National and International Challenges

HUMAN SERVICE DELIVERY IN A MULTI-TIER

SYSTEM: THE SUBTLETIES OF

COLLABORATION AMONG PARTNERS

FRED MAYHEW

Northern Illinois University

ABSTRACT

This article examines the nature of interorganizational relationships that

are formed within a multi-tier human service delivery system. Taking

into account the hierarchical structure of a statewide initiative to

support early childhood education, the study investigates the

differences in the relationships between organizations at the service and

administrative levels of the system. Forty-nine administrative level and

146 service delivery level relationships are evaluated. Findings indicate

that organizations involved in direct service delivery form more

collaborative relationships. Thus, when government provides funding

for human services, policymakers must seek to balance public

accountability with the advantages believed to be inherent in devolved

service delivery. Furthermore, practitioners who appreciate the

importance and nuances of interorganizational relationships will be in a

position to better manage their organizations in an environment of

increased collaborative activity and joint delivery of services. Going

forward, human service systems will continue to involve organizations

from the public, nonprofit, and private sector. A better understanding of

how these organizations work together is crucial to the effective

delivery of these essential services.

In the United States, the delivery of human services

is a constant puzzle for policy makers, practitioners, and

academics. The difficulty stems from the interrelatedness of

issues being addressed and the role and scope of

government involvement in the process. Since the

complexity of the social problems in question is not going

away, the primary area of interest for this study revolves

around administration and the role of government.

110 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

Currently, much of government’s work is being carried out

through complex and indirect administrative approaches

(Kettl, 2000), leading to third-party entities playing an

increasingly significant role in the design, management,

and execution of policy responsibilities (Heinrich et. al.,

2010). This devolution strategy is envisioned as a way to

deliver services in an innovative manner that is consistent

with local needs. This approach is embraced in the field of

human services since policy makers and practitioners

realize that no single organization is in the position to

successfully address the multifaceted problems that face

society. The focus on collaboration is evident in the fact

that governmental funding streams often require

documentation of ongoing human service collaboration in

order for communities to secure funding (Sandfort, 1999).

Underlying the push towards collaboration is the belief that

by working together human service organizations can

integrate their services, producing more effective and

efficient delivery and addressing the needs of multiproblem

clients in a more comprehensive manner (Konrad, 1996).

This article examines how collaboration manifests

itself in a hierarchical service delivery system. By

examining a statewide multi-tier system that seeks to

deliver a “high quality, comprehensive, accountable system

of care and education for every child beginning with a

healthy birth” (North Carolina Partnership for Children),

the study addresses two principal questions. First, what is

the nature of the interorganizational relationships between

members of the service delivery system? Second, does the

degree of collaboration differ between organizations at the

service delivery level of the system and those at the

administrative level? Collaboration is a central component

of most strategies to address social issues and the literature

relating to the concept accepts that a variety of

organizational relationships may arise. Yet, public policy

often views collaboration as a one-size-fits-all concept,

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 111

promoting collaborative activity without taking into

account the complexity involved in such efforts. Increasing

our understanding of how collaborative activity may, or

may not, differ within a service delivery system begins to

build a foundation upon which we can better appreciate the

nuances of collaboration in the field of human services, and

should assist in developing strategies that can address the

issues of effectiveness and accountability in a devolved

system of governance.

HIERARCHY IN THE HOLLOW STATE

Since the great society programs of the 1960’s most

social programs have been managed through a similar

approach. First, ambitious goals are set by the federal

government which provides state and local governments

with funding to manage programs, and in turn the state and

local governments contract out the delivery of the programs

to local organizations. This leads to the joint production of

services and, if to be done effectively and efficiently,

requires collaboration between a number of dissimilar

organizations. It is the nature of the relationships between

these organizations that provides the “hollow” in hollow

state. Milward and Provan (2000) speak of the hollow state

as the degree of separation between a government and the

services it funds, and identify the central task of the hollow

state as arranging networks rather than managing

hierarchies (p. 362). However, when looking at a multi-tier

service delivery structure that receives substantial funding

from government, as is common in the human services, it is

difficult to view it as having completely abandoned

hierarchy. Instead one sees a web of interorganizational

relationships that form within a more or less hierarchical

structure. Kettl (2002) notes that horizontal relationships

have not displaced vertical relationships; rather they have

been added to the system. In their review of over 800

112 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

research studies on governance, Hill and Lynn (2005) do

not find evidence of the decline of hierarchical governance.

In addition, they raise the possibility that new

administrative tools and techniques are being created to

facilitate governance within a hierarchical system. This

suggests that the emphasis within governance theory on

primarily horizontal structures may be missing a key

vertical element that holds the system together 1 .

