Sharing a Vision Through Collaborative GovernanceCreating Washington County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan

Matthew Jones

By, Kim HaughnPortland State UniversityExecutive Master of Public AdministrationCohort 2013Advisor: Dr. Matt Jones

Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 4

Background............................................................................................................................... 5

Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 6

Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................ 16

Research Methods................................................................................................................ 17Sampling............................................................................................................................................ 17Data collection................................................................................................................................. 18Measurement.................................................................................................................................... 18Modeling............................................................................................................................................ 19

Discussion............................................................................................................................... 20

Areas for Future Research................................................................................................. 32

Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 32

Leadership Reflections....................................................................................................... 33

References............................................................................................................................... 37

Abstract

Collaborate governance is an effective means of bringing together public and private partnerships in order to formulate a plan or policy intended for the greater good of society. It can involve the sharing of various viewpoints, desires and needs that address safety and livability for a community. Collaborative governance will be essential to creating the very first Transportation Safety Action Plan for Washington County. The Transportation Safety Action Plan will have an overarching goal to reduce transportation-related serious injury and fatal crashes on county roads. By way of a successful collaborative governance model specifically designed for the creation of this Plan, the public and private partners involved in its making can better develop agreed upon implementable action items for the Plan. To come up with the action items, the group will need to build a consensus through maintaining key elements of leadership, trust, cultural competency and autonomy. Transportation officials can lead the effort in creating the plan, but will need to rely on private and public partners to come up with action items that can assist in meeting the Plan’s goal.

Introduction

Collaborative governance is a way to create a network of public and

private partnerships that can collectively take on wicked challenges by

brainstorming and problem solving in order to come up with an implementable

consensus. While the term collaborative governance has been deeply

researched by scholars worldwide, it is evident that there is no single model that

has been designed to be the absolute process that will fit the mold for every

challenge a public agency faces. However, collaborative governance as a

meaning is very beneficial to public agencies that need to bring together multiple

partners when creating plans or policies that are intended to benefit the greater

good of society.

Collaborative governance will be essential in creating Washington

County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan). It will require a unique

collaborative process that will entail collective problem solving and joint decision

making from various stakeholders with differing interests in order for the Plan to

be a success. Achieving this goal is not as simple as it sounds. In order to come

up with a process unique for Washington County, it will require taking various

pieces of other collaborative governance models in order to create a hybrid

model that best suits the needs of the County that will ensure the Plan can be

properly pulled together, implementable and designed to produce desired

outcomes. The collaborative governance model will foster relationships with

existing and new partners that will maintain their own individual identity while also

working towards a shared vision to mutually conquer a rather large and important

goal of reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatal crashes on county

roads.

Transportation safety action plans are popping up across the nation at

various agency levels as we continue to see serious injury and fatal crashes

occur on roadways. Taking on the responsibility to reduce transportation-related

crashes is a task that transportation officials cannot do on their own. They must

recruit a variety of stakeholders including the general public in order to

accomplish this great endeavor. Transportation safety is a team effort. This team

will need to help create a culture of desiring safe roadways.

This paper will discuss the suggested collaborative governance model

uniquely designed for the creation of a Transportation Safety Action Plan for

Washington County. This model will hopefully become a resource for other local

county agencies or municipalities as well in order to help establish a foundational

framework for pulling together a stakeholder advisory committee that will help

ultimately achieve the Plan’s overall goal.

Background

A Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan) is a plan created for a

governing agency that reviews serious injury and fatal crash data within the area

of that agency’s jurisdiction. It includes action items that are ideas developed with

intentions to reduce these statistics on our road system, primarily the most

common trending crash types. Clackamas County and Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT) both have existing transportation safety action plans and

several other local jurisdictions have plans of the same sort in the making

(Clackamas County, 2012; ODOT, 2011).

ODOT has had a Plan since 1995, which gets regularly updated. They are

currently commencing their fourth full rendition of their Plan. Clackamas County

recently completed their first Plan in 2012. They were the first county agency in

the state of Oregon to complete and formerly adopt a Transportation Safety

Action Plan (Clackamas County, 2012).

To create a Plan like this, the lead agency needs to pull together a variety

of stakeholders in order to address multiple perspectives relating to

transportation. Transportation officials cannot conquer this plan on their own. It

will require a unique collaborative governance model that incorporates best

practices for facilitation in order to keep on the path to successfully coming up

with action items for the Plan.

Literature Review

My research began with discussions among other agency staff and

consultants that have created a Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan) or a

plan similar in type. As mentioned already, Clackamas County and Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT) both have created and adopted plans

(Clackamas County, 2012, ODOT, 2011). To name a few others, Clark County,

the City of Bend, west Vancouver, Arizona Department of Transportation, and

Ohio Department of Transportation also have similar plans that are either in the

works or nearing completion. Their plans were created by consultants local to the

Portland area that have an interest in creating Washington County’s

Transportation Safety Action Plan.

