Discussion question 3

364

Administration & Society Volume 41 Number 3

May 2009 364-386 © 2009 SAGE Publications

10.1177/0095399709332296 http://aas.sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Public–Nonprofit Partnership Realizing the New Public Service Jennifer Alexander Cleveland State University Renée Nank University of Texas–San Antonio

This longitudinal study tracks the generation of trust between a public agency and nine community-based nonprofits (CBNs) over a 10-year period. The evolution from active distrust to trust was demonstrated by the generation of ideological consensus and domain consensus achieved through sharing infor- mation, integrated responsibilities and authority, and collaborative decision making. Results indicate that public–nonprofit partnerships create a locus for the practice of the New Public Service. CBNs offer public administrators a bridge into disenfranchised communities and a point of engagement where partners join public agency resources and expertise with tacit knowledge of community through a trusted institution.

Keywords: trust; new public service; democracy

In the era of the hollow state, governance through interorganizational partnerships presents the most compelling challenge to public administra- tion as we have known it. This new turn in public service has thrown open a veritable Pandora’s box of complexities with respect to the meaning of accountability and the exercise of public authority. Current literature on partnerships and collaborations has taken a normative cast, presenting them as an end point, yet it provides little guidance as to the process by which they are established and sustained, their overall effectiveness in public service delivery, or their impact on governance (Gazley & Brudney, 2007). This study focuses on the nature of public sector partnership with community- based nonprofits (CBNs) and how they create the opportunity for gover- nance practiced as the New Public Service, a citizen inclusive, decentralized practice of public service through which public authority is exercised in accordance with the articulated values and needs of a community (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007).

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 365

Interdependence theory (Salamon & Anheier, 1998; Steinberg & Young, 1998), one of the more popular lenses from which to view government– nonprofit dynamics, holds that government and nonprofits have been immersed in an enduring and symbiotic partnership that dates to the found- ing of our nation. Nonprofit organizations initiated public works projects and later the first social services, often developing “the expertise, struc- tures, and experience that government” drew on (Salamon & Anheier, 1998, p. 225). More nimble than government bureaucracies, nonprofits have a history of functioning as a sort of research and development arm of the public sector (Walden, 2006). CBNs are often the first organized response to social problems, generating solutions that reflect their immedi- ate connection and understanding of a community.

This brief account explains how a cooperative relationship evolved from a shared devotion to the public good and was fueled by voluntary failure,1 but the theory stops short. It does not explain “the circumstances under which a cooperative relationship between the nonprofit sector and the state is most likely to emerge” and succeed (Salamon & Anheier, 1998; Steinberg & Young, 1998, p. 258).

What remains to be articulated is that partnerships between government and CBNs offer a solution to governance failure, defined not in the context of a market model, but as a failure of government to establish a relationship of trust and accountability with citizens. Such accountability is manifest as confidence on the part of citizens that government will act in their best interests or the expectation that “capable and responsible behavior is forth- coming” (Barber, 1983). In circumstances of governance failure with par- ticular citizen groups, CBNs perform a powerful legitimating function for the administrative state. By acting as a bridge, these nonprofits provide the public sector with a point of access into communities where they can begin to generate bonds of trust with citizenry.

In addition, CBNs create a locus for the practice of the New Public Service. In the antifederalist tradition, proponents of the New Public Service have argued that strong and stable democracy emerges as admin- istrators place themselves at the heart of communities and work in col- laboration with citizens, defining social problems and developing services consonant with community needs and values (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007; King, Stivers, & Collaborators, 1998). The following study of public– nonprofit collaboration highlights these two overlooked contributions of nonprofit organizations to the administrative state: the political capital to generate a trust relationship with a community and a proving ground for the practice of the New Public Service. The authors undertook a 10-year

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

366 Administration & Society

longitudinal study of organizational partnerships established between a county agency and nine neighborhood centers to identify how patterns of active distrust between the agency and the community organizations were resolved, how trust was developed, and how effective partnerships were established. The authors focused on the following: (a) Factors most impor- tant to effective partnership from the perspective of both the CBNs and the county agency leadership, with particular attention to the issues of trust and distrust; (b) critical points of ambiguity and difference that occurred in the partnership and how leadership in both sectors responded; and (c) whether their responses were indications that trust was developing within the partnership. Finally, through interviews and participant observation, the authors looked to identify whether the nonprofit leadership acted stra- tegically to maintain their autonomy and institutional role as stewards of their communities.

The authors selected the conceptual frameworks of trust and distrust as a lens to track the development of county agency–nonprofit partner- ships for a number of reasons. First, trust is identified as the precursor, if not the single most important component of stable interagency partner- ships (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Seppanen, Blomqvist, & Sundqvist, 2007; Van Slyke, 2007). In the context of nonprofit organizations, trust is the defining element of organizational survival. Fidelity to their declared purpose is the protection nonprofits offer clients who use their services and the inducement for dedication of resources; the value commitment is a legally binding responsibility of nonprofit boards (Stone & Ostrower, 2007). Hence, the linchpin to the viability of partnership with a nonprofit requires that the cooperative endeavor operationalize values in accordance with the mission of the non- profit organization.