When considering human service delivery, it is

important to keep in mind that most systems incorporate

public and private organizations. In addition, the services

being provided are typically viewed as public goods and

substantial funding for their provision comes from

government. In the context of devolution this creates a

scenario where government can choose to contract out

services and then set about managing those contracts, or

government can choose to partner with other organizations

to realize the delivery of services. For services that lack

complexity and offer straightforward solutions the former

is a viable strategy. However, when issues are complex and

goals are broad, government may not be able to clearly

specify what a contractor needs to do to meet public needs

(Whitaker et. al., 2004). When this occurs, the option of

partnership and collaboration is more appealing. Evident in

this choice is that the success of whatever strategy is

selected will depend on the nature of the interorganizational

relationships that are formed.

1 For an in depth discussion on the impact on governance of the use of

third parties to deliver services see the 2010 special issue of the

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, “A State of

Agents”.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 113

COLLABORATION AND

INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

WITHIN A HIERARCHY

Collaboration is essential to the joint production of

human services, yet what is meant by collaboration is

seldom specified. While collaboration has many definitions

and can result in numerous organizational forms, this

article identifies collaboration as taking place within the

context of an interorganizational relationship, that is, when

two or more organizations work together. Within a multi-

tier hierarchical system of service delivery, there are

varying levels at which these relationships will manifest

themselves. In a devolved service delivery system the

management issues will differ from level to level,

suggesting that the appropriate form of relationship may

also differ. Moreover, the challenges and barriers to

collaborative efforts will vary at different levels within the

delivery system (Sandfort, 1999; Miller & Ahmad, 2000),

indicating that the nature of the relationships will be

important to overcoming the difficulties and that various

forms of collaboration may be more effective at different

levels.

A range of concepts seek to capture the

collaborative nature of interorganizational relationships,

including partnerships, alliances, and joint production.

While the terminology may differ, what is consistent is that

the nature of these relationships organizes along a

continuum, and that positioning on the continuum is based

on the level of organizational integration that is evident in

the relationship (Bailey & Koney, 2000; Frey et al., 2006;

Gajda, 2004). Bailey and Koney (2000) propose a four

level continuum of interorganizational processes that

moves from cooperation to coordination, collaboration, and

finally coadunation. In a human service delivery system,

coadunation would entail the joining of two organizations

114 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

into a single entity, a merger. The scope of this study does

not encompass coadunation; it does however add a point to

the continuum. When a funder contracts with a private or

nonprofit organization in a purely market based transaction,

where organizational integration is minimal, the

principal/agent relationship is evident. In such conditions,

the principal (funder) is more concerned with ensuring the

agent (contractor) is fulfilling its obligations and does not

intimately involve itself with the delivery of the good or

service.

In a multi-tier human service delivery system that is

initiated by government and includes a multitude of

organizations from the public and private sectors, the

interorganizational relationships formed will fall along a

continuum ranging from principal/agent to collaborative.

The appropriate nature of the relationship will depend on

the goals of the organizations entering into the relationship.

Goals for state or federal level governmental organizations

will differ from those of local governments or service

providers. Therefore, in an effective service delivery

system the nature of the relationships should differ

depending on the level of the hierarchy involved. In other

words, state level organizations have different objectives

than do local level service providers. State level agencies

are concerned with aspects of control, coordination, and

equity. Their desire is to see that all services meet certain

expectations, are not redundant, and are available to all

members of their constituency.

Local level organizations are interested in crafting

services to meet their community’s needs, and integrating

services to provide those in need with seamless delivery.

Thus, more collaborative relationships will need to be

formed at the local level, where services are actually

delivered, with less need for fully collaborative efforts at

the higher administrative levels.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 115

THE NORTH CAROLINA SMART START

INITIATIVE

The Smart Start initiative is a public-private venture

that provides funding for early childhood education. Funds

are administered by the North Carolina Partnership for

Children (NCPC), a statewide nonprofit organization,

through local nonprofits called partnerships. Partnerships

then distribute funding and work with local agencies

(nonprofit, governmental, and for-profit) who address

issues associated with early childhood education. Funds are

used to improve the quality of childcare, make childcare

more affordable and accessible, provide access to health

services and offer family support. In the 2006-07 fiscal

year, local partnerships funded programs ranging from

family literacy to transportation for pregnant teens and

prenatal patients.

The variety of programming that is supported

speaks to the intent of the originating legislation that stated,

“There is a need to explore innovative approaches and

strategies for aiding parents and families in the education

and development of young preschool children” (North

Carolina Senate Bill 27, 1993). Currently 77 partnerships

cover all 100 counties in North Carolina. NCPC distributes

funds that are allocated by the state legislature and provides

technical assistance and oversight to the local partnerships.