In my own quest to produce a Plan for the County, I’ve had opportunities

to discuss the making of these plans with various consultants: Kittelson and

Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., DKS Associates, and HDR, Inc. These

consultants, who are somewhat familiar with transportation safety action plans,

have their own various ideas on collaborative governance modeling including

what they have found to be successful. The information I’ve gathered from them

has been very resourceful but includes a few gaps that need to be addressed for

Washington County based on the stakeholders that we need to include in the

creation of our Plan. Many of their models seem to lack the involvement of critical

stakeholders. There were also instances where the Plans were very data

analysis heavy and informative, but lacked in ways that actions can be taken by

various partners in order to address the crash data trends.

Fortunately, there is a great amount of literature available that discusses

collaborative governance and how it is imperative these days when governing

agencies need to problem solve issues that affect the communities they serve.

Interesting enough, most everything I’ve come across during my research

discloses right off that bat that there is not an ideal collaborative governance

model that provides the one-size-fits-all process needed to handle a challenge

that agency partners are collectively working on. “In its overuse, the term

‘collaboration’ has become a catchall to signify just about any type of inter-

organizational or inter-personal relationship, making it difficult for those seeking

to collaborate to put into practice or evaluate with certainty” (Gajda, 2004).

Not only is our County agency up against a wicked challenge of

successfully collaborating when creating a Transportation Safety Action Plan but

we also face the challenge of creating a unique collaborative governance model

that will help jumpstart the creation of the Plan and ensure it’s success and

sustainability. From the start, we must realize that “collaboration is a journey not

a destination” (Gajda, 2004). We can’t assume that we’ll be able to develop all of

the answers needed to address the Plan’s goal, but we can make a valid effort

along the way. There is a need for flexibility and fluidity, thus requiring pulling

together a hybrid model specifically for creating the County’s Plan.

In reading An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, the

authors pull together an integrative framework that is intended to work across a

wide variety of systems (Emerson, 2011). “The framework provides a broad

conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary

governance systems that range from policy or program based intergovernmental

cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental

stakeholders to public-private partnerships” (Emerson, 2011). This framework

was helpful when applying it to the collaborative governance model needed for

creating the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan.

The authors created what they refer to as a Collaborative Governance

Regime (CGR) (Emerson, 2011). This is where “cross-boundary collaboration

represents the predominate mode for conduct, decision-making, and activity”

(Emerson, 2011).

Emerson’s CGR framework includes three components of collaborative

dynamics:

1. principled engagement

2. shared motivation

3. capacity for joint action

Principled engagement refers to the face-to-face interactions, meetings, and

other venues where partners can discuss the content and goals. This is where

the various partners share their contextual views, values, and understanding of

the overall goal (Emerson, 2011). While it isn’t essential to collaborative

governance if consensus building is aligned from the start, in some situations this

engagement may find itself extensive in handling conflict over more controversial

situations.

Shared motivation refers to four elements: mutual trust, understanding,

internal legitimacy, and commitment (Emerson, 2011). Partners must work

together, be dependable, willing to exchange knowledge, share similar values,

understand constraints, have credibility in the field of discussion and need to be

dedicated to the project while overcoming possible conflicts that may occur.

Capacity for joint action is the ability to generate a desired outcome

collaboratively as a group instead of individually (Emerson 2011). Its elements

include identifying procedural and institutional arrangements in order to

determine ground rules for the group and sustainability long-term, which is

dependent on the project. The author also states that leadership is an element of

capacity for joint action (Emerson, 2011). A leader plays a critical role in

facilitating, conflict resolution, translating and championing the plan to ensure it

comes to fruition (Emerson, 2011). Knowledge and resources are also key

elements to capacity for joint action (Emerson, 2011).

Over time, the three primary components then produce collaborative action by

way of a regime (Emerson, 2011). The Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR)

is a high-level framework that enables the ability to develop the shared vision into

a desired outcome. This is a good concept, but in the case of the creation of the

County’s Plan, it lacks the ability to dive deeper into each component of the CGR

to determine the vast array of variables that an agency may encounter depending

on their situation. The CGR can set the stage for an agency to perform cross-

boundary collaboration. But the framework for something like the Transportation

Safety Action Plan will need additional components to address the dynamics of

the Plan in order for it to be implemented by various agencies. There is also a

level of autonomy needed that can enhance accountability.

There simply is no one easy solution to reducing transportation-related

serious injuries and fatalities, but Emerson’s tools through the integrative

framework process can help a group reach the shared vision when approaching

the Plan’s overarching goal.

A good facilitator will also come up with a plan for the Plan. This may seem

redundant, but the group needs a foundational facilitation plan in order to ensure

progress and success in reaching the goals of creating the action items for the

Plan. Buchel and Moss (2007) suggest that the facilitation plan include planning,

guiding, post follow-up and implementation. Planning will involve creating a frame

for the situation and conflict engagement, which will challenge existing models

with newly developed shared models (Buchel, 2007).