In this study, a county Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) office was selected to participate in a national pilot program to redesign child welfare from an adversarial, problem-oriented approach with the intention of protecting children to a community-based, prevention- oriented approach intended to build family and community capacity to raise their children (DeMuro, 1995). The Annie E. Casey Foundation initiative encouraged public sector agencies across the nation to take a page from the settlement house tradition and pursue their mission through community building in partnership with mediating institutions. Neighborhood centers, many of which were originally settlement houses, were the logical partners in this endeavor. However, a stumbling block to implementation was the high degree of antagonism and active distrust between the public agency and

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 367

the city’s community leaders and citizens. Neighborhood center directors and social workers echoed these concerns in prestudy interviews, describing public agency staff and social workers as rigid, unwilling to share informa- tion, and unpredictable. One executive director of a neighborhood settle- ment house went so far as to ponder aloud whether the larger purpose of the county’s child welfare agency was to take “Black babies and relocate them with middle-class White people [in the suburbs].”

In light of the daunting task before the public agency, the authors began a study of how DCFS leadership could build effective partnerships with the community through mediating institutions to achieve the mandate of child welfare. This article begins with a brief background on the policy to estab- lish context for the study and then turns to the literature on trust and dis- trust, two factors identified in the literature as critical to partnership effectiveness. The authors then review their method of inquiry, findings of the study, and implications for future research.

Policy Background and Foundational Logic to Partnership

With the passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act in 1980, state governments have been required to support family preservation in their child welfare services, nurture children within their communities, and provide children with permanent homes rather than leaving them in institutional care. Although these were laudable policy goals, states have struggled to make them a reality. Across the nation, the number of children coming into the child welfare system has continued to rise whereas the pool of available foster homes has plummeted due to social issues beyond the control of public agencies. Furthermore, a number of states were finding it difficult to meet the financial burden of child welfare and were facing class action law suits over the quality of care provided.

In 1993, the Annie E. Casey Foundation responded to the crisis in child welfare by funding the development of neighborhood-based family ser- vices and foster care in five states. The intention of the Family to Family Initiative (FFI) was to develop a network of services to strengthen families in which children were at risk of removal, and to recruit and train foster families within the neighborhoods so that children placed in foster care could remain in their own neighborhoods and maintain the social ties that provided stability to their lives. In the tradition of community organizing, the intention was to generate the capacity of communities to raise their

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

368 Administration & Society

children by bringing together resources and support services where most civil and institutional support systems had disappeared.

The focus of this research is the county agency that has sustained the community partnerships for the longest duration without interruption. The DCFS is located in an industrial, Midwestern city that ranked among the bottom five of 50 U.S. cities based on several indicators of children’s well-being (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1997). In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau rated this city among the poorest “big cities” in the United States, with poverty rates exceeding 30%. At the inception of this study in late 1998, the county child welfare agency was under a fire storm of criticism from local political figures and the media due to the number of deaths among children who were open cases with DCFS. Public outcry against the organization was intense. One county commissioner and local religious leaders openly denounced the public agency, its employees, and their poli- cies in the press. On one occasion, a county commissioner asserted that “children would be better off in orphanages,” and that “social workers in the agency were morons” (American Humane Association, 1998, p. 7).

Fortunately, DCFS leadership had already initiated a shift in policy from removing children from their homes to developing viable alternatives such as family preservation and neighborhood-based foster care. Agency leadership recognized that cooperative partnerships with neighborhood community centers were essential to the new policy; DCFS could not effectively fulfill the agency mission through professional expertise and coercive power of the state. This realization meant finding a means to con- nect with citizens through mediating structures, indigenous community institutions that function as stewards of their communities (DeMuro, 1995). These nonprofits would be responsible for recruiting foster fami- lies, and developing collaboratives of service providers who could deliver services in the neighborhoods, thus generating a support system for fami- lies and children.

Since their inception as settlement houses at the turn of the 19th century, the CBNs scattered throughout the city have advocated for their community residents. They had historically taken an active role in a variety of public concerns, including child labor laws, working conditions, living conditions, civil rights, peace movements, and more recently environmentalism. However, what the public sector now offered created a much closer alliance than in the past, and it brought both opportunity and risk. If the partnership were successful, the CBNs would have generated a network of support for families where most systems of civil and institutional support had disap- peared. Neighborhood centers would be returning to their communities the

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 369

capacity to nurture and protect their children. If, however, the public– nonprofit partnership evolved asymmetrically, in accordance with the needs of the county agency and at the expense of the neighborhood center’s autonomy, CBNs risked becoming a proxy for the public sector. They would lose their identity and purpose in the communities they served.

Theoretical Background

Literature identifying factors that are central to the success of inter- organizational partnerships most often reference mutual recognition of interdependence (Kettl, 1993; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Saidel, 1994), com- munication behaviors that enhance information exchange (Milward & Provan, 2003; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), leadership, the importance of sta- bility (Milward & Provan, 2003; Zucker, 1986), commitment to a shared purpose (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974), and mechanisms for conflict resolution that allow for joint problem solving (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Carnevale, 1995). However, the factor most often identified, and most critical, is trust (Bryson et al., 2006; Lewicki et al., 1998; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Seppanen et al., 2007; Van Slyke, 2007).