NCPC also conducts fundraising activities to supplement

the state allocations, a 10 percent match is mandated by

legislation and NCPC has met this requirement, claiming

$382 million in cash and in-kind donations since 1994. The

initiative began in 1993 with 12 “pioneer” partnerships and

$20 million in appropriations, and now boasts

appropriations of around $200 million and is used as a

model by 14 other states for their early childhood

programs. In addition, in 1998 the initiative was awarded

116 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

the Innovations in American Government award from

Harvard University and Ford Foundation.

Figure 1:

Structure of North Carolina Smart Start Initiative

Collaboration is the backbone of this multi-tier

service delivery system, with interorganizational

relationships occurring at different levels within a

hierarchical structure and among a variety of organizations,

both public and private, with differing missions and

objectives (see Figure 1). The system is designed with the

intent of delivering effective services that meet local

community needs while remaining accountable to the state

legislature. The most recent state legislation requires that

funds be used to support services that target child care

providers, children, and families. The programs to be

NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN

LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS (77)

501(C)3 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDERS (448)

RELATIONSHIP

RELATIONSHIP

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 117

funded are identified by local partnerships 2 and designed to

be driven by local, regional, and statewide needs.

DATA & METHODS

This study examines the interorganizational

relationships found within the North Carolina Smart Start

initiative that includes a statewide agency (NCPC), 77 local

partnerships, and over 500 service providing organizations.

The policy goal of this multi-tier system of delivery is to

enhance early childhood education throughout the state and

assure that every child is prepared physically and mentally

to enter school. The units of analysis are the relationships

between service providers and the local partnerships, and

the relationships between the local partnerships and NCPC.

In this system, the local partnerships and affiliated service

agencies provide services tailored to the needs of their

community, and the NCPC provides oversight and

technical assistance to the partnerships. This creates a

hierarchical arrangement where NCPC works with the local

partnerships to provide administration and coordination and

the partnerships work with local organizations to deliver services.

A survey was used to examine the nature of these

relationships. The survey instrument contained 8 Likert

scale questions related to the nature of the relationship,

rated from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that the respondent

strongly disagrees with the question and 5 indicating strong

agreement (see Appendix I for survey items). Questions

were designed to capture the degree of integration and

formalization in the relationship; addressing issues of

communication, shared decision-making, and

2 The legislation does place a number of constraints on how the funding

will be used. For instance, 70% of the funds are to be used for child

care related activities and no less than 30% of the local partnerships

direct service allocation shall be used to expand child care subsidies.

118 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

understanding of each partner’s goals and responsibilities.

In an effort to validate the instrument prior to distribution,

three steps were taken. First, questions were composed

based on a thorough review of the literature and previously

conducted surveys that addressed similar concepts (Frey et.

al., 2006; Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). Second, a focus

group was conducted with managers from human service

organizations that were involved in interorganizational

relationships. They were asked to review and comment on

the survey in an attempt to attain a level of face validity.

Third, the survey was reviewed by individuals familiar with

the North Carolina Smart Start program. In addition,

principal components analysis substantiated that the

relationship items held together as a unified construct with

factor loadings above .5 3 .

The survey was distributed online to all 77 local

partnerships and 448 direct service providers that had been

identified as having received funding from one of the local

partnerships in the 2006-07 fiscal year. Forty-nine of the

partnerships completed the survey (64%) as did 146 of the

service providers (33%). Individual respondents answered

on behalf of their respective organizations with the intent to

have individuals respond that were in management

positions and knowledgeable about the nature of the

initiative and resultant interorganizational relationships.

Respondents for the 49 local partnerships included 32

executive directors, 1 deputy executive director, 11

program directors, and 5 evaluation coordinators. One

hundred and twenty-six of those who responded on behalf

of the service agencies (86%) identified themselves as

director, supervisor, or manager. Once the surveys were

compiled, an indexed variable for relationship was formed.

3 The survey was part of a larger research effort that examined the

impact of interorganizational relationships on the use of funder

mandated evaluation by human service organizations. This enabled the

use of principal components analysis.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 119

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using SPSS

software to compare the two groups. The level at which the

interorganizational relationship occurs, between service

provider and local partnership or between local partnership

and NCPC, served as the independent variable or factor.

Responses to the eight survey items as well as the indexed

relationship variable served as the dependents in one-way

ANOVA analysis.

RESULTS

Findings are reported for the indexed relationship

variable as well as each survey item. All variables are

examined independently to assess whether differences are

evident between the two groups. Prior to conducting

analysis of variance the distribution of data was examined.

Tests for skewness and kurtosis met the more lenient

criterion for normal distribution with skewness statistics in

the +2 to -2 range, and kurtosis statistics in the +3 to -3

range.

Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1. The

data suggest that the service providers perceive their

relationship with the local partnerships as more

collaborative than the partnerships perceive their

relationship with the statewide agency. In other words,

where an organization sits within the hierarchy makes a

difference in how they view the level of collaboration with

the organization directly above them in the hierarchy.

Service providers view their relationship with local

partnerships as more integrated with more open and

frequent communication, shared decision-making, and

involving a greater understanding of each other’s goals and

responsibilities. This can be seen by examining the results

to individual survey items. All items signify higher levels

of collaboration between service providers and local

partnerships than between partnerships and the NCPC.

120 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

To a greater degree service provider’s felt that local

partnerships made themselves available to discuss issues

(Rel1), that there was a known channel through which to

voice concerns (Rel5), and meetings were held on a

customary schedule (Rel8). Likewise, service providers

acknowledged a greater level of shared decision-making

(Rel2) within the relationship as well as higher levels of

understanding between the partners concerning each other’s

goals and the expectations of each organization within the

relationship (Rel3, Rel4, Rel6, and Rel7).

Of greater interest are the results for the one-way

ANOVA. The results of the analysis indicate that there is a

true difference between the two groups. The p value of the

F-test is highly significant and signifies that the variation in

the two group’s view of the nature of their relationship is

not by chance (see Table 2).

In addition to the one-way ANOVA, Levene's test

of homogeneity of variance was conducted to determine

that each group of the independent has the same variance.

The statistic was not significant at the .05 level for the

indexed relationship variable, allowing acceptance of the

null hypothesis of equal variances. However, five of the

individual survey items were found to be heterogeneous in

variance, violating an assumption of ANOVA.

To address this issue, as well as the unequal sample

sizes between the two groups, Brown and Forsythe’s and

Welch’s tests of the equality of means were conducted.

Both statistics were significant at the .01 level for all

variables in the analysis, allowing for the rejection of the

null hypothesis that there is no difference between the

groups.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 121

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Min. Max

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Rel Service 146 4.35 .529 .043 4.26 4.43 2.5 5.0

Admin. 49 3.59 .644 .092 3.41 3.78 2.0 4.8

Total 195 4.16 .647 .046 4.07 4.25 2.0 5.0

Rel

1

Service 146 4.37 .695 .058 4.26 4.48 1 5

Admin. 49 3.92 .862 .123 3.67 4.17 1 5

Total 195 4.26 .764 .055 4.15 4.36 1 5

Rel

2

Service 146 4.14 .830 .069 4.01 4.28 1 5

Admin. 49 3.31 1.045 .149 3.01 3.61 1 5

Total 195 3.93 .958 .069 3.80 4.07 1 5

Rel

3

Service 146 4.51 .646 .053 4.40 4.61 2 5

Admin. 49 4.08 .886 .127 3.83 4.34 1 5

Total 195 4.40 .735 .053 4.30 4.50 1 5

Rel

4

Service 146 4.40 .670 .055 4.29 4.51 2 5

Admin. 49 3.59 .934 .133 3.32 3.86 1 5

Total 195 4.20 .822 .059 4.08 4.32 1 5

Rel

5

Service 146 4.36 .723 .060 4.24 4.48 1 5

Admin. 49 3.61 1.017 .145 3.32 3.90 1 5

Total 195 4.17 .868 .062 4.05 4.30 1 5

Rel

6

Service 146 4.51 .554 .046 4.42 4.60 2 5

Admin. 49 3.80 .979 .140 3.51 4.08 1 5

Total 195 4.33 .750 .054 4.22 4.43 1 5

Rel

7

Service 146 4.48 .566 .047 4.39 4.57 3 5

Admin. 49 3.57 .957 .137 3.30 3.85 1 5

Total 195 4.25 .789 .056 4.14 4.36 1 5

Rel

8

Service 146 4.03 1.063 .088 3.85 4.20 1 5

Admin. 49 2.92 1.152 .165 2.59 3.25 1 5

Total 195 3.75 1.186 .085 3.58 3.92 1 5

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between

Groups

20.674 1 20.674 65.898 .000

Within Groups 60.550 193 .314

Total 81.224 194

122 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

DISCUSSION

This article addresses the nature of

interorganizational relationships that are formed within a

multi-tier human service delivery system. The study

examines a diverse set of actors seeking to advance their

own organizational missions while integrating themselves

into a larger system of service. Within this arrangement,

many relationships are formed between actors at different

levels of the system. Findings suggest that the collaborative

nature of these relationships differs between those at the

service delivery level and those at the administrative level

of the system’s hierarchy. The following sections will

address these results as they relate to the design and

implementation of human service systems. First, the broad

issues of accountability and effectiveness will be discussed.

Next, implications for practice and future research will be

addressed.

