Collaborative governance is a phrase used to depict and expound concoctions of many different operations in which all organizational structures work together to master results to public issues that go farther than any organization could achieve in their possession. According to the Policy Consensus, “The best public solutions come from people working together on issues. Collaborative governance takes as its starting point the idea that working together creates more lasting, effective solutions. Lasting—Solutions developed through collaborative governance won't simply be undone in the next year or legislative session. Effective—The collaborative governance approach ensures that the realities of the situation are considered and discussed; decisions are not made in a vacuum. More buy-in—From the outset, all with a stake are involved in authentic ways; all have a role in the final agreement.” Some of the natural laws that stakeholders identifies in collaborative governance are opacity and accountability, fairness and comprehensiveness, impressiveness, sensitiveness, relationship building and neutrality among members of the organization to get a consensus-based result when making their decision. When analyzing collaborative governance in the decision-making process, it is critical to consider all lead stakeholders, stakeholders should always take part in the process design. Analyzing will help assist and provide other stakeholders a outlook on what the future holds, it also identifies who the primal leaders are and it can weed out and illuminate the blockers. Some of the components involving collaborative governance are accelerating changes within the organization, overlapping with other organizations to see how they are different from my organization, exploding quality and putting policies, regulations, manuals and other resources in place so that every team member of the organization will have some organization standards. By accelerating changes within the organization, I will be able to cross train my employees to see and monitor their strengthens and weaknesses. I will get to evaluate their attitudes, their loyalty for the organization, their understanding for the role that will play in the organization. By overlapping with other organizations I can monitor and watch how they grow and input some of their actions to work with the actions of my organization for improvement of my organization. Policies, regulations, manuals and other resources would have to be put in place for morals and standards of the organization explaining to each team member the good and the bad side of the company when it comes to honesty and loyalty. The organization process would be organize in three phases. The first stage would be the preparation stage, my system of collaborative governance would focus on the poverty areas in the cities getting the children more focus on education whether then following in the footsteps of individuals or relatives that live the street life. I would also do all of my planning in this phase, setting up a budget and getting everything I need to make the organization function. The second stage would be the conducting phase, where the parents would also be involved; the programs would be educational but fun. As Kirst and Bulkley (2000) note, "reformers will continue to use governance and organizational changes in an effort to improve the performance of education, even though these mechanisms may offer an indirect and uncertain strategy for improving classroom instruction." In order to put a successful renovation into place in a community, we must be all willing to come together peacefully. The children would get educated everyday and get counseling them on Tuesdays and Fridays. The adults would get educated everyday and receive their counseling on Mondays and Thursdays. The third stage would be the implementation stage, where we would work on replacing violence with togetherness in a healthy and exciting environment. How we will get there through the outreach plan is first by educating ourselves, members and the community. Here I would really focus on implementing everything that I have put in place for the organization to grow, I would monitor each child and parent on a daily basis and get them used to a more healthier environment and way to live. Every morning accountability would be conducted of all the children and parents on a sign in sheet. At the end of the day, I would do a roll call child to parent, and release each together. Buses would be provided mornings and evenings. Breakfast, lunch and snacks would be free. Security cameras and guards would be in place. A playground for the kids would be at the facility and adults would have an open bay, where they could go in to study or watch television, if they didn't want to accompany their kids outside to play. Every Monday a meeting would be conducted with all the heads of each department of the organization. They would informed me on what they needed, how much budget we are starting with, how much food we need, what programs for learning would be needed for what age child. Every Friday an end of the day meeting would be conducted to let me know how much has been spent, how well each individual is learning and what we need to do to improve and advance them. According to Healey (1997), “Advocates of collaborative governance argue that it has several advantages. First, it accelerates the policy-making process. Because more actors are involved in the earlier stages, there is more support for the policy once it is proposed and implemented. Second, the involvement of diverse actors leads to a more thorough exploration of any proposed policy: there is less chance that an aspect or consequence of a policy will be overlooked or ignored. Third, collaborative governance brings new skills, expertise, and perspectives into the policy-making process: it expands the range of people involved, and it might thus lead to more innovative policies. Fourth, collaborative governance can increase the legitimacy of public policies. It opens up the policy-making process, thereby increasing transparency, accountability, and trust. Besides, when non-state actors are involved in the policy-making process, they have a greater sense of ownership of the policies. Finally, collaborative governance that widens public participation in the policy-making process has spin-off benefits for society. Participation makes citizens feel empowered and promotes civic pride. Citizens come to view the state not as an external imposition watching over them, monitoring them, and regulating them, but as an active partner in making a better society.” My role as the leader would let the children know that they have a voice and if they put their minds to anything then they can accomplish a lot. I would let them know that they are loved and valued to be a team play at the center. I would let them as well as their parents participate in things such as helping with the food, cleaning and even letting them sit in some of the meetings so they can know what it is like to be a representative of something positive within their community. I would challenge them to complete a project and participate in the challenge myself to make things fun and to let them know that even the leader can have fun with them. While participating in some of the meetings both parent and child will learn leadership, communication skills, flexibility, ability to see others' perspectives, value the opinions of others without being judgmental, understanding different approaches to conflict without using violence. In leadership, both parent and child will know honor, respect, integrity, duty, courage. Because all are important in today's world. They must be flexible when it comes to values and morals. Communication skills are needed to show confidence, so public speaking is necessary class for both child and adult that will be giving once a week. Ability to see others' perspectives, valuing the opinions of others and understanding different approaches to conflict without using violence all flow together. Coaching the parents so that they can pass it down to their children at home, would consist of scenarios, lessons, sessions, and involvement. “Moreover, our definition of collaborative governance captures a fuller range of emergent forms of cross-boundary governance, extending beyond the conventional focus on the public manager or the formal public sector. Thus, it is broader than the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008, 544): ‘‘A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-makingprocess that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.’’ Unlike the Ansell and Gash definition, our definition does not limit collaborative governance to only formal, state-initiated arrangements, and to engagement between government and nongovernmental stakeholders. For example, our definition encompasses ‘‘multipartner governance,’’ which can include partnerships among the state, the private sector, civil society, and the community, as well as joined-up government and hybrid arrangements such as public-private and private-social partnerships and co-management regimes (Agrawal and Lemos 2007).”
When it comes to children raised in poor communities in the inner cities, they are not progressing as they should when it involves violence instead of a brighter education. It all starts at home and in the communities. The old saying is true that it takes a village to raise a child. I say this because children pick up on what is going on in their communities and what is being taught by parents, peers and others they are around the most. “Some critics blame the system itself and call for systemic change, while others favor workarounds to the current system, such as vouchers, school-choice programs, and privatization. Moreover, states differ so widely in their educational governance structures that it is difficult to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution. A brief list of modern-day governance interest groups includes mayors, unions, business leaders, politicians, and community leaders, in addition to teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards” (National Commission).
Children, who have not experienced puberty yet is best to teach, because they are very vulnerable and easy to learn from birth to puberty. According to Innes and Booher, 2007), “impacts result from the actions spurred by collaborative dynamics. Impacts are intentional (and unintentional) changes of state within the system context; they are alterations in a preexisting or projected condition that has been deemed undesirable or in need of change. Impacts may also include the added value of a new social good or technological innovation developed by collaborative action. Impacts can be physical, environmental, social, economic, and/or political. They can be specific, discrete, and short term or they can be more broadly cast, cumulative in nature, and with longer term impacts. The former is much easier to measure and confirm, the latter more challenging to verify and evaluate. When accountability for collaborative outcomes is deemed important, these impacts are likely to be more explicit and measurable. Preferably, the nature and extent of the impacts are consistent with the desired outcomes targeted by the collaborative partners during the iterative principled engagement process.”