Trust is the warp and woof of social relations, an essential component of all enduring partnerships. Trust is positively regarded in interorganizational partnerships because it is associated with granting discretion and autonomy, delegation of authority, increasing productivity or outcomes (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), lowering transaction costs (Van Slyke, 2007; Williamson, 1993), improving communication, sharing information, conflict resolution (Zald & McCarthy, 1997), enhanced prob- lem solving, reducing stress, decreasing the extent of reliance on formal contracts, and increasing contractual flexibility (Carnevale, 1995; Lewicki et al., 1998).

Definitions of trust range widely and reflect the theoretical assumptions of the researchers. Rational choice theorists regard trust as an element of strategic decision making, a calculation of risk (Boon & Holmes, 1991; Coleman, 1990; Ruscio, 1997). Scholars in sociology or institutional rela- tions emphasize shared values and ideals (Hardin, 2002; Putnam, 1995; Warren, 1999). It is the latter that aligns most logically with the purposes and motivations of nonprofit and public organizations.

Behaviors believed to engender trust include opportunities to build relationship, including participation in dialogue, joint decision making,

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

370 Administration & Society

common experiences, repeated patterns of interactions and the predictabil- ity that ensues (Carnevale, 1995), preservation of equity and fairness (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995), proactive information exchange (Macneil, 1980), and a willingness to adapt or accommodate the needs of the partner (Das & Teng, 1998). Carnevale (1995) noted that trust is a nec- essary element for feedback, self-disclosure, and the dialogue that fosters learning. Das and Teng (1998) noted that trust in interorganizational part- nerships is generated gradually and lost quickly.

Based on these indicators, the authors theorized that indications of trust would be reflected in greater risk-taking behaviors, the delegation of dis- cretionary authority, development of cross-sector decisions and tasks, and a willingness on the part of the more powerful partner, the county, to accommodate the needs of the nonprofit agencies. Trust on the part of CBNs, as value-driven organizations, would most probably be manifest as active engagement in the shared endeavor of family preservation and child welfare in a manner that reflects mutually defined values as well as a change in perspective regarding the intentions and capabilities of the public agency.

Distrust, a concept less explored in the literature on partnerships, is taken by some to be the opposite of trust (Deutsch, 1960; Rotter, 1971) though oth- ers regard them as “separate but linked dimensions” rather than dichotomous (Lewicki et al., 1998; Luhmann, 1979). A definition offered by Barber (1983) and preferred by the authors regards distrust as a failure of organizational accountability applied in the context of public or nonprofit organizations— the expectation that others will not act in one’s best interest or the “expecta- tions that capable and responsible behavior . . . . will not be forthcoming” (Barber, 1983, cited in Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 438).

Expressions of distrust in the partnership were taken to reflect a concern regarding the (a) commitment or competence of the other organizational participant, and (b) the need to protect and maintain organizational domain while engaging in the partnership. The transition from distrust to trust would require that the organizations engage in behaviors that replace nega- tive expectations of their partners with the achievement of ideological consensus—agreement regarding the problem definition and how to address it—and domain consensus—agreement among members of an organization and others with whom they interact regarding their respective roles and responsibilities (Weisbrod, 1978). In addition, the authors looked to iden- tify whether the ability of leaders to strategically manage trust and distrust was a critical competency as argued by Lewicki et al. (1998) that enabled leaders to protect the autonomy of their organization.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 371

Method

This case study was constructed from document reviews, participant observation, and a series of interviews conducted in three concentrated phases between October 1998 and November 2007. During 1998, a series of interviews were conducted with the county agency and staff members of the first two neighborhood centers that piloted the partnership. The authors maintained intermittent contact between 1998 and 2003 and began a repeti- tion of the interviews in the spring of 2004 to discern how the organiza- tional relationships had evolved, including in the second round the additional seven neighborhood centers that had joined the county’s program. In the fall of 2007, the authors returned to conduct interviews with the county and four neighborhood centers, revisiting the questions of what had fostered collaboration, the benefits and risks of partnership, critical points of ambi- guity, difference or institutional pressure, and how they were addressed by each organizational entity.

Semistructured interviews were conducted during each of the three phases of contact with public agency executive directors, chief administra- tive staff, and social workers. Among the CBNs, interviews were conducted with executive directors, site coordinators, social workers, and staff in the social service organizations that had joined the collaboratives, providing services for families in the CBNs. During the two points of contact, 1998 and 2004, the study included interviews with neighborhood site coordina- tors (n = 9), neighborhood center executive directors (9), program instruc- tors (4), the executive director of the Neighborhood Centers Association representing all neighborhood centers (1), staff in foster care placement social service agencies who belong to CBN and deliver services for DCFS (4), as well, the county ombudsman (1), and clients who are foster parents with the neighborhood center programs (2). In 2007, interviews were con- ducted with the public agency leadership and program staff (7) as well as site coordinators and executive directors of four CBNs (7).

Interview questions for the CBN executive directors, site directors, and staff included the following topics: discussion and elaboration of risks and benefits associated with the partnership, identification of points of ambiguity or difference that had emerged in their interactions with the county, institu- tional pressures, and how actors in each organization had responded. Interviews with county agency leadership and staff focused on the same issues: risks and benefits to the partnership, how it changed their work, points of difference and ambiguities that had emerged, and how they were resolved.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

372 Administration & Society

Participant observation included attendance at community meetings held to elaborate the initiative. These included the collaborative meetings called by neighborhood centers that brought together the cohort of nonprof- its and businesses organized by the neighborhood centers to provide sup- port services through the neighborhood center. Other meetings were community forums called by the child welfare agency after the agency had passed through a series of highly publicized crises and a transition to a new director. Finally, we studied reports and documents from the CBNs, the county DCFS, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

The stories and data that emerged were used to create a complete picture that was prepared by the authors as a written document and distributed to interviewees to discern whether the authors’ findings accurately captured their experience of the partnership. In the following section, we review how the partnership evolved from the perspective of the public sector and sub- sequently the CBNs.