Governmental agencies often provide the bulk of

financing for human service provision. In the case of the

North Carolina Smart Start initiative, the NCPC receives

nearly 99% of their revenues from government sources. In

addition the local partnerships receive an average of 67%

of their revenue from NCPC grants and twenty-six of the

partnerships receive over 90% of the total revenue from

NCPC 4 . This suggests that despite the involvement of

organizations from the private and nonprofit sectors, the

driving force behind large-scale human service efforts such

as this one is still often government. If governmental

agencies are bankrolling these efforts, questions of public

accountability must be dealt with. This study addresses this

issue in that accountability can be viewed within

relationships at various levels in the hierarchy. Ebrahim

4 These numbers were derived from an analysis of IRS form 990 filings

for the 2007-08 fiscal year. Information was obtained through the

GuideStar online database.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 123

(2005) speaks of accountability as centering on

relationships between various actors, within a multi-tier

service delivery system this would indicate that there are

multiple accountabilities built into the system.

Understanding what each actor expects, and what is

expected of them, will move the entire system towards a

greater degree of accountability. Whitaker and his

colleagues (2004) state that too often systems that are set

up to ensure public accountability focus on catching

mistakes rather than looking for ways to encourage better

service (p. 115). The key to designing human service

delivery systems in the era of devolution is to balance the

need for public accountability with the advantages of

decentralized approaches. To accomplish this, a system

must de designed to identify mistakes while simultaneously

promoting effective and innovative practices. Too much

emphasis on catching mistakes may lead to a bureaucratic

and rigid system that does not provide the flexibility to

meet the differing challenges present at the local level. Too

much emphasis on decentralization and local control may

lead to a disorganized service delivery with no

accountability ties to the public that provide funding.

A multi-tiered arrangement that understands and

acknowledges the differing forms of relationships and

degrees of collaboration within those relationships can

begin to design mechanisms that provide accountability

while promoting improvement in service delivery.

Administrative entities within the system may be more

inclined to view accountability as a top-down function in

which the lower levels of the hierarchy are answerable to

them. On the other hand, accountability at the service level

may be viewed as more shared in nature, leading to greater

levels of collaboration as found in the Smart Start system.

Government may not become simply a contract manager as

envisioned in some interpretations of the hollow state; it

may in fact become an active administrator working

124 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

through intermediary organizations to foster collaborative

service integration. These intermediary organizations can

provide levels of upstream accountability from local

service providers to state or federal agencies. In addition,

their role as an intermediary enables them to form more

collaborative interorganizational relationships with local

service providers, in turn developing a sense of mutual

accountability.

In the system studied here, NCPC serves as a

surrogate for the state. In fact, the organization was born

from state legislation and the Secretaries of the Department

of Human Resources, the Department of Environment

Health and Natural Resources, and the Superintendant of

Public Instruction are all ex officio members of the NCPC

Board of Directors. NCPC provides a two-way conduit

through which policy preferences can be delivered

downstream to local partnerships, and measures of financial

and programmatic accountability can be delivered upstream

from the partnerships and the organizations that they fund.

This creates a system in which public accountability can be

maintained, but day-to-day monitoring of the many

organizations operating at the local level does not fall to

already taxed governmental agencies. Additionally, while

the system creates a framework in which public

accountability can be preserved, it also allows for

flexibility at the local level where services are delivered.

The local partnerships are service delivery intermediary

organizations, identifying community needs and marshaling

resources to meet those needs. As long as they are within

the policy boundaries, local partnerships are free to pursue

unique strategies that fit their community’s needs. This

freedom to devise local strategies for local problems is a

centerpiece of arguments that advocate devolutionary

policy implementation. In theory, such a system would

entail more collaborative interorganizational relationships

at the service delivery level, and relationships geared more

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 125

towards traditional top-down accountability at the

administrative level. The results of this study support this

notion, indicating a greater degree of integration between

organizations at the service level of the system.

Implications for Practitioners Those engaged in the delivery of human services

are the most knowledgeable regarding the complexities

involved with tackling interrelated social problems. It is

also those same practitioners that understand how the

problems associated with human service delivery vary

depending on where one sits within the system. Local

service providers face many different challenges than state

or federal agencies when seeking to implement programs,

and the issues faced are vastly dissimilar when one

organization is delivering services and another is delivering

funding. Actors within a multi-tier system that accept the

differences inherent in their undertakings and embrace the

fact that collaboration is not a one size fits all solution, will

be in a better position to understand what is expected of

them and to work with their partners to effectively deliver

services.

In the provision of public services a traditional view

of accountability, often equated to punishment, is common.