When guiding a group of stakeholders, the authors suggest that the leader or

facilitator take on the role of handling conflict in order for the group to come up

with agreeable solutions (Buchel 2007). Choreographing private and public

partners that have their own individual interests will not be simple by any means

when it comes to creating a Transportation Safety Action Plan. But in order to

make any headway with developing action items, a good leader or facilitator

needs to have a clear understanding of how to manage keeping the agenda

moving forward.

Follow-up and implementation review is the final step the authors recommend

for facilitating an event (Buchel, 2007). This is a safeguard that the group is on

the right path to making change through the suggested action items that they

agreed upon. Dropping the ball on implementation is not uncommon when the

action items lack any accountability. This brings us back around to the important

need to come up with realistic action items that encourage positive change.

In the journal article Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic

Alliances (2004), the author Rebecca Gajda emphasizes the realization that

multiple entities working together to problem solve will create a greater outcome

then if an agency took on the problem on their own. But there is still a lack of

clarity on how to successfully collaborate regardless of the wicked challenge.

“Although collaboration has the capacity to empower and connect fragmented

systems for the purposes of addressing multifaceted social concerns, its

definition is somewhat elusive, inconsistent, and theoretical” (Gajda, 2004).

When developing strategic alliances, Gajda (2004) observes multiple key

principles for which collaboration is derived.

Principle 1: Collaboration is an Imperative - It is not unusual for various

agencies to find themselves dependent on each other in handling a

complex issue (p. 67).

Principle 2: Collaboration is Known by Many Names – It’s meaning can

vary from working together, joint venture to cooperating with one another

(p. 68).

Principle 3: Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination – “’Collaboration’

is identified as the most highly developed level of integration point on the

continuum” (p. 69). This continuum includes cooperation, coordination,

and collaboration.

Principle 4: With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the

Procedural - Existing relationships and newly created relationships will be

necessary when building an alliance (p. 69). It is the quality of those

relationships that will have great impacts when collaborating.

Principle 5: Collaboration Develops in Stages – “Form, storm, norm

perform, and adjourn” (Tuckman, 1977). These stages entail forming the

alliance (private and public partners), role clarity as it relates to the

initiative, determine norms (drawing focus away from implementation) and

then transformation where the group assesses the findings and comes up

with action items.

In order to evaluate the collaborative process, Gajda (2004) has come up

with a Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment Rubric (SAFAR). The SAFAR is

performed in four steps when doing the assessment.

Step 1—Convene Alliance Leadership for Focus Group Interview

Participants in this stage have reported that the interview has helped them

to define collaboration, recognize that their part in the initiative is much

more than “just showing up for meetings,” and understand the

expectations of the other partners (p. 72).

Step 2—Assess Baseline and Projected Levels of Integration

Participants in this step are asked to come to consensus on current and

projected levels of integration. The evaluator asks alliance representatives

to assess their current level of integration and to speculate on their

desired level of integration. They are prompted to brainstorm both intra -

and inter organizationally (p. 73).

Step 3—Collaboration Baseline Data Report

The Collaboration Baseline Data Report should identify the current level

of integration between each organizational unit that is part of the initiative

and should offer a baseline composite mean for the level of integration

across the entire collaborative (average of all intra- and inter-project

linkages) (p. 74).

Step 4—Assess Growth in Collaboration

In the follow-up collaboration workshop, post-baseline data for the

initiative can be identified and recorded, which allows project managers

and agency leaders to ascertain and celebrate the growth in their

collaborative efforts over time (p. 75).

The collaboration theory that Gajda (2004) has described includes

invaluable information about the importance of collaboration when agencies are

faced with complex issues. These are characteristics of collaboration that will

assist in the success of creating a strategic alliance while also outlining a way to

evaluate the collaboration with the SAFAR assessment tool (Gajda, 2004). There

is still a level of ambiguity in proper collaboration for the unique or specific

situation, but this provides a great outline to help achieve the goal of consensus

building through collaborative governance.

My research also included reviewing facilitation methods that can be

incorporated into a hybrid collaborative governance model. Facilitation is an

important part of collaborative governance that can help pave the way to a

shared vision. The article Using Facilitation to Drive Change – The Change

Leader’s Guide, the authors want readers to recognize the influence a facilitator

has on driving change (Buchel, 2007). Change for many can be difficult to

overcome and cope with. Facilitators can assist in consensus building and

motivating a group to make change, but it is up to the authority as to whether the

changes can be implemented. This will be a challenge when creating action

items in the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan. There may be ideal

opportunities that are posed but it is the realistic ideas that are more likely to

come to fruition with the support of the entire group. A Plan with only ideal action

items will just become another Plan on a shelf collecting dust because it is too

complex or costly to implement.