Fits and Starts: The Public Agency

The FFI presented a dramatic change to an organization that was under duress, so the first identified point of ambiguity and difference for the public agency was internal resistance to the new policy, which was manifest at the inception of the partnership. Midlevel leadership and social workers we spoke with were less than sanguine about sharing responsibility for child welfare with CBNs. Typical of the child protection system, the agency had a rigid and hierarchical organizational structure, staff members were in a defensive posture due to public attacks by political leaders, and the approach to families in crisis was described both internally and by hired consultants as “problem focused” and “deficiency based” (American Humane Associa- tion, 1998). Midlevel and lower-level staff questioned whether leadership was committed to the new initiative and its viability.

During these early years, the turnover rate among social workers exceeded 25%, and chronic vacancy rates over the previous 5 years had made it difficult for the organization to function with stability or continuity. A subsequent series of changes in leadership further compounded the tur- moil as the agency passed through four directors between 1998 and 2002.2 Two of the directors were hired without input from community leaders whose involvement may have assuaged the frustration of county commis- sioners and citizens. Even so, each DCFS director continued to support the

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 373

community-based policy of FFI, creating new agency-CBN partnerships and deploying social workers to the neighborhoods.

By 2003, implementation had taken on momentum as seven additional CBNs had joined the partnership, and the majority of social workers had been assigned geographically to neighborhoods throughout the county. The second round of interviews begun in 2004 revealed that a number of factors had turned the tide within DCFS and resulted in compliance, if not com- plete support for FFI among social workers. Specifically, staff cited the sustained commitment of agency leadership to FFI through executive direc- tor transitions, the high turnover rate that had weeded out more resistant staff, and annual evaluations that now documented contact with the neigh- borhood centers. One social worker said, “We were ‘shoe horned’ in [to working with the neighborhood centers] and over time we came to realize how much the partnership helped in our work.” As case loads were con- fined to specific neighborhoods, the repeated contacts with CBN staff, foster families, and support services also generated familiarity, if not stron- ger working relationships among the partners.

Although the literature on trust documents that familiarity in close work- ing relationships can generate a form of trust as calculated risk or predict- ability, it was through the integration of work and open exchange of information that ideological consensus was generated in the partnerships. Public administrators articulated their resulting loss of control as their most difficult challenge.

At the start we saw a lot of risk because we were revealing what DCFS had not been particularly adept at and we were afraid we would lose control over the cases. We later realized that it was largely a perceived risk because most of what we were sharing [with CBN social workers] was already known. (participants interview, italics in original)

In marked contrast with past procedure, FFI required that public sector social workers openly share information in support of children’s needs.3 In addition, decisions regarding the best course of action for families were now made through team decision meetings (TDMs), in which families under review were free to invite anyone to attend and speak on their behalf. Although DCFS held authority for final decisions in all cases, the introduc- tion and review of information was subject to interpretation by family mem- bers, their representatives as well as CBN and public sector social workers in attendance. Moreover, in the case of appeal, all participants from the original hearing were to be included in the subsequent review hearing.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

374 Administration & Society

DCFS leaders noted that when they first implemented the open hearings, or TDMs, county social workers felt exposed and under pressure to explain the basis of their decisions as they were in the process of forming them. Thus began the practice among DCFS social workers of leaving the room to caucus and resolve the agency position while the family and CBN social workers awaited their return. CBN social workers objected, pointing out that although the final decision remained with the public sector, the original agreement of the partnership was that discussions and interpretation of facts in TDMs would occur as an open dialogue. With this objection, the executive director of DCFS informed social workers that they “would have to find the way to stay in their chairs” and come to a decision they could support in discussions with CBN social workers and family members instead of leaving the room.

On returning to the study in 2007, we found that DCFS social workers and midlevel chiefs noted that the ongoing practice of reasoning together in TDMs had changed their work. Discussion in TDMs had shaped the DCFS social workers’ understanding of how to best respond, it had generated solutions consonant with family needs, and it had also generated trust in social workers located in the CBNs. A DCFS chief noted, “We came to realize that by partnering with the neighborhood centers we have a lot more critical information on which to base a decision.” Neighborhood social workers and staff are on the ground in their communities; they experience a greater degree of contact with the families and this interaction gives them more context and opportunity for assessments.

