Accountability in Collaborative Federal Programs—Multidimensional and Multilevel Performance Measures Needed: The Case of Wildland Fire Prevention

Abstract

Collaborative programs among Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private sector organizations are often prescribed to address difficult interdisciplinary and intersectoral problems. Accountability for these efforts is difficult to achieve and has frequently proved elusive. This research explores the nature of the accountability dilemma in collaborative programs and analyzes and illustrates them in the context of wildland fire prevention in the United States. It suggests a multilevel–multimeasurement approach is key to achieving a fuller picture of accountability in collaborative networks.

Keywords

Wildland Fire Accountability Collaboration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ager

Day

McHugh

Short

Gilbertson-Day

Finney

Calkin

(2014). Wildfire exposure and fuel management on western US national forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 145(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.035

Ager

Vaillant

Finney

(2010). A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(8), 1556–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.032

Agranoff

(2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff

(2012). Collaborating to manage: A primer for the public sector. Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff

McGuire

(2001). Big questions of in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504

Behn

(1999). The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1(2), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7494(99)80088-9

Blomgren-Bingham

O’Leary

(2009). The collaborative public manager. Georgetown University Press.

Bovins

Schillemans

Hart

(2008). Does public accountability work: An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00716.x

Bryson

J. M.

Ackerman

Eden

(2016). Discovering collaborative advantage: The contributions of goal categories and visual strategy mapping. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 912–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12608

10.

Calkin

Thompson

Finney

(2015). Negative consequences of positive feedback in US wildfire management. Forest Ecosystems, 2(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0033-8

11.

Clark

(2021). Public values and public participation: A case of collaborative governance of a planning process. American Review of Public Administration, 51(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020956397

12.

Dillon

Menakis

Fay

(2014). Wildland fire potential: A tool for assessing wildfire risk and fuels management needs. In Keane

R. E.

Jolly

Parsons

Riley

(Eds.), Proceedings of the large wildland fires conference (p. 73). MT. Proceedings of Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft.

13.

Dubnick

Frederickson

H. G.

(2011). Public accountability, performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. National Academy for Public Administration. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1875024

14.

Durant

(1999). The political economy of results-oriented management in the “neo administrative state”: Lessons from the MCDHHS experience. The American Review of Public Administration, 29(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750749922064454

15.

Emerson

(2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance frameworks: A performance matrix. Public Performance and Management Review, 38(4), 717–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016

16.

Firozi

Lati

Paul

M. L

. (2021, August 18) Caldor fire explodes, leveling parts of a California town and forcing thousands to evacuate, Washington Post, p. 5.

17.

Frederickson

H. G.

(2007, February). When accountability meets collaboration, PA Times, 11.

18.

GAO-05-147 (2005). U.S. General Accountability Office, Wildland fire management: Important progress has been made, but challenges remain to completing a cohesive strategy.

19.

GAO-06-671R (2006). U.S. General Accountability Office, Wildland fire management: Update on federal agency efforts to develop a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire threats.

20.

GAO-17-357 (2017). U.S. General Accountability Office, Wildland fire risk: Multiple factors affect federal—non-federal collaboration, but action could be taken to better measure progress.

21.

Haldane

(2013). Insurers, government grapple with costs of growth in wildland urban interface. Insurance Journal 13(4), 56–61. Available at: www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/08/15/301833htm

22.

Head

(2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Review of Public Administration, 29(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x

23.

Koontz

Thomas

(2006). What we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management. Special issue. Public Administration Review, 66(S!), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x

24.

Mandel

Keast

(2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks. Public Management Review, 10(6), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423079

25.

Mietkiewicz

Balch

Schoennagel

Leyk

St. Denis

Bradley

(2020). In the line of fire: Consequences of human-ignited wildfires to homes in the U.S. (1992–2015). Fire. September 7, 2020. https://tinyurl-com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/y4hrv6h2

26.

Mulgan

(2002). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218

27.

NAPA (2002). Wildfire suppression: Strategies for containing costs. National Academy of Public Administration.

28.

National Strategy. (2014). The final phase in the development of the national cohesive wildland fire management strategy, Accessed at http//wwwforestandrangelands.gov/CSPhaseiiiNationalStrategyApril2014.pdf

29.

Newton

Cantarello

(2015). Restoration of forest resilience: An achievable goal? New Forests, 46(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9489-1

30.

North

Collins

Stephens

(2012). Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry, 110(7), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-021

31.

Page

(2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaborations. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00406.x

32.

Prentice

Imperial

Brudney

(2019). Conceptualizing the collaborative toolbox: A dimensional approach to collaboration. American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019849123

33.

Provan

Fish

Sydow

(2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302554

34.

Reinhardt

Keane

Calkin

Cohen

(2008). Objectives and considerations for wildland fire treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western united states. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 1997–2006.

35.

Rollins

(2009). LANDFIRE: A nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf08088

36.

Romzek

Dubnick

(1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/975901

37.

Romzek

Dubnick

(1994). Issues of accountability in public personnel systems, in new paradigms in government: Issues in the changing public service. In Ingram

Romzek

(1st ed). Josey-Bass.

38.

Schultz

Matthews

McCaffrey

(2019). Forest service fire management and the elusiveness of change. Fire Ecology, 15(13), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-019-0028-x

39.

Schultz

Mosely

Katherine Mattor

(2015). Striking the balance between budgetary discretion and performance accountability: The case of the US forest service’s approach to integrated restoration. Journal of Natural Resources and Policy Research, 7(2-3), 109–123.

40.

Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3372, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

41.

Silvia

(2018). Evaluating collaboration: The solution to one problem often causes another. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 472–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12888

42.

Stephens

Collins

Eric

Fuel

(2016). U.S. Federal fire and forest policy: Emphasizing resilience in dry forests. Ecosphere (Washington, D C), 7(11), 1–19.

43.

U.S. Forest Service (2018). Toward shared stewardship across landscapes: An outcome-based investment strategy. FS-118.

44.

Vaillant

Reinhardt

(2017). An evaluation of the forest service hazardous fuels treatment program: Are we treating enough to promote resilience or reduce hazard? Journal of Forestry, 115(4), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-067

45.

Weiner

M. E.

(1990). Human resources management (2nd ed). Wadsworth.

46.

Westerling

A. L.

Hildago

H. G.

Cayan

D. R.

Swetnam

T. W.

(2006). Warming and early spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science (New York, N Y ), 313(5789), 940–943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128834

47.

Wise

Freitag

(2002). Balancing accountability and risk in program implementation: The case of national fire policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003545

48.

Wise

Mcguire

(2009). Wildland fire mitigation networks in the Western United States. Disasters, 33(4), 721–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01106.x