By researching many types of collaborative governance frameworks and

facilitation methods, I was able to pull together bits and pieces of other

successful processes that I feel create a good mold for the foundation we need to

build that can be used as a tool for gathering the right stakeholders together to

create the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan. The information other

researchers have gathered provide great insight to essential needs of successful

collaborative governance, such as characteristics of a project focus group or

finding a balance between structural complexities and consensus building.

However, this research will better assist us in addressing how to best formulate

action items that will lead the County on a specific path that enhances

transportation safety. It will initiate a Plan that meets the needs of the

stakeholders that will be a part of the implementation while also understanding

the impacts that action items will have on the public at large. These action items

will be designed with a purpose to save lives and prioritizing ways of doing so. It

isn’t a Plan or direction to be taken lightly, therefore considerable thought is

needed to create a model for the County that is unique for this particular wicked

challenge.

Goals and Objectives

Why do we need a Transportation Safety Action Plan in the first place and

what drives the need for collaborative governance in order to create the Plan? A

uniquely designed collaborative governance model for creating the Plan will allow

a group of stakeholders to join together with a vision reaching a shared

consensus on action items. Consensus building doesn’t happen overnight. It is

very rare that you can pull together a large group of people that are immediately

on the same page as soon as you begin a project.

The Plan already has a high-level vision that includes an overarching goal

- to reduce transportation-related serious injury and fatal crashes. As an agency,

we incorporate the Federal Highway Administration’s 5 e’s approach into

transportation safety – education, engineering, enforcement, encouragement and

evaluation (FHWA, 2014). The 5 e’s will play a large role in the plan and are

critical elements in actually bringing together most of the necessary stakeholders

other then just transportation staff.

Unlike most other agencies, we are very fortunate to already have a

Traffic Safety Committee that includes many key stakeholders that we need to

create the Plan. They represent the fire department, local law enforcement,

school districts, ODOT, the health department, citizen participation organizations

(CPO’s), advocacy and non-profit groups such as Oregon Impacts, the Bicycle

Transportation Alliance, and the list goes on. While we already have this group of

stakeholders meeting regularly, that doesn’t mean we can hit the ground running

creating our Plan.

A shared vision through proper collaboration with the right stakeholders is

a critical key to creating the individual action items for the Plan based on the data

we will be gathering on crash trends in Washington County. Each individual

stakeholder will carry a torch for the very thing they are experts in – which bring

about reigns of autonomy, whether its emergency services, law enforcement,

bike and pedestrian advocacy, drug and alcohol prevention, traffic engineering,

among many others. The wicked challenge will be finding a common ground in

making sure each stakeholder’s views and ideas address the plan’s goal in

reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatal statistics based on

common crash trends while also not dismissing other types of crashes that may

not rank as high trend-wise, but may be on the rise.

Research Methods

Sampling

The completed and adopted Transportation Safety Action Plans that

currently exist include the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and

Clackamas County (ODOT 2011, Clackamas County, 2012). Participants

interviewed for both Plans included Joe Marek, Clackamas County Traffic

Engineering Supervisor and Director of their Safe Communities program and

Walt McAllister, ODOT’s Safe Communities Program Manager. Additional

interviews were performed with traffic-engineering consultant’s Kittelson and

Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., DKS Associates, and HDR, Inc. Each

consultant had their own level of expertise in creating a safety action plan, some

ranging from minimal to no experience to others having created several safety

action plans nationwide.

In addition to in-person interviews and discussions, I also researched

Emerson’s (2011) Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, Gajda’s

(2004) Collaboration Theory and Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment

model, and Buchel’s (2007) facilitation model.

Data collection

The data collection process included informal discussions with agency

staff from Clackamas County and ODOT along with the multiple traffic-

engineering consultants. Discussions with these participants entailed their

suggested approach to collaborative governance when creating a Transportation

Safety Action Plan, challenges faced and lessons learned from previously

created plans. Several of the consultants were relatively new to the process

since only a few Transportation Safety Action Plans exist but they had a general

idea of what was needed to put together this type of Plan and the need for

collaborative governance. It has only been recently that these plans have

become a priority in many counties and cities in order to address the existing

transportation-related serious injury and fatality crash trends.

Measurement

In order to gauge the effectiveness of previous collaborative governance

methods, models or processes performed by agencies or consultants that have

created Transportation Safety Action Plans or something similar in nature, I did

agency comparisons on the types of stakeholders included in the Plan and

evaluated their process when putting together and facilitation advisory

committees and public involvement events that occurred as part of the creation of

the Plans. There was valuable insight provided as to where they had

weaknesses, such as lack of leadership at the agency and organized facilitation.

And strengths, where the Plan’s teams made sure to incorporate diversity into

their plans and include various stakeholder input that has proven to be helpful

during the implementation process.