I would maintain my collaboration project by having a successful outreach plan focusing on helping all youths between 4 to 13 and mentoring and tutoring children from 14 to 20. “A strategy for school governance with a business mold has been made popular in the recent work of John Carver (2000), whose Policy Governance model assigns the school superintendent a role parallel to that of the corporate CEO. Carver says the role of the school board is "to govern the system, rather than run it." He claims that school boards have traditionally micromanaged the educational process, something that would spell doom for any manager in a business setting.
A radical redesign of the function of school boards, Carver explains, would include (1) a focus on educational results rather than on the methods by which they were achieved, (2) newly defined relationships with the general public and parents, and (3) a commitment on the part of the board to speak with one voice rather than as a group of individuals with individual agendas.” According to The Government’s ‘Modernizing Government’ initiative promotes the co-ordination of the public, private and voluntary sectors so that citizens’ needs are addressed in a way that will appear seamless. A particular thrust, which is new in the UK setting, is a deliberate policy of collaboration between central and local government (Cabinet Office 1999). Many other words are, however, also used to describe governance structures that involve cross-organizational working. ‘Partnership’ and ‘alliance’ figure frequently in the names of these structures, but phrases such as ‘collaboration’, ‘co-ordination’, ‘co-operation’, ‘network’, ‘joint working’ and ‘multi-party working’ are often also used to describe them. Practitioners often claim different meanings for these labels. Typically they argue that a particular situation is a collaboration but not a partnership, or vice versa.

