This study extends the representative bureaucracy literature by theorizing and empirically testing how staff sharing lived experience with service users can serve as user representatives in service provision processes (i.e., the peer coproduction mechanism). Using survey data from a representative sample of substance use disorder treatment clinics in the United States, we explore factors associated with descriptive representation (the presence of staff with firsthand experience of a substance use disorder in both frontline treatment and senior positions) and directors’ perceptions of recovering staff’s potential to serve as user representatives in individual care and organizational decision-making processes. Recovering staff accounted for a third of the field’s workforce, but the majority of the clinics did not employ them in senior staff positions. Regression results suggest that organizational leaders’ recognition of recovering staff’s unique representation capacities may facilitate greater descriptive representation and grant meaningful organizational decision-making authority to recovering staff. Multiple research and practice implications are discussed.
AbrahamA. J.KnudsenH. K.RieckmannT.RomanP. M. (2013).
Disparities in access to physicians and medications for the treatment of substance use disorders between publicly and privately funded treatment programs in the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,74(2), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.258
2.
AllardS. W. (2009). Out of reach: Place, poverty, and the new American welfare state.
Yale University Press.
3.
BattilanaJ.LecaB.BoxenbaumE. (2009).
How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals,3(1), 65–107.
4.
BellamyC. D.RoweM.BenedictP.DavidsonL. (2012).
Giving back and getting something back: The role of mutual-aid groups for individuals in recovery from incarceration, addiction, and mental illness. Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 7(2–4), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1556035X.2012.705703
5.
BenjaminL. M. (2008).
Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,37(2), 201–223.
BishuS. G.KennedyA. R. (2019).
Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19830154
8.
BlumT. C.RomanP. M. (1985).
The social transformation of alcoholism intervention: Comparisons of job attitudes and performance of recovered alcoholics and non-alcoholics. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,26(4), 365–378.
9.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. E. (2011).
Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. The American Review of Public Administration,41(2), 157–167.
10.
BradleyK. A.KivlahanD. R. (2014).
Bringing patient-centered care to patients with alcohol use disorders. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,311(18), 1861–1862. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3629
11.
BrighamG. S. (2003).
12-step participation as a pathway to recovery: The Maryhaven experience and implications for treatment and research. Science & Practice Perspectives,2(1), 43–51.
12.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011).
Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,21(Suppl_2), i253–i277.
13.
CarrE. S. (2010). Scripting addiction: The politics of therapeutic talk and American sobriety.
Princeton University Press.
14.
CarrollK. (2017).
Ambition is priceless: Socialization, ambition, and representative bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 209–229.
15.
Chen, Q., Wilson, D.M., & D’Aunno, T. (2017). National drug abuse treatment system survey (NDATSS): Sampling and weighting documentation for NDATSS 2016–2017. New York, NY: Columbia University.
16.
CiceroT. J.EllisM. S.SurrattH. L.KurtzS. P. (2014).
The changing face of heroin use in the United States: A retrospective analysis of the past 50 years. JAMA Psychiatry,71(7), 821–826. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.366
17.
CookeM.IrbyD. M.SullivanW.LudmererK. M. (2006).
American medical education 100 years after the Flexner Report. New England Journal of Medicine,355(13), 1339–1344. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra055445
18.
CorriganP. W.KuwabaraS. A.O’ShaughnessyJ. (2009).
The public stigma of mental illness and drug addiction: Findings from a stratified random sample. Journal of Social Work,9(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017308101818
19.
D’AunnoT. (2006).
The role of organization and management in substance abuse treatment: Review and roadmap. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,31(3), 221–233.
20.
D’AunnoT.FriedmannP. D.ChenQ.WilsonD. M. (2015).
Integration of substance abuse treatment organizations into accountable care organizations: Results from a national survey. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 40(4), 797–819.
21.
D’AunnoT.PollackH. A.JiangL.MetschL. R.FriedmannP. D. (2014).