Modeling

Modeling work involved laying out the various elements recommended by

the multiple collaborative governance models that exist. It included specific

components that appear to be necessary for the development of Washington

County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan. Determining the components was

based on collaborative governance models that had a focus on policy

implementation that affected the public at large and best practices and lessons

learned from other public agencies and consultant-led efforts in creating these

plans. It developed into a hybrid model of collaborative governance components

by also inlaying best practices for facilitation to create the foundation for the

Plan’s creation.

Discussion

There is a clear realization that no one agency can take on creating a

culture that in turn creates a more vibrant community all by itself.

We live in a time when no organization can succeed on its own . . . As we

look around us in a new century, we realize than businesses and non-

profits in today’s interconnected world will neither thrive nor survive with

visions confined within the walls of their own organizations. They need to

look beyond the walls and find partners who can help achieve greater

results and build the vital communities to meet challenges ahead

(Hesselbein, 2000).

It is necessary to collaborate with other stakeholders, including the public,

in order to achieve great results in meeting our goal for the transportation safety

action plan. We need stakeholders at the table that can bring forth knowledge,

have the right attitude. and motivation to share implementable and feasible ideas

that will ensure the Plan’s success and long-term sustainability.

Collaborative governance is not a simple term to grasp. The definition and

purpose can vary from one project or challenge to the next. In general,

collaborative governance is an effective means of joining together various public

and private partnerships in order to formulate a plan or policy intended for the

greater good of society. It is a web-like structure that brings together multiple

perspectives, creative ideas and viable actions for implementation.

While the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan is transportation

centric, groups that handle services like drug and alcohol prevention or even

suicide assistance are key stakeholders to the plan’s success. They may find

themselves leveraging the existence of their program based on the action items

in the Plan.

For instance, let’s say a transportation agency finds that they have a

common trend of alcohol related serious injury or fatal crashes among minors

between the ages of 17-20. They create action items in the Plan that suggest

enhanced outreach by the drug and alcohol prevention program within the local

high schools in that same jurisdictional area. If the drug and alcohol prevention

program at the County was facing reductions in staff or elimination of the

program due to lack of funding or because it isn’t a priority to elected officials,

their demise can impact the action items in the Plan - the statistics of minors in

alcohol related crashes will remain unchanged and/or have the potential to

increase. This is why it is important to take this into consideration when creating

the action items and the accountability of other services beyond the

transportation department.

Collaborative Governance Model

Figure 1 outlines the proposed collaborative governance model that

incorporates the essential components necessary when bringing together public

and private stakeholders that will be able to successfully create action items for

the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan.

Figure 1 – Collaborative Governance Model

Leadership

Leadership is a major key to creating this Plan. You need to have

someone that is passionate about the meaning behind the Plan and will move

forward with ensuring its implementation long term. There will be hiccups (or as

we say in transportation - road blocks) that we’ll encounter, but a true leader will

want to take on wicked challenges to come to a positive result for the greater

good. “Leadership can be an external driver…an essential ingredient of

LEADERSHIPROLE MODELCREATE AN INSTITUTIONCONFLICT RESOLUTIONFACILITATION

TRUSTVALUESETHICAL FRAMEWORKRELATIONSHIPSCREDIBILITY

CULTURECOMPETENCYDIVERSITYENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCESOCIAL NORMING

AUTONOMYPOWER FOR CHANGEEXPERTISEROLE CLARITYACCOUNTABILITY

CONSENSUS

collaborative governance itself, and a significant outgrowth of collaboration”

(Emerson, 2011).

It is important to create an institution where everyone wants to reach the

same goals. Emerson’s (2011) Integrative Framework includes having the

dynamics of shared motivation and capacity for joint action. The stakeholders

need to be cheerleading champions for the same team, which will create the

needed institution.

There will be times when stakeholders do not agree upon everything

brought to the table. The leader needs to address the conflicts and ensure there

is an agreed upon (not forced upon) resolution in order to keep moving forward.

Lastly, the leader needs to either be a good facilitator or have a good

facilitation plan. When you bring various stakeholders to the table that need to

agree upon shared ideas, you must keep the group focused on the task at hand.

Proper facilitation is the key to success in creating any major plan. “Facilitation

helps individuals and groups to revisit the values and beliefs that have guided

their past decision-making and actions, and so enables them to develop new

ideas about what is important and how issues are interrelated” (Buchel, 2007).

There will be a key leader championing the group but each of the

stakeholders also needs to carry strong leadership skills. These skills will be

necessary in helping decide upon action items that can be implemented and the

actual follow through of the items having an impact on reducing transportation-

related serious injury and fatality crash statistics.