So by starting locally, I believe other areas of the government will see just what we are working so hard to accomplish and probably give us the proper funds to help support the outreach center. It is amazing experience when parents, the community, schools and other businesses show support and come together to showing young individuals that they really do care for their well being. Young children look up to older adults and by showing them some concern they will become more successful in wanting to achieve certain goals such as staying in school, and not getting caught up with the violence in the streets.
“Whether or not the precise stereotypes are real, significant misunderstandings can happen because of the different professional languages and associated values with which different professionals work. Often people from different professions take entirely different meanings from the same phrases. Practitioners often quote examples of misunderstandings of this sort, concerning very basic terminology such as ‘child care’ and ‘care management’, that were not revealed until many meetings had passed. Representatives on collaborations from community organizations – who may not be employed in professional roles in their normal jobs – sometimes express extreme frustration and real anger at what they view as professional jargon being used in meetings. Though this may be seen by the speaker as normal, non-specialist, articulate language, it can have the practical effect of excluding community representatives from discussion (Huxham and Vangen 1996).”
More examples of positive leaderships, mentorships, parenting, and successive achieving individuals need to be available to the low class, so that they can learn how to make a positive come up the correct way instead of turning to the streets for redundant love. The lower class should be looking to build their futures better than where they are at right now. The mission statement for the outreach center would be “positive individuals and images breed positive outcomes in the future of our children lives.” The vision statement would be “love grows wise, wise in returns age beautifully.” The potential for misunderstanding is high because people bring with them different sets of professional and organizational languages, values and cultures and individually and differently frame their experiences through these. In addition, there are procedural differences in each organization that can make it hard to get things done if more than one organization is involved. And though there are real and perceived power differences, no-one is in charge. Progress of the collaborative effort towards initiative goals and objectives is that diversity issues will effect the task of winning collaboration successfully. Some of the foreseen directions for success are not easily acted in this organization. In my organization two such inter-related recipes concerned with creating a clear sense of purpose for the collaboration and with developing trust would be needed to form a successful relationship between all parties. If there is not a solid foundation or positive ground to stand on for successful growth, then no transformation will emerge successfully, it will all fail.
Maintaining collaboration, partner communication, and procedures to continually assess goals and objectives of stakeholders will change and improve the relationship between the superintendent and school board looms large in almost all proposals for different governance structures. Edwards (2000), a school board member in Illinois for many years, suggests a form of governance that "takes the decision-making power out of the hands of the few (the board) and places it into the hands of many (parents, teachers, administrators, and community members)." Edwards puts the locus of control at the building level. "How absurd," Edwards notes, "to perpetuate a system in which orders are handed down to educators from a board composed of people, who, by and large, are not educators."
A fail in the outreach plan will lead to children being in the streets and not in schools, getting left behind and that failure is not one of which I want. I want to embrace the need to learn and grow, not the need to be street fed ending up dead. The streets have no future if it breeds violence everywhere you go!
“Agreeing a deŽnition of joint purpose tends to be difŽcult for collaborations because of the diversity of individual and organizational goals, some of which may be con?icting (Gray 1989), which need to be either satisŽed or compromised. Obviously any process of reaching agreement requires participants to be sensitive to the aspirations, needs and constraints of others, yet often these are not clearly stated. Even with the best will in the world, misunderstandings are likely to occur due to diversity in language, values and culture. Perceptions of power differences can lead to aggressive rather than sympathetic stances towards each other. In addition, the process of reaching agreement takes place within the context of the issues raised by structural complexity, so that participants may not know clearly who the partners are that they are trying to reach agreement with, or to whom they are accountable. None of this is likely to enhance the building of trusting relationships between the partners. Furthermore, it also reduces the chance that the partners will feel able to take action in furtherance of the collaborative purpose. Since trust is often built on the success of past actions, there is also an indirect hindrance to achieving trusting relationships (Vangen and Huxham 1998).” I would build, sustain, implant and focus on history from way back in the days from Africa, when slaves were brought to America. I believe if inner city youths could get an understanding of their history then they would be a little more conscious in the streets to not be violent against one another. Back then, slavery blacks were all together and focused on escaping from slavery becoming as a free individual. Today, blacks need to focus on being together as a race and freeing themselves from killing one another. To stand together is much better than to just kill one another off. Leadership roles and approaches would come from parents, grandparents, mentors and any other positive individuals working in the collaboration project for the outreach center. As leaders, we would focus our attention on getting the parents focus as well, if they are not working we would start them off with little jobs within the center and giving them a schedule and a manual to abide by. The strategies to access goals and outcomes for the outreach center would be funding through the grants and donations from generous people. I would not charge any parents or children that would attend, because the outreach center is there to help them. We will teach past and present goals and outcomes of what has happened when it comes to education and violence within the community setting goals for the future to help the community to gain self-control of the streets. So children can have a place to play without getting shot due to senseless crime and behavior of other children and adults alike in the community. To facilitate communications between collaborative partners as well as the public,
I would make adjustments to the existing collaboration and its governance system by inviting the local police to come out and talk to children at the outreach center. I would also coordinate with them to have a mentoring program, something like big brothers and sisters program: so that, children will not be afraid of them and vice versa, because there are a lot of children who are scared of the police. Each individual would work hard to make the environment better with educating the low class individuals as well as the police who scared to patrol certain areas of the community without having the feeling of feeling like they are a threat to each other. I would hold monthly meeting at the outreach center to report the outcome of the interaction between parents and children getting educated to the current violence in the community. I would elaborate also on the partnership and interaction that the local police is having within the community. I would take actions and it would something more like an after action review of what happened before standards were put in place versus what is happening within the community now. The strengths and weaknesses of then and now and what could be done to improve interactions for education as well as to end the senseless violence in the community. Parents would be able to rest better knowing that they can raise their children in a safe environment without having to worry about their son or daughter getting wounded or dying while playing the community playground. “Problems with power differences can extend beyond the organizational level to the individual participants in a collaboration. It has been argued that collaborations work best if the individuals involved in any management committee or similar structure perceive themselves as being of approximately the same status (Hardy et al. 1992). This can be diffcult to achieve if the organizations involved are of varied sizes or if they have aims which make the collaboration much more important to one party than another. In practice, collaborations often involve middle managers from large organizations and senior managers from smaller ones (Huxham 1991). Even if senior managers from large organizations are involved at the start, the pressure to delegate management of the collaboration to an operational manager is large. This means that there may be imbalances in the degree of autonomy to act that different core group members have, especially if the larger organization is highly bureaucratic.” I would tag every friend on my social media accounts and pass out fliers to invite them to my outreach center. I would let everyone know that this is a free service and program to the area. We are about educating and learning about the past and present in hopes of making the future a better place. I would also ask the government to sponsor a bus or a 15 passenger van to the outreach center, so that families who do not have a way to get there will be able to get there and participate with others who are like them. Data exchange within the scope of my pilot project would be able to tend for the underprivileged so that they may have a good start on living a successful life without violence or abuse ever playing a part. The uneducated and violence are a serious crisis. “The American people have always shown their grit and perseverance in the midst of crisis and have always seemed to come out victorious whenever their backs were against the wall, but they must be convinced that they are indeed in a crisis. Although concerned about public education being in trouble, even serious trouble, they do not believe this is a crisis of the magnitude experienced in the Great Depression and World War II. If they were so convinced, perhaps they would not still be asleep. Will the masses of Americans, Yamamoto’s “sleeping giant,” ever be awakened to what they are losing?” When the children start to see that their community really do care for their needs and are playing close attention to the needs of the community then the violence will cease. Change has to come and it has to stay for future generations to come. According to the National School Boards Foundation, “at the national level, perhaps the most important piece of legislation on education in our history has only been read by a very few, yet it is the law of the land. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is an expanded, re-authorization of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) which was a re-authorization and expansion of the Johnson administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This legislation is so long and so complicated, in excess of 1000 pages, that hardly any, even its sponsors, have read it. States are largely at its mercy and local boards must comply.” We as a people must take back our communities and start teaching and loving our communities as we once did, way back in the days of slavery.