HIV testing in the nation’s opioid treatment programs, 2005–2011: The role of state regulations. Health Services Research, 49(1), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12094
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983).
The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
24.
DiTomasoN.PostC.Parks-YancyR. (2007).
Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501.
25.
DonahueJ. D. (1989). Privatization decision: Public ends, private means.
Basic Books.
26.
DoukasN.CullenJ. (2011).
Addiction counselors in recovery: Perceived barriers in the workplace. Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy,2(3), 112.
27.
DudauA.GlennonR.VerschuereB. (2019).
Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1577–1594.
28.
EdvardssonD.FetherstonhaughD.NayR.GibsonS. (2010).
Development and initial testing of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). International Psychogeriatrics,22(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209990688
29.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004).
The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review,64(2), 132–140.
30.
FaveroN.MolinaA. L. (2018).
Is active representation an organizational-level process? The indirect effect of bureaucrats on clients they don’t directly serve. The American Review of Public Administration,48(1), 3–17.
31.
FriedmannP. D.LemonS. C.DurkinE. M.D’AunnoT. A. (2003).
Trends in comprehensive service availability in outpatient drug abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,24(1), 81–88.
32.
GadeD. M.WilkinsV. M. (2013).
Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus030
GrissomJ. A.KernE. C.RodriguezL. A. (2015).
The “representative bureaucracy” in education: Educator workforce diversity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(3), 185–192.
36.
GuoC.MussoJ. A. (2007).
Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,36(2), 308–326.
37.
HasenfeldY. (2010).
The attributes of human service organizations. In HasenfeldY. (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (pp. 9–32).
SAGE.
38.
HecksherD. (2007).
Former substance users working as counselors: A dual relationship. Substance Use & Misuse,42(8), 1253–1268.
39.
HodgkinsonI. R.HannibalC.KeatingB. W.BuxtonR. C.BatemanN. (2017).
Toward a public service management: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of Service Management, 28, 998–1023. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2017-0020
40.
HongS. (2017).
Black in blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy in policing revisited. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,27(4), 547–561.
41.
HumphreysK.NokeJ. M.MoosR. H. (1996).
Recovering substance abuse staff members’ beliefs about addiction. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,13(1), 75–78.
42.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century (No. 0309072808). National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/
43.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002).
Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564.
LeeM. T.ReifS.RitterG. A.LevineH. J.HorganC. M. (2001).
Access to services in the substance abuse treatment system. In GalanterM. (Ed.), Recent developments in alcoholism (pp. 137–156).
Springer.
46.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.
Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
MarvelJ. D.ReshW. G. (2015).
Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013492008
48.
MarwellN. P. (2007). Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community organizations in the entrepreneurial city.
University of Chicago Press.
49.
MasseyD. S.TannenJ. (2018).
Suburbanization and segregation in the United States: 1970–2010. Ethnic and Racial Studies,41(9), 1594–1611.
50.
MeierK. J. (1975).
Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. The American Political Science Review,69(2), 526–542.
51.
MeierK. J. (1993).
Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration,2(1), 1–35.
52.
MeierK. J. (2019).
Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance,2(1), 39–56.
53.
MeierK. J.MortonT. S. M. (2015).
Representative bureaucracy in a cross-national context: Politics, identity, structure and discretion. In PetersB. G.MaravićP. VonSchröterE. (Eds.), Politics of representative bureaucracy: Power, legitimacy and performance (pp. 94–112).
Edward Elgar.
54.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006).
Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860.
55.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976).
Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review,36(4), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/974854
56.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service.
Oxford University Press.
57.
MosleyJ. E.MarwellN. P.YbarraM. (2019).
How the “what works” movement is failing human service organizations, and what social work can do to fix it. Human Services Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 43, 326–335.
58.
National Center for Health Statistics (Ed.). (2012). NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
59.
OlmsteadT. A.JohnsonJ. A.RomanP. M.SindelarJ. L. (2007).