We used to say, “when in doubt, kids come out.” Now we’ve learned that if CBN social workers say you can trust us, we can believe them. We had to break down preconceptions of each other and learn that they also are able to recognize the signs of trouble. (Division Chief, DCFS)

With time, DCFS social workers began to realize the tangible gains of partnering, and they relied more on CBN counterparts. Moreover, DCFS social workers indicate that they are under less pressure than in the past because the burden of determining what is in a child’s best interest is shared. A DCFS social worker stated,

When I was 23 years old with a graduate degree and not much life experience beyond my Catholic suburban upbringing, I could stand in a family’s door and tell them I was taking their kids and that was that. By the same token, if I decided the situation was not that dire and a child died, I lived with that decision alone. Today, it’s a whole lot different.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 375

On revisiting the partners in 2007, there were indications of trust as ideo- logical consensus in the partnerships; the integration of responsibility had generated a shared picture of how to best protect children. DCFS social work- ers who described their partnerships as “strong” spoke of delegating the authority to resolve cases to CBN social workers when the family challenges were routine, freeing their time for the more critical cases. DCFS staff pro- vided examples of how they had integrated their work with CBN counterparts in ways that were not required by either organization, such as jointly identify- ing new programs to meet community needs (meals offered through a nearby church in the summer). DCFS social workers were accompanied by CBN staff when they visited a home for the first time, which eased the difficulty of the interaction between public administrators and citizens. Most significant is the extent to which the public agency has institutionalized shared authority in policy planning and human resources. Specifically, CBN directors are now appointed to DCSF committees for the planning and hiring phase of new initiatives and grants, CBN executive directors have membership on DCFS hiring committees, and they hold veto power on public sector staff promo- tions from mid- to upper-level management positions.

For all of the identifiable efforts by DCFS to institutionalize the partner- ships through integrated responsibilities, they continue to be relationship driven. DCFS social workers indicated that their confidence in the judgment and capabilities of CBN staff varies according to the strength of the partner- ship and work relationships they have established. A change in staff or dis- agreement regarding how to handle a case can quickly derail participation, resulting in DCFS social workers excluding CBN counterparts from decisions until a resolution is reached. DCFS chiefs and the executive director empha- size that sustaining the partnerships requires accessibility and commitment to resolving differences at several organizational levels. A pivotal factor in sus- taining the partnerships—and an indication of their fragility—is the leadership exercised by the most recent DCFS executive director, who holds a keen sense of CBNs and maintains steady contact with their executive directors.

In summary, the points of ambiguity and difference identified by public sector leadership and staff concerned the conflict of sharing responsibility and maintaining accountability, shifting from experts in control of the inter- action with a family to the role of leader, and a central point of reference for community informed decisions. Agency leadership indicated that sustaining partnerships has required substantial administrative attention, although the time commitment has abated with their establishment. Trust in the other partners was fostered through an integration of responsibilities and sharing authority, through ongoing dedication to maintaining communication at

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

376 Administration & Society

several organizational levels, and the commitment of organizational leader- ship. Indicators of ideological consensus in the partnership provided by DCFS included the delegation of responsibility to CBN counterparts by the public sector, the voluntary integration of tasks not required by the partner- ship, and the progressive inclusion of CBNs in the public agency’s policy, planning, and human resource decisions.

The Functionality of Distrust: The CBNs

As we sat in community meetings during the early years of the FFI, we quickly ascertained the extent to which community leaders, nonprofit ser- vice providers, and the African American community, in particular, were deeply alienated from the county agency. They believed that racism was a serious issue in addition to arbitrary behaviors and poor decision making. Nobody, including social service institutions that partnered with the county agency in foster care, seemed to fully comprehend how public agency social workers made risk assessments or the basis of decisions regarding child custody. With several highly publicized deaths of children who were open cases in 1998, there was a lack of confidence that the public agency could act capably and responsibly in the interest of the community.

In a moment of political foresight, the executive director of DCFS launched the county’s new FFI policy with the hiring of a local community advocate and social worker as internal coordinator of the FFI. Theresa had directed family-related programs in the county for 20 years and had an established reputation of commitment to the African American community, in particular. In her capacity as internal coordinator, Theresa generated a community sense of having an insider in the county agency and an indica- tion that DCFS was serious in their commitment to a new direction. Theresa began by promoting the new FFI policy through widely publicized meet- ings held in churches and community centers where she, in the company of local ministers and social workers, told an empowering story:

This initiative is a means for us to build our community’s strength to care for our children. Family to Family will help us build the strength of our com- munity to nurture our children so that with time, the county’s role will pro- gressively shrink away.

Theresa’s message conveyed her unbroken affiliation with the commu- nity and an affirmation of her commitment to help them accomplish this

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 377

goal. In the face of what appeared as public agency failure, Theresa did not ask citizens to trust the agency but to mobilize and take control of the fate of their children.

As seven more CBNs joined the partnership between 1998 and 2003, Theresa educated neighborhood center staff and community leaders about how to fulfill the program objectives4 and how to hold DCFS accountable to their own rules by learning the established procedures of the agency. Her message was implicitly adversarial in that success involved not only build- ing the community’s resources for supporting families but also education in how to serve as a check on overweening public authority. CBN social workers were to take the role of advocates, educating families by explain- ing DCFS procedures, acting as witnesses to DCFS interactions with fami- lies, and interceding on behalf of families in the now open review process of TDMs.

At the initiation of partnership, the two most significant points of differ- ence that CBN directors and staff struggled with were that (a) DCFS could be arbitrary, autocratic, and fail to act in the best interest of families and children in their community, and (b) DCFS could compromise the CBNs autonomy and mission, by acting as a sort of a Trojan horse. Neighborhood directors and staff expressed concern that they would come to rely on pub- lic sector resources, or reach a point where they were unable to bound the overreaching power of their county partner, resulting in a violation of their central value premise: their mission to maintain a safe haven where neigh- borhood members could come for assistance or to resolve community problems outside of government.

