Documenting shared agreements

Clarity of purpose Understanding the evidence Engaging purposefully Building relationships Gaining commitment Early scoping Working with existing resources Defining scale Defining intended outcomes Coordinate roles and capabilities Partnering across sectors Being partnership ready Setting up governance structures Managing expectations Building capability for community involvement Understanding resources required Defining and measuring success Building the team Co-creating with partners Documenting shared agreements Structures to support partnership Maintaining commitment Incorporating community voice Smart allocation of budgets Design and build

Key points

Choose documentation that is fit for purpose for the stage of the work and able to be updated as needed. e.g., statement of intent, MOU, formal agreement.
Include Shared decision-making framework and collective responsibility for achieving the outcomes. In documentation.
Allow for multiple agreements/ sub leases which may be simpler in the end.
Ensuring commitment to the vision is incorporated into all agreements.
Build in evaluation and review windows for any agreement or MOU.

Considerations

What level of documentation of agreement is needed?
What aspects are critical for partner organisations to commit to in order to commence implementation?
If there are multiple agreements, are the critical aspects reflected in each agreement?
Is there an agreed process for review and updating agreements in response to the changing nature of the work?
What future agreements do you want to document to support shared understanding of purpose, roles, and responsibilities?

format_quote

The partnership can expand or be reviewed as the work progresses to include additional stakeholders at the appropriate time.

Key inclusions in the agreements with Government

Overarching purpose of the work
Improve the educational and health outcomes for students and their families

Specific expectations

Develop and deliver integrated school-based hubs.
Implement the Our Place Approach on nominated school sites.
Work collaboratively across sectors.

The roles of the parties are defined in the agreement covering each party’s contribution in terms of building the infrastructure, implementing the hubs, participation in governance, structures for ongoing management of the partnership arrangement and participation in evaluation.   

Scope and authority

The agreement specifies where the authority lies for some of the key decisions and functions within the partnership including selection of the sites, engagement of service delivery partners, sub licensing of physical space, maintaining the presence of an ECEC service on the sites, recruitment and employment of backbone staff.  It also defines out of scope services for co-location on the sites.

Evaluation

The agreement provide a broad evaluation framework and timing and commitment to further define the methodology in the establishment phase.

 Governance

Covering both governance of the partnership between The Department and Colman Education Foundation or The Bryan Foundation and broad terms of reference for each of the site based governance groups; including membership, purpose and scope. More details about the governance are included in the next section.  

Key establishment expectations

The agreement outlines the need for preparation to address some of the foreseen practical and operational challenges of having multiple organisations being collocated on a school site i.e. Emergency management, child safety, workplace health and safety, communications and ICT management. In the first CEF agreement this was less specific which created confusion that the Queensland partnership sought to avoid.

Financial Commitments and reporting requirements

Each party’s financial contribution to the work is described, E.g. Philanthropic funding will cover a program director, specified site staff and on costs, operating consumables and a share of the evaluation. DE funds were to be used for design and construction of the buildings, establishment infrastructure, maintenance and utilities and a share of the evaluation costs.  In these partnerships there is not a funding exchange, it is a sharing of cost.  Regardless the agreements still require parties to report on expenditure as a way to confirm that the committed contribution is being adhered to. 

Other

Similar to any service agreement or contract, the partnership agreement also covers dispute resolutions, termination provisions, confidentiality and privacy, intellectual property and record keeping.

Documenting the agreement or creating an MOU between the key parties ensures clarity and consensus among the participating organizations. The conversations and negotiations that are involved in creating a document that partners agree to contribute to has the effect of deepening the shared understanding of the partnership's purpose, goals, and higher-level strategies for all parties involved.

This clarity helps align efforts and prevents misunderstandings or conflicting priorities among the partners. It also helps partners navigate potential changes in leadership or membership of the group and is an important reference point when local implementation commences.

Consider which stakeholders need to be included in an initial agreement. It may be appropriate in the early stages to have an MOU or agreement between a small group of stakeholders who are essential for enabling implementation. The partnership can expand or be reviewed as the work progresses to include additional stakeholders at the appropriate time.

In the pre-establishment phase, it is not necessary or wise to attempt to document all aspects of implementation, rather the agreement is confirming the shared goals, the strategy of creating of a community school, high level description of a community school, the respective contributions and expectations, areas of authority, and decision-making processes. It should also articulate the agreed mechanisms to for communication, governance and measuring progress as well as having a review cycle built in.

Seeking to document every detail about implementation in the initial agreement can become a barrier to progressing to implementation, however the absence of clarity on key issues such as goals, strategy, authorisation and communication can be equally detrimental to progress.

Our Experience/Learnings

Our Place commenced with an agreement between DET and the Colman Education Foundation to implement the Our Place approach in several sites. The 14-page agreement set out:

An overview of the Our Place approach for integrated learning communities
A commitment to a collaborative partnership
Shared objectives
Guiding principles for the selection of Our Place sites
Policy Alignment
Project identification and approval processes
Partnership governance framework

Considerable effort went into articulating and agreeing on these aspects of the agreement. There had to be enough in the way of guiding principles and areas of focus to create a sense of clear parameters. While at the same time, there was room left for work to be done to develop further details including involving local partners and community in the planning.

The initial agreement for The Bryan Foundation, FamilyLinQ implementation built on learnings from the Our Place early implementation and was also prepared with a desire to articulate an intention to partner and a necessity to plan for risks inherent in the work.

Site level agreements with local stakeholders were developed once the higher-level agreement was in place. The site level agreements mirror the goals, high level strategy and commitments of the original partnership, and provide the further detail of the relevant local contributions, governance arrangements and any operational matters relevant to the site. This is managed as part of implementation.

The Colman Education foundation has found it valuable to have a periodic review process built into their agreement with the Department of Education. Once implementation begins, it is likely that the agreement will be found to be lacking clarity in areas that had not been foreseen. The periodic review and update when undertaken in a partnership approach can also reaffirm the commitment to the longer-term vision between individuals that were not involved in the outset.

Relationships are key in collaborations, but they can also be a weakness. There needs to be an ongoing commitment from the organisations involved, not just the individuals. Otherwise, when staff move on to new roles, the trust is lost with the personal relationship.

How this might apply to different scales, using the three broad archetypes:

Existing footprint	Hybrid	Community School
Local MOUs with visiting services.	MOUs between onsite services that articulate shared purpose and agreed contributions.	Site partnership agreements. Sub leasing agreements where applicable. MOUs with onsite service/ activity providers (in implementation).