As collaborative and networked forms of service delivery

become the standard, many have proposed a new

understanding of accountability that involves collective

responsibility rather than top-down authority. In a multi-tier

system with differing levels of collaboration as an accepted

operational paradigm, the understanding of accountability

will be aligned with the nature of the interorganizational

relationship. Those at the service delivery level, where

organizational integration is greatest, may be freed to take

risks and implement innovative programs that would not

see the light of day under a traditional bureaucratic

hierarchy. At the same time, those whose responsibility it is

126 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

to ensure top-down accountability of the system can still

maintain levels of command and control, monitoring

program effectiveness without undue influence in the

delivery of services. The findings of this study indicate that

there is a significant difference between the

interorganizational relationships formed at the service

delivery level and those formed at the administrative level.

Likewise, responses to individual items identify the way in

which these relationships are managed and understood by

those involved. Levels of shared decision-making, more

open lines of communication and a clearer understanding of

the partnering organization’s goals are all present to a

greater degree at the service delivery level. Collaboration

between organizations varies depending on where they are

in the hierarchy. Those charged with leading and managing

large scale human service efforts, in both design and

implementation, would be well served to understand the

differences in the nature of relationships formed within the

system. Efforts to cultivate the types of relationships that

serve the different yet complimentary goals of a multi-tier

system will facilitate human service delivery that takes

advantage of local resources and knowledge while still

remaining accountable to the larger public that supports it.

Future Research While the findings of this study show that

differences in the nature of interorganizational relationships

exist at different levels of a multi-tier human service

system, many interesting questions remain. Although this

study examines the nature of the relationships it does not

address the effectiveness of the system from the vantage

point of the end user. Research into how the effectiveness

of local service providers is impacted by such a system is

warranted. While the Smart Start initiative has garnered

national attention, received substantial support from outside

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 127

the state 5 , and been shown to produce impressive benefits

when studied on a large scale 6 , the initiative’s influence on

service providers is less well documented. Further research

is needed to determine whether the existence of

collaborative relationships at the service level leads to more

effective or innovative programming. Also, this study

examined dyadic relationships. For human service

provision to be most effective it will entail the involvement

of many organizations, networks, at the local and possibly

administrative levels. Does a multi-tier system like the one

studied help to develop networks at the local level? If so, a

series of questions arises: What do these networks look

like? Are they effective? How are they managed? Do the

intermediary organizations serve as network administrative

organizations? Additionally, questions regarding funding

and efficiency need to be explored. While over 60% of the

local partnerships received 50% of their revenue from

NCPC grants in the 2007-08 fiscal year, that leaves a

number of local partnerships that received less than 50% of

their revenue and 13 where NCPC funding accounted for

less than 40% (see appendix II). Examination of how

funding is leveraged at the local level and how efficiently it

is put to use is needed. Future research that expands our

understanding of how these organizations work together

will assist in the creation of systems that take advantage of

devolved service delivery while maintaining public

accountability.

5 In 2001 NCPC started the Smart Start National Technical Assistance

Center with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 6 A recent study by the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke

University found evidence of significant benefits to children in the

counties that receive funding.

128 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

CONCLUSION

Human service agencies often deal with the most

complex issues, and while delivery of these services is

essential, it is also complicated. These organizations

provide services to some of the most vulnerable groups in

our society, and do so under difficult and ever-changing

circumstances. As the recent economic downturn has

shown, overreliance on governmental funding puts smaller

local organizations at risk. It also seems clear that services

targeted at populations that cannot afford to pay stand no

chance of competing in a market driven system, and require

a level of public support that is appropriate for the public

goods they provide. Devolution and collaboration are seen

as strategies that can address these issues by improving the

delivery of services in a manner that is consistent with local

needs, and do so more efficiently by leveraging local

resources (organizations and dollars). However,

implementation of this approach is not without its

problems. When public funding is involved issues of

accountability come with it, and a system designed to

ensure accountability can often impinge on adaptability and

effectiveness of programming at the local level. Likewise,

complete freedom to implement programming funded by

the public at large goes against the tenets of good

governance. Systems designed to address these issues will

need to incorporate a multitude of organizations from the

public, nonprofit, and private sector and balance the

questions of accountability and effectiveness.

In an environment of devolved service delivery the

goals of public accountability and effective service delivery

can be at odds. This study adds to our understanding of

how organizations work together within a large scale,

hierarchical system. The increased collaboration and

organizational integration suggests joint effort in the

delivery of services at the local level, while less

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 129

collaboration at the administrative level of the hierarchy

points to relationships more geared towards top-down

traditional accountability. By employing an intermediary

organization, in this case a nonprofit, the system seems

capable of serving local needs and providing a level of

answerability to funding entities at the top of the hierarchy.

Additionally, by working directly with the service

organizations in their regions the intermediaries can offer a

level of support and assistance that a governmental agency

could not. While certainly not a silver bullet, this set of

relationships seems to offer a framework for dealing with

the issues of public accountability and effective locally

driven service provision.