References

Agrawal, A. and Lemos, M. (2007) A Greener revolution in the making? Environmental governance in the 21st century. Environment 49:36–45.

Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008 Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:543–71.
Emerson et al. Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance 23

Broad Foundation. (2007) “Strengthening Governance.” www.broadfoundation.org/investments/governance.shtml>.

Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government. White Paper, London: Stationery Office.

Carver, J. (2000) "Remaking Governance." American School Board: 26-30. ED 536 841.

Gray, B. (1985) ‘Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration’. 38:10 pp911–36.

Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Hardy, B., Turrell, A. and Wistow, G. (1992) Innovations in Community Care Management, Aldershot: Avebury.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan

Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (1996) Working Together: Key Themes in the Management of Relationships between Public and Non ProŽt Organisations’. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9:7 pp5–17.

Innes, J., and Booher D. (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65:412–23.

Kirst, M. W. & Bulkley, K.E. (2000) Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). Mayoral takeover the different directions taken in different cities. [Washington, DC] : U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.

McAdams, D. (2007). “Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform?” School Administrator. May 2004: 1-3.

National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Dropout Rates in the United States, 1997. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National School Boards Foundation. (2001). “Improving School Board Decision Making: The Data Connection.”

http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/

Rasche, A. (2010). Collaborative governance 2.0. Corporate Governance, 10(4), 500-511. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720701011069713

Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. (1998) ‘The Role of Trust in the Achievement of Collaborative Advantage’. Paper presented at the 14th EGOS Colloquium, Maastricht.