Trust

Trust is also necessary as you are pulling together your stakeholders. This

is an element that is unique to this collaborative governance model. Most other

models or methods tend to focus on collectivism, mutual understanding, and

cooperation. However, if you don’t have trust, you can’t build relationships that

are willing to collaborate and come to an agreement on action items. Lack of

government trust from the public or even other agencies is not uncommon,

oftentimes due to lack of transparency or wasteful spending on projects that

aren’t necessary. In order to convince stakeholders to join us at the table to

create this Plan, they need to trust the lead agency. They need to feel confident

that there is a true desire to make this Plan with the realistic purpose of saving

lives and finding ways to go about putting an end to preventable crashes.

Those that want to partake in creating the Plan, need to have the same

shared value of actually wanting to reduce serious injury and fatal crash statistics

in their community. If that isn’t of interest and the person sees these crashes as a

way of life, that stakeholder is likely not a prime candidate in moving forward with

action items for the Plan. Rather, that stakeholder needs to be the audience in

the educational public involvement sessions where it can be explained that there

is a need to have this Plan to save lives.

With shared values comes compatible ethical frameworks. Each individual

will have his or her own unique ethical framework. There is a need for everyone

to have an ethical conscious, as this is a government document funded by

taxpayer dollars that affects the public at large.

Existing relationships and partnerships are very beneficial because these

stakeholders are typically familiar with your agency and how you operate. The

recruitment of other stakeholders that are credible and will bring knowledge and

the same passion to the table is essential.

Culture

Culture is very important to creating any plan that affects society.

Washington County has a very diverse community and the stakeholders that take

part in producing the Plan need to be representative of the community the Plan

will serve. We need a variety of “lenses” at the table. We find ourselves stalled in

old traditional ways of handling things because there is an element of comfort in

doing so. However, the world around us is continually changing at rapid rates.

The way things were done 30-40 years ago is not reflective of how things are

done today. We need new-aged thinking based on this constantly changing

environment.

There is a need to combine cultures as a way to achieve coadunation, or

unity (Gajda, 2004). This doesn’t mean you blend all of the various cultures that

exist, rather you take elements of each existing culture and create a new culture

of wanting to keep our roadways safe and preventing crashes. It can be a culture

in and of its own.

Social norming is also a major facet of creating the Transportation Safety

Action Plan. We are often jaded by misconceptions that the majority of the

population behaves in a certain way. When in fact they don’t and if people

focused on the reality of actual behavior, it can greatly assist in creating this

positive culture that results in a greater good for society – by looking through a

new lens.

Autonomy

And lastly is the element of autonomy. This is important to maintain. Each

stakeholder has their role in society and they are the experts in their field. When

we come up with action items, they need to be feasible and able to be

implemented by the stakeholders at the table based on their role in the action

items and their areas of expertise. This allows them to still carry some power,

which can reassure their desire to be a part of the positive change.

Creating the action items for the Plan will also require the need to ensure

the stakeholders clearly understand their role in the making of the plan and the

action items themselves. This will ensure they are held accountable in assisting

with implementing the action items in the Plan, to achieve success of the Plan’s

goal.

Using the Model

Pulling together a Transportation Safety Action Plan that will actually have

good meaning and measurable goals that can be implemented will be a complex

challenge for the County. That is why the critical element to the making of this

plan is to ensure we have stakeholders at the table helping develop the plan that

fit into the collaborative governance model in Figure 1.

We need a leader from each agency that has a strong commitment to the

Plan in not only coming up with action items but also desiring to make sure the

items are implemented and evaluated. Representatives from each agency need

to be involved in the discussions of the Plan by way of an advisory committee. As

a leader, for their agency, they need to report back to their peers and

management at their respective agencies to decide upon action items that they

are willing to be held accountable for if they have a part in implementation.

For instance, let’s assume we have a crash trend relating to underage

impairment while driving. The Plan’s advisory committee decides that one of the

best programs to reach out to teens with is the Stop Kids Impaired Driving (SKID)

program, which is run by several agencies in Washington County (WCSO 2015).

SKID is a "live-action melodrama" which simulates a fatal, alcohol-related

traffic crash for high school audiences. SKID is a multi-agency, community

effort that relies on strong partnerships with Tualatin Valley Fire and

Rescue, Hillsboro Towing, Metro-West Ambulance, and Life Flight, as well

as several city police departments, fire service agencies, and school

districts throughout Washington County (WCSO 2015).

The action item may include enhancing this program and reaching out to

all local high schools twice a year. The leader of the advisory committee and the

representatives from several of these agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office,

Metro West, school districts and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue need to follow

through with getting support from management at their agencies by presenting

the action item idea in a fashion that will convince management of its need based

on crash trends and to make sure there is follow through with whatever

commitment they can make. The representative of the agencies will need

leadership skills that display confidence, a desire to create a culture of safety,

can help resolve any concerns about the action item, and that can ensure the

action item can be implemented through proper facilitation within their agency.