REFERENCES

Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (2000). Strategic alliances among

health and human services organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight

of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 34 (1), 56-87.

Frey, B., Lohmeier, J., Lee, S., & Tollefson, N. (2006).

Measuring collaboration among grant partners.

American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (3), 383-392.

Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate

strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation,

25 (1), 65-77.

130 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

Heinrich, C., Lynn, L., and Milward, H. B. (2010). A state

of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over

the extent and impact of the transformation of

governance. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 20 (Suppl 1), 3-19.

Hill, C., & Lynn, L. (2005). Is hierarchical governance in

decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15

(2), 173–195.

Kettl, D. (2000). The transformation of governance:

Globalization, devolution, and the role of

government. Public Administration Review, 60 (6),

488-497.

Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public

administration for the twenty-first century.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Konrad, E. (1996). A multidimensional framework for

conceptualizing human services integration

initiatives. New Directions for Evaluation, 69, 5-19.

Miller, C. & Ahmad, Y. (2000). Collaboration and

partnership: An effective response to complexity

and fragmentation or solution built on sand?

International Journal of Sociology and Social

Policy, 20 (5/6), 1-38.

Milward, H.B., and Provan, K. (2000). Governing the

hollow state. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 10 (2), 359-379.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 131

North Carolina Partnership for Children. About Smart

Start, Mission Statement.

http://hugh.ncsmartstart.org/category/smart-start-

information/about-smart-start (accessed April 4,

2011).

North Carolina Senate Bill 27. 143B-168.10. Early

childhood initiatives; findings.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/1993/Bills/Se

nate/HTML/S27v6.html (accessed June 20, 2011)

Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human

service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at

the front lines. The Social Service Review, 73 (3),

314-339.

Smith, B. (2008). The sources and uses of funds for

community development financial institutions: The

role of the nonprofit intermediary. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37 (1), 19-38.

Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D. (1980). Measuring and

assessing organizations. New York: Wiley and

Sons.

Whitaker, G., Altman-Sauer, L., & Henderson, M. (2004).

Mutual accountability between governments and

nonprofits: Moving beyond ''surveillance'' to

''service''. American Review of Public

Administration, 34 (2), 115-133.

Frederick Mayhew is an assistant professor in the

Division of Public Administration at Northern Illinois

University. His experience in the nonprofit and public

132 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

sectors serves as the foundation for his current research

interest in how government interacts and works with

nonprofit and private sector organizations to deliver public

goods and services.

APPENDIX I

Nature of the Funder-Fundee Relationship

Rel1: A representative of the local partnership

(NCPC) was typically available to discuss

the relevant issues.

Rel2: There was shared decision-making between

your organization and the partnership

(NCPC).

Rel3: Your organization has a clear understanding

of the local partnership’s (NCPC’s) goals.

Rel4: The local partnership (NCPC) has a clear

understanding of your organization’s goals

and services.

Rel5: There is an agreed upon channel through

which your organization can voice concerns

and make recommendations.

Rel6: Your organization understands what the

local partnership (NCPC) expects from you.

Rel7: Your organization has a clear understanding

of what the local partnership (NCPC) will

provide you.

Rel8: There are regularly scheduled meetings (bi-

monthly, quarterly) between your

organization and the local partnership

(NCPC).