Ideological Consensus

The first point of difference, distrust of how the public sector interacts with families in the community, indicated a lack of a shared perception of the problem and how to resolve it. It reflected differences in organizational accountability and mission: DCFS is accountable to the citizenry at large for achieving the mission of child protection, and in that capacity, had exer- cised the regulatory power of the state to protect children in opposition to families; CBNs are more narrowly accountable to the people of a commu- nity across an array of concerns that pertain to improving their lives and resolving community problems through education, social services, and advocacy.

CBN concerns that the administrative state would not respond in the best interest of families began to noticeably dissipate by 2004 with the

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

378 Administration & Society

integration of tasks and shared information. DCFS social workers shared demographic and agency case data with CBN counterparts, revealing the particulars of the cases and involving them in the resolutions. In turn, social workers in CBNs oriented DCFS workers to communities, bringing them into contact with the families and social services providers in the neighbor- hood. In the process of engaging around their shared commitment to better the circumstances of children and families, organizational partners cocre- ated a perspective that reflected the knowledge of both worlds.

By the third and final contact with the organizational partners in 2007, the authors noted that concerns regarding the intentions and capabilities of DCFS had abated. Accusations of DCFS social workers being baby snatch- ers were no longer routine. Although CBN staff continued to describe their role in the partnership as advocates for families, they interpreted actions by the public sector as “capable” and “in the best interests of families.” The authors observed that the reasons given for greater trust in the intentions and capabilities of the public sector are interrelated. Both CBN and DCFS social workers assert that DCFS social workers resolve cases differently than in the past. Howeover, CBNs now play an integral role in generating trust through their participation in TDMs. The shift from adversary to part- ner was reflected in the response of a CBN site coordinator when asked, “How far can you go in advocating for families here?” She responded, “When we’re working with DCFS on an open case, our intention is to keep that child safe. If you don’t feel like you can guarantee that child’s safety, you don’t advocate.”

CBN social workers who described their partnerships as strong indicated that TDMs had developed their own routines and rules and are resolved with more ease than at the inception of the partnership, most particularly among social workers with working relationships. They believe a creative collaboration has emerged among partners in identifying how to best get a family and children on track. CBN executive directors feel supported because they have ready access to the chief for their geographic area and the DCFS director. Speaking of the DCFS executive director, an executive director noted, “If David were to go this [partnership] would definitely fall apart.” “When something happens with one of our families that isn’t right I call him.”

Domain Consensus

The second point of difference in the partnership that concerned CBNs pertains to the distinction between accountability “for what” and

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 379

accountability “to whom” (Bardach & Lesser, 1996). While CBNs resolved for what through a mutually defined collaboration that fit within the bound- aries of the nonprofit’s mission, the more thorny issue concerned account- ability to whom. CBNs could not afford for partnership related activities to override or violate their value contract with the community. Hence, the process of establishing public–nonprofit partnerships required that CBNs find a manner to articulate their boundaries within the partnership in accor- dance with their value contract with the community. Identification and protection of domain required that CBN leadership strategically limit par- ticular public sector activities in the neighborhood centers.

Four issues of difference around domain emerged in the course of the study. They concerned the need for the community-based organizations to (a) advocate for families and check agency power consistent with their traditional role, (b) limit activities within the neighborhood centers that conveyed police power, (c) refusal to openly align with DCFS in opposition to families, even when in agreement regarding the problem, and (d) devel- opment of a nonprofit executive council to express their concerns to DCFS in one voice.

From the inception of the partnership, CBN social workers limit public sector influence by functioning as an external check on DCFS during hear- ings, or TDMs. In interviews, CBN staff members assert that their advo- cacy and intervention altered the interactions between families and DCFS social workers, who were accustomed to clients of limited resources and unaware of how to effectively respond. CBN site coordinators, by their presence and their knowledge of agency rules and procedures, were able to provide information to families5 and change the tenor of exchanges in a number of cases. They believe that through their coaching, exchanges between families and DCFS social workers became less contentious and more productive.

CBN executive directors indicated that they refused to allow a number of DCFS routine activities to be held in the neighborhood centers as origi- nally intended in the partnerships. Specifically, CBN directors did not sup- port visitations in the neighborhood centers, where children in county custody were brought to the CBNs to see their parents. They refused to allow DCFS to take custody of a child on the premises. In one case, an executive director refused to allow a social worker to conduct a routine check on a child in day care “because every child in that room knows who the social worker is and it stigmatizes that child.” Similarly, an executive director explained that social workers in her CBN support families by not participating in TDMs if the family is not also there.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

380 Administration & Society

Sometimes these social workers will try to hold TDMs during the day and they don’t recognize that some of these people can’t get off work and come to these meetings without some risk to their employment. Under these cir- cumstances we support holding the meetings at a time when the family can attend. If the family is not at the table, we’re not at the table, either.

Perhaps, most evident of the need to maintain CBN alignment with the community are examples of CBN social workers who actively sought the intervention of DCFS on behalf of children in their community but refused to go on record against the parents.

One of the most strategic examples of behavior intended to support CBN accountability to the community and limit public sector influence was exer- cised by an executive director whose CBN was among the first to partner with DCFS. The executive director delegated control over the partnership- related decisions and the site coordinator (paid by DCFS) to the collabora- tive, the set of social service agencies that provided services through the neighborhood center. All FFI-program-related decisions and proposals were first to be reviewed and voted on by the collaborative. By developing a collaborative of powerful and similarly minded social service agencies that supported the CBNs’ perspective, the executive director buffered her nonprofit with political support that was difficult for DCFS to challenge.

