Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-4
Using Collaborative Governance to Regulate Sober Living Facilities: Structures and Strategies for Mitigating the Influence of Powerful Actors in Multi-Sectoral Networks
With the growing number of opioid-related deaths, many local governments are assembling collaborations with the goal of providing timely and tangible responses to the overdose epidemic. Although the purpose of such collaborations is to bring multi-sector stakeholders together to provide policy recommendations, the inclusion of organizations with divergent interests and differing levels of power can open the collaboration to capture by special interests. In this article, we use a mixed-method design to: a) investigate the network structure of a collaboration and b) identify the managerial strategies used to facilitate participation by diverse actors within a cross-sector task force convened to regulate sober living facilities.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326.
2.
Almog-BarM.SchmidH. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.
3.
AlvarezL. (2017, June20). Haven for recovering addicts now profits from their relapses. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/us/delray-beach-addiction.html
4.
AndrewsR.EntwistleT. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 679–701.
5.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
6.
BabiakK.ThibaultL. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117–143.
7.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
8.
BerardoR.FischerM.HamiltonM. (2020). Collaborative governance and the challenges of network-based research. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(8), 898–913.
9.
BerthodO.Grothe-HammerM.Müller-SeitzG.RaabJ.SydowJ. (2017). From high-reliability organizations to high-reliability networks: The dynamics of network governance in the face of emergency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 352–371.
10.
BevirM. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In EnrothH.BevirM. (Eds), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp, 1–16). Sage Publications Ltd.
11.
BianchiC.NasiG.RivenbarkW. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: Models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581–1589.
12.
BogasonP.MussoJ. A. (2006). The democratic prospects of network governance. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 3–18.
13.
BrandesU.WagnerD. (2004). Analysis and visualization of social networks. In Graph drawing software (pp. 321–340). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
14.
BrisboisM. C.de LoëR. C. (2016). Power in collaborative approaches to governance for water: A systematic review. Society & Natural Resources, 29(7), 775–790.
15.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross-Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55.
16.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
CleggS. R.HardyC. (Eds.). (1999). Studying organization: Theory and method. Sage.
22.
CooperT. L.BryerT. A.MeekJ. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66, 76–88.
23.
CrosbyB. C.BrysonJ. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. Jossey-Bass.
24.
Dal BóE. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 203–225.
25.
DamanpourF. (1992). Organizational size and innovation. Organization Studies, 13(3), 375–402.
26.
Dunn-CaveltyM.SuterM. (2009). Public–Private Partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for Critical Infrastructure Protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2(4), 179–187.
27.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
FergieG.LeifeldP.HawkinsB.HiltonS. (2019). Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: A discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage. Addiction, 114(4), 741–753.
GoodreauS. M.HandcockM. S.HunterD. R.ButtsC. T.MorrisM. (2008). A statnet tutorial. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(9), 1.
32.
GurranN.PhibbsP. (2015). Are governments really interested in fixing the housing problem? Policy capture and busy work in Australia. Housing Studies, 30(5), 711–729.
33.
HaferJ.RanB.HossainM. S. (2022). Rethinking perspectives of power in collaborative governance. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 8(2), 260–280.
34.
HardyC.PhillipsN. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217–230.
35.
HawkesC.BuseK. (2011). Public health sector and food industry interaction: It’s time to clarify the term ‘partnership’ and be honest about underlying interests. The European Journal of Public Health, 21(4), 400–401.
36.
HedegaardH.WarnerM.MiniñoA. M. (2017). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999-2016 (NCHS Data Brief No, 294). National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db294.htm#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20there%20were%20more,rate%20in%202015%20(16.3)
37.
HeikkilaT.GerlakA. K. (2016). Investigating collaborative processes over time: A 10-year study of the South Florida ecosystem restoration task force. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 180–200.
38.
HillC.LynnL. (2003). Producing human services Why do agencies collaborate?Public Management Review, 5(1), 63–81.
39.
HuxhamC. (1996). Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In HuxhamC. (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 1–18). Sage Publications LTD.
40.
HuxhamC.VangenS. (2005). Managing to collaborate.New York: Routledge.
41.
HuxhamC.VangenS.HuxhamC.EdenC. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(3), 337–358.
42.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
43.
JohnstonL. M.FinegoodD. T. (2015). Cross-sector partnerships and public health: Challenges and opportunities for addressing obesity and noncommunicable diseases through engagement with the private sector. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 255–271.
44.
KadushinC. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford University Press.
45.
KapucuN.HuQ. (2016). Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(4), 399–417.
46.
KiN.KwakC. G.SongM. (2020). Strength of strong ties in intercity government information sharing and county jurisdictional boundaries. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 23–35.
47.
KingdonJ. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives and public policy. Longman.
48.
KoskiC.SiddikiS.SadiqA. A.CarboniJ. (2018). Representation in collaborative governance: A case study of a food policy council. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(4), 359–373.
49.
KrivitskyP. N. (2012). Exponential-family random graph models for valued networks. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 6, 1100.
50.
KumarR.NtiK. O. (1998). Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model. Organization Science, 9(3), 356–367.
51.
LeifeldP. (2013a). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198.
52.
LeifeldP. (2013b). Discourse network analyzer manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). http://www.philipleifeld.de.
53.
LeifeldP. (2017). Discourse network analysis: Policy debates as dynamic networks. In VictorJ.MontogmeryA.LubellM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp.1–48). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.001.0001
54.
LeifeldP. (2020). Policy debates and discourse network analysis: A research agenda. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 180–183.
55.
