and regular channels of communication. Although
some partnerships are more formal than are others, roles and expectations of all partners
should be made clear from the beginning, and changes in expectations should be
communicated as soon as possible.
NEXT STEPS: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PROGRAMS INTERESTED IN BUILDING SYSTEMS-LEVEL
PARTNERSHIPS
Child Trends
The Child Trends Web site includes additional briefs on implementing evidence-based practices, as
well as briefs on other topics relevant to out-of-school time programs; available at:
http://www.childtrends.org/youthdevelopment
For example, the research brief Building Community Partnerships: Tips for Out-of-School Time
Programs discusses additional ways in which community involvement can be important for out-
of-school time programs and describes how programs can begin to identify valuable community
resources and develop strategies for leveraging community support; available at:
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2008_03_12_PI_CommunityPartner.pdf
FindYouthInfo.gov
This new Web site offers tools and resources to help federal agencies, youth service providers, and
the youth-serving community build partnerships to support youth. The Web site’s tools and resources
can help organizations form effective partnerships, assess community assets, understand risk and
protective factors, find local and federal resources, and identify evidence-based youth programs;
available at: http://findyouthinfo.gov/
The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN)
Researchers at NIRN are responsible for developing the framework on which this brief is based (that
is, the six core implementation drivers, one of which is systems-level partnerships). Those interested
in more details about the framework will want to read Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the
Literature; available at: http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/
5
REFERENCES
1 Wimer, C. (2007). Highlights from the out-of-school time database (Research Update No. 2). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
2 Bouffard, S., Little, P., & Weiss, H. (2006). Building and evaluating out-of-school time connections. The
Evaluation Exchange,12(1-2, 2-6); Wimer (2007).
3 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A
synthesis of the literature. National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida, Louis de la
Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. Available online at:
http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/.
4 Metz, A., Collins, A., & Burkhauser, M.A. (2008). The role of organizational context and external influences in
the implementation of evidence-based programs: An exploratory study (Report IV). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Available at: http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2008_12_17_FR_Implementation4.pdf.
5 Metz, A.J.R., Blasé, K., & Bowie, L. (2007, October). Implementing evidence-based practices: Six “drivers” of
success (Research-to-Results brief). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
6 Wimer, C., Post, M., & Little, P. (2004). Leveraging resources to promote positive school-CBO relationships.
Afterschool Matters, 3, 13-21.
7 Collins, A., Moore, K.A., & Paisano-Trujillo, R. (2009). Implementing school-based services: Strategies from New
Mexico’s school-based heath and extended learning services. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Available at:
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2009_01_01_PI_NewMexicoServices.pdf.
8 Miller, B.M., & Hall, G. (2007). What counts in after school? Findings from the Massachusetts Afterschool
Research Study (MARS). Journal of Youth Development, 1(3).
9 Collins, A. (2009). Effective program implementation practices: Bringing research knowledge to practitioners of
out-of-school time programs: Part 2. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
10 Ibid.
11 Vandell, D.L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs:
Longitudinal findings from the study of promising afterschool programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies
Associates.
12 Metz, et al. (2008).
13 Herrera, C., & Arbreton, A. (2003). Increasing opportunities for older youth in after-school programs: A report
on the experiences of Boys & Girls Clubs in Boston and New York City. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
14 Collins. (2009).
15 Metz, et al. (2008).
16 Eldredge, S., Piha, S., & Levin, J. (2002). Building the San Francisco Beacons. In G. Noam & B. Miller (Eds.),
Youth development and after school time: A tale of many cities (pp. 89-108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
17 Metz, A.J.R., Burkhauser, M., & Bowie, L. (2009, February). Training out-of-school time staff: The role of
frontline staff (Research-to-Results brief). Available at: http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-
2009_02_11_RB_StaffTraining.pdf.
18 Bodilly, S., & Beckett, M. (2005). Making out-of-school time matter: Evidence for an action agenda. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
19 Warren, C., Brown, P., & Freudenberg, N. (1999). Evaluation of the New York City Beacons: Phase I findings.
New York: Academy for Educational Development.
20 Metz, et al. (2008).
21 Halpern, R. (2003). The challenge of systems-building in the after-school field: Lessons from experience.
Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
22 Little, P.M.D. (2007). The quality of school-age child care in after-school settings (Research-to-Policy
Connections No. 7). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
23 Sandel, K. (2007). Snapshots of sustainability: Profiles of successful strategies for financing out-of-school time
programs. Washington, DC: The Finance Project.
24 Metz, et al. (2008).
25 Sandel, K. (2007). Snapshots of sustainability: Profiles of successful strategies for financing out-of-school time
programs. Washington, DC: The Finance Project.
26 Collins. (2009).
27 Ibid.
28 Bouffard, S. (2006). Building connections between after school programs and the business community. The
Evaluation Exchange,12(1-2, 15, 23).
6
SUPPORTED BY: The Atlantic Philanthropies
© 2009 Child Trends. May be reprinted with citation.
4301 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20008, www.childtrends.org
Child Trends is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center that studies children at all stages of development.
Our mission is to improve outcomes for children by providing research, data, and analysis to the people
and institutions whose decisions and actions affect children. For additional information on Child Trends,
including publications available to download, visit our Web site at www.childtrends.org. For the latest
information on more than 100 key indicators of child and youth well-being, visit the Child Trends
DataBank at www.childtrendsdatabank.org. For summaries of over 350 evaluations of out-of-school time
programs that work (or don't) to enhance children's development, visit www.childtrends.org/WhatWorks.
7