Why are recovering substance abuse counselors paid less?Substance Abuse,28(1), 31–44.
60.
ParkS. (2020a).
Beyond patient-centred care: A conceptual framework of co-production mechanisms with vulnerable groups in health and social service settings. Public Management Review,22(3), 452–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1601241
61.
ParkS. (2020b).
Co-production in the treatment of substance use disorder and its relationship to clinics’ service output patterns. Social Service Review,94(3).
62.
ParkS.GroganC. M.MosleyJ. E.HumphreysK.PollackH. A.FriedmannP. D. (2019).
Correlates of patient-centered care practices at U.S. substance use disorder clinics. Psychiatric Services,71(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900121
63.
ParkS.MosleyJ. (2017).
Nonprofit growth and decline during economic uncertainty. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(5), 515–531.
64.
ParsonsT.ShilsE. A. (1951). Towards a general theory of action.
Harvard University Press.
65.
PintoR. M.ParkS. (2019).
De-implementation of evidence-based interventions: Implications for organizational and managerial research. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 43(4), 336–343.
66.
PittsD. W.WiseL. R. (2010).
Workforce diversity in the new millennium: Prospects for research. Review of Public Personnel Administration,30(1), 44–69.
67.
PollackH. A.D’AunnoT. (2010).
HIV testing and counseling in the nation’s outpatient substance abuse treatment system, 1995–2005. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.004
68.
ReifS.BraudeL.LymanD. R.DoughertyR. H.DanielsA. S.GhoseS. S.SalimO.Delphin-RittmonM. E. (2014).
Peer recovery support for individuals with substance use disorders: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services,65(7), 853–861.
69.
ReifS.GeorgeP.BraudeL.DoughertyR. H.DanielsA. S.GhoseS. S.Delphin-RittmonM. E. (2014).
Residential treatment for individuals with substance use disorders: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services,65(3), 301–312.
70.
RiccucciN. M.RyzinG. G. V. (2017).
Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649
71.
RiccucciN. M.SaidelJ. R. (1997).
The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review,57(5), 423–430.
72.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LavenaC. F. (2014).
Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006
73.
RochC. H.EdwardsJ. (2017).
Representative bureaucracy and school discipline: The influence of schools’ racial contexts. The American Review of Public Administration,47(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015589126
74.
SchollI.KristonL.DirmaierJ.BuchholzA.HärterM. (2012).
Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire—Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Education and Counseling,88(2), 284–290.
75.
SchröterE.Von MaravićP. (2015).
The “performance claim” of representative bureaucracy: Does organization matter?. In PetersB. G.MaravićP. VonSchröterE. (Eds.), Politics of representative bureaucracy: Power, legitimacy and performance (pp. 41–64).
Edward Elgar.
76.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations: Theories and research.
SAGE.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1995). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting.
Harvard University Press.
79.
SpechtH.CourtneyM. E. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned its mission.
The Free Press.
80.
SpitzmuellerM. C. (2016).
Negotiating competing institutional logics at the street level: An ethnography of a community mental health organization. Social Service Review,90(1), 35–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/686694
81.
StewartM.BrownJ. B.DonnerA.McWhinneyI. R.OatesJ.WestonW. W.JordanJ. (2000).
The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. The Journal of Family Practice,49(9), 796–804.
ThielemannG. S.StewartJ. (1996).
A demand-side perspective on the importance of representative bureaucracy: AIDS, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Administration Review, 56(2), 168–173.
85.
van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK. (2010).
MICE: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R [Article]. Journal of Statistical Software. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/44635
86.
Watkins-HayesC. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats: Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform.
University of Chicago Press.
87.
WeisbrodB. A. (1997).
The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,16(4), 541–555.
88.
WhiteW. L. (2014). Slaying the dragon: The history of addiction treatment and recovery in America (2nd ed.).
Chestnut Health Systems/Lighthouse Institute.
89.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008).
Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review,68(4), 654–664.
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.