FFI-related decisions are not made by the (neighborhood center) board, or by me, they are not made by (the site coordinator), they are made by the col- laborative. Our collaborative protects us from becoming a branch of the county, we have struggled with the county on this … the fact that we have a collaborative that (our site coordinator) has to go back to … they will ask her ‘why did you let that happen,’ or whatever, but … we struggled with the county and I think we got to the other side of that. (Executive director)

The final example of how CBNs protected their organizations in the partner- ship was through the establishment of an executive council, a formalized struc- ture that includes the executive directors of all CBNs who partner with DCFS in the FFI program. The executive council was formed by CBNs when the original county liaison, Theresa, left DCFS after 5 years and the CBN executive directors were concerned about how they would make their concerns known to DCFS leadership. They formed the executive council to represent the interests of all CBNs to the executive director of DCFS, inviting the DCFS executive director to their meetings. In summary, the establishment of trust in the partner- ships was conditional. It related to the specifics of the task and did not override the need to protect domain, or the role of CBNs in the community.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 381

Future of the Partnership

From the perspective of DCFS, the partnership with CBNs has been a success. A review of agency statistics indicates that between 2000 and 2007, the number of children involved with DCFS actually increased from roughly 13,000 to 14,000. However, the number of children placed in county custody decreased from 6,400 to 2,300; the number of children in permanent custody and available for adoption decreased during that period by 70%, from more than 2,000 to 800. Perhaps, most indicative of success- ful interventions is the decrease in recidivism, the percentage of children who reenter substitute parental care after exiting. The greatest decrease in recidivism was identified in the category of children aged 6 to 11 at initial entry; the percentage that reentered substitute care decreased from 7% to 2% between 2000 and 2005.

When asked to assess the success of the partnership, CBN executive directors report a mixed prognosis. Although they expressed confidence in the results generated by the FFI partnership for the community, the impact on organizational autonomy continues to be a challenge, fed largely by CBN dependence on public sector resources.

The county funds us through an RFP and yet they exercise considerable con- trol because they define staffing structure, job descriptions, and the number of positions. So the question is whether they are our staff or theirs? Moreover, are these new employees addressing community problems according to our ideas of what the community needs or the public agency’s mission?

When executive directors were asked to identify a point over the past 10 years when the partnership with the county was really down for the count and what precipitated it, they could not identify such an occurrence. When they were asked what benefits they have gained from the partnership, they point to the discretionary funding that allows them to fund programs and services for the community and greater access to upper level local govern- ment. Perhaps the most pressing issue expressed by executive directors concerned the change in direction of CBNs and their belief that CBNs had a responsibility to use resources to build their communities and empower people to speak for themselves. They insisted that if the partnership were going to remain viable, CBNs would need to sustain the ability to resolve problems in accordance with their understanding of them, and CBNs would need to be able to respond to the needs of families that were not in the county system.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

382 Administration & Society

A recent turn in the nature of DCFS partnerships may provide more evi- dence about the distinctive attributes of organizational entities that partner with the public sector. As DCFS has sought partnerships in the inner ring suburbs, there have been no settlement houses or community centers to function as lead agencies. Four communities have selected local public sec- tor entities as their lead agencies, including a school district, the human services division of the city government, and in one case the local police department. These new partners bring a different internal structure, different relationship with their citizens as well as a different relationship with the county child welfare agency than CBNs. An examination of how these part- nerships evolve in comparison to the CBNs may provide fruitful information for public sector partnerships and the contributions of particular sectors.

Conclusion

This article began by articulating a daunting challenge: there has been an impelling push to generate public sector partnerships with little direction offered in the literature as to how cross-sector partnerships are established or sustained. The results of a 10-year study of human service partnerships revealed three key findings. First, public sector partnerships with CBNs brought the expected opportunities to expand the range of services, but far most significant, public–CBN partnerships extended the governance capa- bilities of public agencies by establishing democratic accountability with a marginalized population and finally, the partnerships functioned as labora- tories for the practice of the New Public Service.

CBNs enabled a heavily rule-based public agency to expand its zone of discretion (Ruscio, 1997) and generate services and outcomes that were more congruent with community needs. The public sector set general rules to guide discretion, and over the course of developing the partnership, the CBN staff developed an array of services suited to the needs of families in their particular communities, thereby transcending the closed system gov- erned by uniformity, procedure, and administrative code.

Most significant was the finding that CBN partners functioned as a much needed bridge into communities where there was a clear perception that the public agency lacked the capacity to act in the best interests of citizens. It is widely understood that CBNs bring to public partnership the intimate knowledge of a community, a track record of how to most effec- tively serve a particular population, and a capacity to function in accor- dance with the value framework of the community. This study revealed that

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 383

the political capital of CBNs allowed the public sector to move beyond service delivery to governance—an interactive process of shared decision making that led to more informed decisions and generated democratic accountability to marginalized citizens.