The leaders from each agency that are a part of the Plan’s advisory

committee also need to be able to trust one another. The Plan has its

overarching goal of reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatality

crashes on our roadways. Staff on the Plan’s advisory committee will need to

come to a consensus on shared values in order to all want to meet this goal.

These values are often derived from ethical frameworks of each individual. Not

everyone will have a similar framework but discussion about their individual

framework will help strengthen the relationships between each agency and

establish a sense of trust. If there is a lack of trust, it will create a weakness for

the team. In similar fashion, the lead agency and advisory committee members

need to be credible sources for the agencies that they represent. The advisory

committee needs to have members from the different agencies that have a stake

in the Plan and a similar desire to achieve the Plan’s goal.

In the case of the underage impairment crash trend example, the agency

representatives that are a part of the advisory committee need to agree upon the

suggested action item to enhance the SKID program. The committee members

will want to be able to trust the responsible agencies that are going to carry out

the SKID program in following through with its enhancement and making an effort

to find funding and staff to do so. If the representatives from the responsible

agencies share the same values of reaching the Plan’s goals and as long as they

have a general framework that strives to save lives in a cost effective and

responsible manner, this will help build the trust needed among committee

members. Trust goes both ways. The agencies responsible for the action items

also need to be able to trust that they will receive support from other committee

members in helping make sure this action item can be implemented and

sustained as a team effort.

This same concept has a role in the autonomy portion of the model as

well. Each agency is responsible for implementing the actions where their field of

expertise is needed. The Plan’s action items may have specific suggestions that

will require individual agencies to respond to in order to help meet the Plan’s

goals. The action items created by the committee and agreed upon by the

agency’s representative responsible for the item needs to ensure there is a

clearly outlined role for the agency, which will also hold them accountable in

making sure the action item is carried out.

Circling back around to our example again, the SKID program is put on by

multiple emergency services agencies and the school districts. These

stakeholders have the tools to put on this melodrama simulation for students at

local high schools. The committee will rely on representatives from these

agencies to carry out this suggested action item in an effort to make an impact on

teen drivers to prevent them from driving impaired.

And lastly, when it comes to using the suggested collaborative

governance model, the advisory committee members need to have a strong

understanding of culture. Not only culture from a demographic standpoint, but

also the ability to create a culture of safety on our roadways. We live in a diverse

society when it comes to ethnicity, styles of communication, and an array values

among various generations. We need to pull together bits and pieces of each of

these cultures to ensure we are reaching out to the public at large in order to

create a culture of safety. Stakeholders on the committee need to have a good

understanding of the differing cultures and must be open to and creative in

coming up with ways to reach out to everyone with their message.

When it comes to the SKID program, the advisory needs to evaluate

whether the program will actually impact the audience they will be performing to

in order to make sure it is a feasible action item based on the culture that exists.

They typically put on this simulation at local high schools with teenagers and

faculty as their audience. An evaluation needs to be done about how to best go

about putting on the simulation in a way that it has an impact on this audience.

They need to make sure they are communicating in a way that will interest the

millennial generation. Those putting on the simulation need to be representative

of the audience they are performing for as well. All of this is going to require

cultural competency, understanding external influences that the teenagers may

experience, and the ability to create a safety culture through social norming.

They need to be strong leaders that influence others and encourage followers

(Kouzes and Posner, 2012).

By utilizing this collaborative governance model designed specifically to

our needs, it will allow us to be able to come to a consensus so we can move

forward with a Plan that can actually meet it’s goal of reducing transportation-

related serious injury and fatal statistics on our roadways. All of these elements

are critical in making the Plan a success.

Findings

The collaborative governance model that I plan to use when putting

together the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan will encompass

components of leadership, trust, culture, and autonomy. This will be incorporated

among the group of stakeholders that help put together the plan – essentially the

advisory committee or focus group. The balance of these components to achieve

a consensus will allow us to build relationships throughout the creation of the

Plan and will ensure resources are not being wasteful but rather can produce a

desired outcome. The need for all of these components is based on the goal of

the Plan (reducing serious injury and fatal crashes) and how to achieve the

development of quality action items that meet the Plan’s goal.

Areas for Future Research

Since there isn’t a specific collaborative governance model that exists and

can be generally used by every governing agency taking on the creation of a

Transportation Safety Action Plan or something similar, a person seeking a good

model for their agency needs to consider the existing models out there and

create a hybrid model specific to their needs. There is a wealth of valuable

information out there that will be helpful to anyone needing to find essential

elements to collaborative governance.

Additional future research needs to include incorporating evaluation

characteristics into the model. A person can create a model, but they also need

to measure its success depending on the project they are using the model for.

Conclusion

The collaborative governance structure that will be suggested for use

when putting together the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan will be

unique to other structures but will hold the same value of how best to go about

consensus building through a shared vision by overcoming pluralistic ignorance.

The balance will require determining the level of collaboration needed to address

the overarching goal of the Plan.