LevineM. E.ForrenceJ. L. (1990). Regulatory capture, public interest, and the public agenda: Toward a synthesis. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6, 167.
56.
LevyD. L.NewellP. J. (2005). Introduction: The business of global environmental governance. In LevyD. L.NewellP. J. (Eds.), The business of global environmental governance (pp. 1–17). MIT Press
MacGregorS.SingletonN.TrautmannF. (2014). The emergence and influence of the concept of governance. In AndersonP.BuhringerG.ColomJ., Reframing addictions: Polices, processes and pressures (pp. 17–29). The ALICE RAP project.
59.
MartınezA.DimitriadisY.RubiaB.GómezE.De la FuenteP. (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers & Education, 41(4), 353–368.
60.
McGuireM. C.BrudneyJ. L.GazleyB. (2010). The “new emergency management”: Applying the lessons of collaborative governance to 21st century emergency planning. In O’LearyR.Van SlykeD.KimS. H. (Eds.), The future of public administration, public management and public service around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 117–128). Georgetown University Press.
61.
McPhersonJ. M.Smith-LovinL. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370–379.
MilwardH. B.ProvanK. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.
65.
MoeT. M. (1995). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In WilliamsonO. E. (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (p. 116–153). Oxford University Press.
66.
MoyerV. A. (2013). Screening for HIV: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 159(1), 51–60.
67.
MoynihanD. P. (2005). Leveraging collaborative networks in infrequent emergency situations. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
68.
MullerA. (2015). Using discourse network analysis to measure discourse coalitions: Towards a formal analysis of political discourse. World Political Science, 11(2), 377–404.
69.
Nicholson-Crotty J. (2007). Politics, policy, and the motivations for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 5–21.
70.
OpsahlT. (2013). Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Social Networks, 35(2), 159-–167.
71.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2005). Managing upward, downward and outward: Networks, hierarchical relationships and performance. Public Management Review, 7(1), 45–68.
72.
Palm Beach Sober Homes Task Force. (2017). Identification of problems in the substance abuse treatment and recovery residence industries with recommended changes to existing laws and regulations. Office of the State Attorney.
73.
PetersB. G. (2018). American public policy: Promise and performance. Cq Press.
74.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
75.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414–423.
76.
PurdyJ. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409–-417.
77.
QuickK. S.FeldmanM. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.
78.
RanB.QiH. (2018). Contingencies of power sharing in collaborative governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(8), 836–851.
79.
RanB.QiH. (2019). The entangled twins: Power and trust in collaborative governance. Administration & Society, 51(4), 607–636.
80.
RichardsD.SmithM. J. (2002). Governance and public policy in the United Kingdom (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
81.
RittelH. W.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
RondinelliD. A.LondonT. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(1), 61–76.
84.
RuhnauB. (2000). Eigenvector-centrality: A node-centrality?Social Networks, 22(4), 357–365.
ScottT. A. (2016). Analyzing policy networks using valued exponential random graph models: Do government-sponsored collaborative groups enhance organizational networks?Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 215–244.
ShortellS. M.ZukoskiA. P.AlexanderJ. A.BazzoliG. J.ConradD. A.Hasnain-WyniaR.SofaerS.ChanB. Y.CaseyE.MargolinF. S. (2002). Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: Tracking the footprints. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27(1), 49–92.
91.
SiddikiS. N.CarboniJ. L.KoskiC.SadiqA. A. (2015). How policy rules shape the structure and performance of collaborative governance arrangements. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 536–547.
92.
SingletonS. (2000). Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policy-making. Environmental Politics, 9(2), 1–21.
93.
StoutM.KeastR. (2021). Collaboration: What does it really mean? In MeekJ. W. (Ed.), Handbook of collaborative public management (pp. 17–35). Edward Elgar Publishing.
94.
TeutschS. M.FieldingJ. E. (2013). Rediscovering the core of public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 287–299.
95.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016a). B01003 total population: American Community Survey 5-year estimates. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Population+Total&g=040XX00US12$0500000&y=2016&tid=ACSDT5Y2016.B01003&tp=true
96.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016b). B19013 median household income in the past 12 months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars): American Community Survey 5-year estimates. https://data.census.gov/table?q=B19013:+MEDIAN+HOUSEHOLD+INCOME+IN+THE+PAST+12+MONTHS+(IN+2021+INFLATION-ADJUSTED+DOLLARS)&g=040XX00US12$0500000&y=2016&tid=ACSDT5Y2016.B19013
Van der HeijdenJ. (2013). Is new governance the silver bullet? Insights from the Australian buildings sector. Urban Policy and Research, 31(4), 453–471.
99.
VardaD.ShoupJ. A.MillerS. (2012). A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public affairs literature: Implications for public health practice and research. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 564–571.
100.
WassermanS.FaustK. (2008). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
101.
WeirM.RongerudeJ.AnsellC. K. (2009). Collaboration is not enough: Virtuous cycles of reform in transportation policy. Urban Affairs Review, 44(4), 455–489.
102.
WilliamsA. R.BisagaA. (2016). From AIDS to opioids: How to combat an epidemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(9), 813–815.
103.
YatscoA. J.Champagne-LangabeerT.HolderT. F.StottsA. L.LangabeerJ. R. (2020). Developing interagency collaboration to address the opioid epidemic: A scoping review of joint criminal justice and healthcare initiatives. International Journal of Drug Policy, 83, 102849
104.
YinR. K. (2017). Case stvudy research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
105.
ZhaoX.OhH. J. (2021). What fosters interorganizational frame convergence: Examining a semantic network during the opioid crisis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102042.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