A paradox that drew researchers to the study was that active distrust of the public agency fueled the generation of successful partnerships. CBN leaders were motivated to generate strong support systems, or collabora- tives, to check the power of a public agency and offset the role of the pub- lic agency in their communities. In contrast to literature that regards distrust as dysfunctional to partnership, the strategic responses to perceptions of trust and distrust were efforts to manage ambiguity in the interorganiza- tional environment. Accordingly, the CBN leaders’ distrust of the public agency engendered action intended to protect organizational mission and community and ultimately fostered a stronger commitment to the common goal of child welfare.

Organizational actors in the partnership generated trust through the pro- cess of working collaboratively and generating reliable patterns of interac- tion over the years. Although the initial contracts between the public agency and the partners defined the task, its purpose, and partnership roles, the details were elaborated over time to reflect an emergent ideological consensus—a mutually constructed conception of the problem and a means to address it—and domain consensus—agreement regarding organizational roles. This coelaboration of the partnership was particularly important for the CBNs that needed to sustain their primary accountability to their com- munity members.

The authors note that the practice of public administration by front line public administrators fit the model described as the New Public Service. Administrators shifted in role from professionals, who determined out- comes with little input from citizens, to leaders and facilitators who worked collaboratively with community members to identify problems and solu- tions. This was particularly apparent in TDMs where public agency deci- sions were the result of open dialogue with clients and community members.

Findings suggest the need to explore in greater depth the attributes and challenges of public partnerships by organizational sector to learn how sec- tor type can shape partnership characteristics, and most specifically, to discern how partnerships shape the capacity of the public sector to govern. Future exploration of public–CBN partnerships also offers the opportunity to elaborate how New Public Service takes shape and evolves in established partnerships and its impact on state-citizen relationships.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

384 Administration & Society

Notes

According to Salamon (1987), voluntary failure results from the limitations of the sec-1. tor as a mechanism to meet public needs, the most important of which is philanthropic insuf- ficiency, or the inability of the sector to consistently and reliably fund the human services costs of an advanced industrial society. Other causes of voluntary failure include philanthropic particularism, paternalism, and amateurism.

According to the American Human Association the average tenure for executive direc-2. tors of child welfare agencies is 3 years.

The change in agency policy to Family to Family Initiative (FFI) required that social 3. workers share information between foster and biological families and among social workers, families, and neighborhood site coordinators.

Program objectives required that community-based nonprofits (CBNs) build collabora-4. tives, groups of social service providers who could offer services for families through the neighborhood center, and generate new foster parents in the neighborhood.

CBN site coordinators functioned as trusted intermediaries, explaining the process of 5. administrative review and what a family needed to do to regain their children, keep their children, or be certified as a foster family. Families felt more assured that what was to transpire was not arbitrary or unusual to them, and if it was, the site coordinator would recognize it and provide them with options.

References

American Humane Association. (1998, June 16). A Comprehensive Review of the XXXX County Department of Children and Family Services. Englewood, CO: Author.

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1997). City kids count: Data on the well-being of children in large cities. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human service collaboratives: For what

and to whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 197-224. Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty

in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behav- ior (pp. 190-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross- sector collaboration: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44-55.

Carnevale, D. G. (1995). Trustworthy government: Leadership and management strategies for building trust and high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 29, 491-512.

DeMuro, P. (1995). Family to family tools for rebuilding foster care: Building partnerships with neighborhoods and local communities. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 385

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations, 13, 123-139.

Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. (2007). The purposes (and perils) of government nonprofit partner- ship. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 389-415.

Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group pro- cesses. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131-185). New York: Wiley.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness (The Russel Sage Foundation Series on Trust, Vol. 4). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power, public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

King, C., Stivers, C., Simrell King, C., Stivers, C., Nank, R., Hummel, R., et al. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attach- ment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Macneil, I. R. (1980). The new social contract. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow state. Public Management

Review, 5(1), 1-18. Mohr, J. J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attri-

butes, communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135-152.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commit- ment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Putnam, R. D. (1995, Spring). Bowling alone revisited. The Responsive Community,18-33. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist,

35, 1-7. Ruscio, K. (1997). Trust in the administrative state. Public Administration Review, 57,

454-458. Saidel, J. (1994). The dynamics of interdependence between public agencies and nonprofit

organizations. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public administration (pp. 201-229). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third party government. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1), 29-49.

Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the non- profit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9, 213-248.

Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational trust—A critical review of the empirical research in 1990-2003. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 249-265.

Steinberg, R., & Young, D. (1998). A comment on Salamon and Anheier’s “Social origins of civil society.” Voluntas, 9, 249-260.

Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 416-438.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

386 Administration & Society

Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government– nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.

Walden, G. I. (2006). Who’s watching us now? The nonprofit sector and the new government by surveillance. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 715-720.

Warren, Mark E. 1999. (Ed.). Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weisbrod, M. R. (1978). Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice. New

York: Perseus. Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law

and Economics, 36, 453-486. Zald, M., & McCarthy, J. D. (1997). Social movements in an organizational society: Collected

essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Zucker, L. G. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure,

1840-1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jennifer Alexander, PhD, is an associate professor in the master of public administration program in the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University and codirector of the Center for Nonprofit Policy and Practice. Her research includes civil society, administrative responsibility, and public–nonprofit partnerships.

Renée Nank, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Texas–San Antonio. Her research interests include governance, network management, and public–nonprofit sector rela- tionships particularly in the provision of social services and disaster planning and recovery.

at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from