There is a need to create a culture that respects life without risking the life

of oneself or others. We live in a fast-paced individualistic world that often forgets

or lacks appreciation for how bettering the lives of others will actually benefit the

individual person just as much. My goal for establishing the group of

stakeholders will be to get them to understand this need and the value of forward

and collective thinking.

Our friends we met in Vietnam really taught me the reality of this type of

culture. Their style of transportation, while absolutely chaotic, was so

harmonious. Everyone yields to the other and respects the other’s need for

survival just as much as their own. Minus their style of chaotic transportation, this

is the type of harmonious culture I hope to create from our Transportation Safety

Action Plan generated by a group of public and private stakeholders that can

create the very foundation for this culture.

Evaluation is often overlooked yet essential when testing out the use of

any new model. It will be important to follow through with measuring the

effectiveness of the collaborative governance model that we plan to move

forward with.

Leadership Reflections

Prior to starting Portland State’s Executive Master of Public Administration

(EMPA) program, Clackamas County has just wrapped up their first

Transportation Safety Action Plan. I was envious of Joe Marek (Clackamas

County’s Lead Traffic Engineer), who led the effort and managed its making.

Joe’s drive for creating a positive safety-focused culture in his community really

resonated with me. But he was also in a high-level management position that had

the power and ability to influence others in creating this officially adopted Plan

that would be implemented by their staff and the various stakeholders involved in

the making of the Plan. However, I was equally amazed at his Plan and wanted

this same Plan for Washington County.

Fortunately, I already had a valuable resource to turn to (Joe) and an

established Traffic Safety Committee that include many critical stakeholders. I

also have a strong passion for educating the public on how to use our

transportation infrastructure safely. It is something I’ve carried a torch for so the

thought of putting together a Plan that includes ideas on furthering safety greatly

interested me.

My initial roadblock was that I was “only” a Program Educator at the time.

This position is fairly low in the government hierarchy. I lacked confidence in

approaching management about us taking on creating this Plan for the County.

This Plan was not just a plan. It would be an official document adopted by the

County Board of Commissioners that would be implemented by staff and

stakeholders. This was serious and could greatly impact the lives of the

community. To convince management that we needed this plan, I knew I had to

be strategic when asking permission to move forward in making it but lacked the

confidence and tools to get me to that point.

Soon after Clackamas County’s adoption of their plan, I learned about

Portland State’s EMPA program and how much it would help boost confidence in

people like me that feel they do not hold leadership roles in the agencies that

they provide a service for. Dr. Ingle was the first to instill in me that I was

absolutely wrong in my thinking. I may not be in a management role, but I had

leadership skills that would allow me to lead from where I sat, no matter where

that chair was or how small my cube was (our cube size is based on our level in

the department’s hierarchy). I learned that I had the leadership traits needed to

influence management. I just didn’t know how to capitalize on those skills. With

my lower level position at the County, it would take a considerable amount of

work in comparison to someone already in a management position, but I was

encouraged that if I felt passionate enough about something, I should not give up

in pursuing my ambitions.

Over the past 21 months, I’ve learned how to strategically become a

leader at my agency through this program, which led me to taking on the

County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan. The strong support from Joe

Marek and staff at ODOT motivated me to keep moving forward and request that

we pursue creating our very first Plan. It took some convincing, but thanks to the

EMPA program, I had learned how to strategically prepare for and properly

approach my management team with a large request like this. They gave me the

thumbs up to run with it.

From an ethical standpoint, I feel it is our agency’s responsibility to have

an action plan like this in place that not only includes participation from all of the

necessary stakeholders but to also show the community we serve how important

transportation safety is to us and why it needs to be important to them too. The

transportation department that I work for needs the help of others to achieve

safety on our roadways while we help spearhead the movement.

A shared vision through collaborative governance can have great

influence in the positive culture we have the potential to create, but it needs a

strong ethical leader that is willing to influence others by modeling they way

(Kouzes & Posner, 2012). This program has taught me the significance of

leadership in the public sector and has given me the right tools to become a

valuable leader for my agency.

References

Buchel, B., Moss, I. (2007). Using facilitation to drive change – The change leader’s guide. Perspective for Managers, 150, 1-4.

Clackamas County. (2013) Clackamas County Transportation Safety Action Plan.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 1-29.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2014). Safe Routes to School:

Program Guidance. Retrieved from: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/safe_routes_to_school/guidance/

Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 65-77.

Hesselbein, F., & Whitehead, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How non-profits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge, Fifth Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). (2011). Transportation Safety Action Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan.

Thomson, A, & Perry, J. (2006). Collaboration Process: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.

Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427.

Washington County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO). (2015). Stop Kids Impaired Driving (SKID) Program. Retrieved from: www.co.washington.or.us/Sheriff/OtherServices/CrimePrevention/skid-program.cfm