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 133

APPENDIX II

NCPC grant 2007-08 Total revenue 2007-08 %

Partnership 1 $ 1,376,517.00 $ 4,870,611.00 28%

Partnership 2 $ 4,474,382.00 $ 15,001,684.00 30%

Partnership 3 $ 678,716.00 $ 2,157,070.00 31%

Partnership 4 $ 997,540.00 $ 3,114,771.00 32%

Partnership 5 $ 937,911.00 $ 2,835,123.00 33%

Partnership 6 $ 5,710,719.00 $ 16,754,139.00 34%

Partnership 7 $ 565,142.00 $ 1,621,883.00 35%

Partnership 8 $ 1,014,653.00 $ 2,889,784.00 35%

Partnership 9 $ 921,669.00 $ 2,604,236.00 35%

Partnership 10 $ 1,774,930.00 $ 4,959,858.00 36%

Partnership 11 $ 458,257.00 $ 1,273,839.00 36%

Partnership 12 $ 1,575,385.00 $ 4,118,191.00 38%

Partnership 13 $ 611,403.00 $ 1,557,780.00 39%

Partnership 14 $ 1,002,139.00 $ 2,509,970.00 40%

Partnership 15 $ 705,841.00 $ 1,737,670.00 41%

Partnership 16 $ 210,179.00 $ 504,331.00 42%

Partnership 17 $ 3,073,272.00 $ 7,255,032.00 42%

Partnership 18 $ 734,818.00 $ 1,717,184.00 43%

Partnership 19 $ 1,031,679.00 $ 2,358,714.00 44%

Partnership 20 $ 305,789.00 $ 696,063.00 44%

Partnership 21 $ 2,049,793.00 $ 4,574,938.00 45%

Partnership 22 $ 1,203,822.00 $ 2,685,383.00 45%

Partnership 23 $ 1,339,627.00 $ 2,889,069.00 46%

Partnership 24 $ 559,368.00 $ 1,196,518.00 47%

Partnership 25 $ 1,605,352.00 $ 3,405,084.00 47%

Partnership 26 $ 721,122.00 $ 1,518,871.00 47%

Partnership 27 $ 2,318,687.00 $ 4,853,134.00 48%

Partnership 28 $ 2,135,050.00 $ 4,442,655.00 48%

Partnership 29 $ 1,888,550.00 $ 3,923,825.00 48%

Partnership 30 $ 2,039,976.00 $ 4,043,247.00 50%

134 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

NCPC grant 2007-08 Total revenue 2007-08 %

Partnership 31 $ 1,994,052.00 $ 3,727,889.00 53%

Partnership 32 $ 2,523,773.00 $ 4,672,457.00 54%

Partnership 33 $ 7,753,394.00 $ 14,312,798.00 54%

Partnership 34 $ 2,255,787.00 $ 4,071,351.00 55%

Partnership 35 $ 5,485,036.00 $ 9,580,673.00 57%

Partnership 36 $ 3,364,773.00 $ 5,582,506.00 60%

Partnership 37 $ 2,715,136.00 $ 4,450,961.00 61%

Partnership 38 $ 1,258,935.00 $ 2,046,890.00 62%

Partnership 39 $ 2,668,467.00 $ 4,236,398.00 63%

Partnership 40 $ 466,921.00 $ 732,833.00 64%

Partnership 41 $ 329,829.00 $ 500,355.00 66%

Partnership 42 $ 362,568.00 $ 546,403.00 66%

Partnership 43 $ 1,655,722.00 $ 2,490,354.00 66%

Partnership 44 $ 1,705,715.00 $ 2,350,193.00 73%

Partnership 45 $ 1,150,255.00 $ 1,488,066.00 77%

Partnership 46 $ 1,929,434.00 $ 2,355,683.00 82%

Partnership 47 $ 1,614,314.00 $ 1,893,131.00 85%

Partnership 48 $ 574,870.00 $ 666,416.00 86%

Partnership 49 $ 543,350.00 $ 623,920.00 87%

Partnership 50 $ 423,480.00 $ 481,383.00 88%

Partnership 51 $ 2,943,852.00 $ 3,317,345.00 89%

Partnership 52 $ 273,551.00 $ 299,864.00 91%

Partnership 53 $ 233,962.00 $ 256,439.00 91%

Partnership 54 $ 890,378.00 $ 973,864.00 91%

Partnership 55 $ 971,250.00 $ 1,061,032.00 92%

Partnership 56 $ 207,208.00 $ 224,534.00 92%

Partnership 57 $ 1,336,286.00 $ 1,445,169.00 92%

Partnership 58 $ 416,527.00 $ 448,293.00 93%

Partnership 59 $ 1,095,692.00 $ 1,174,095.00 93%

Partnership 60 $ 1,712,166.00 $ 1,794,581.00 95%

Partnership 61 $ 539,253.00 $ 564,927.00 95%

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 135

NCPC grant 2007-08 Total revenue 2007-08 %

Partnership 62 $ 1,719,836.00 $ 1,781,792.00 97%

Partnership 63 $ 463,157.00 $ 479,670.00 97%

Partnership 64 $ 943,183.00 $ 975,251.00 97%

Partnership 65 $ 2,224,861.00 $ 2,294,280.00 97%

Partnership 66 $ 981,350.00 $ 1,011,723.00 97%

Partnership 67 $ 362,351.00 $ 370,015.00 98%

Partnership 68 $ 502,810.00 $ 510,037.00 99%

Partnership 69 $ 512,860.00 $ 519,877.00 99%

Partnership 70 $ 686,891.00 $ 695,623.00 99%

Partnership 71 $ 516,814.00 $ 522,594.00 99%

Partnership 72 $ 1,015,341.00 $ 1,026,374.00 99%

Partnership 73 $ 239,199.00 $ 241,440.00 99%

Partnership 74 $ 1,034,849.00 $ 1,044,396.00 99%

Partnership 75 $ 9,534,535.00 $ 9,613,446.00 99%

Partnership 76 $ 619,319.00 $ 621,561.00 100%

Partnership 77 $ 1,164,433.00 $ 1,166,233.00 100%

Copyright of Journal of Health & Human Services Administration is the property of Southern Public

Administration Education Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to

a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or

email articles for individual use.