The increasing prevalence of diagnoses for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), now one in 68 children according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), presents a number of policy implications. In particular, many of these children become eligible for special education services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Given the specialized expertise and resources required of local education agencies (LEAs), how do they respond to this implementation challenge? In May 2015, an online survey was distributed to various governmental and nongovernmental actors in three Virginia localities to measure the extent of collaboration in local autism policy networks. The findings suggest that these networks are driven by autism-related information, and that nonprofit organizations act as intermediary organizations that bridge disparate stakeholders. The results contribute to our understanding of fragmentation across policy subsystems, with the focus here on education policy, and the implementation challenges related to a rapidly changing policy issue.
AgranoffR. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
2.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
AnsellC.ReckhowS.KellyA. (2009). How to reform a reform coalition: Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage in urban school reform. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 717-743. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00332.x
4.
BaioJ. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years: Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Surveillance Summaries, 63(SS02), 1-21.
5.
BakerD. L.StokesS. (2007). Brain politics: Aspects of administration in the comparative issue definition of autism-related policy. Public Administration Review, 67, 757-767. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00758.x
6.
BerardoR.LubellM. (2016). Understanding what shapes polycentric governance. Public Administration Review, 76, 738-751. doi:10.1111/puar.12532
7.
BerardoR.ScholzJ. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 632-649. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x
8.
BouderJ. N.SpielmanS.MandellD. S. (2009). Brief report: Quantifying the impact of autism coverage on private insurance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 953-957. doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0701-z
9.
BowmanA. O.KearneyR. C. (2012). Are U.S. cities losing power and authority? Perceptions of local government actors. Urban Affairs Review, 48, 528-546. doi:10.1177/1078087412440272
10.
BowmanA. O.ParsonsB. M. (2013). Making connections: Performance regimes and extreme events. Public Administration Review, 73, 63-73. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02680.x
11.
BumillerK. (2013). Caring for autism: Toward a more responsive state. In DavidsonJ.OrsiniM. (Eds.), In worlds of autism: Across the spectrum of neurological difference (pp. 143-168). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ChatterjiP.DeckerS. L.MarkowitzS. (2015). The effects of mandated health insurance benefits for autism on out-of-pocket costs and access to treatment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 328-353. doi:10.1002/pam.21814
15.
ClingermayerJ. C.FeiockR. C. (2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. New York: State University of New York Press.
16.
CsárdiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.
17.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28, 175-206. doi:10.1177/0895904813514132
18.
FeiockR. C.ScholzJ. T. (Eds.). (2010). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FischerM.SciariniP. (2016). Drivers of collaboration in political decision making: A cross-sector perspective. Journal of Politics, 78, 63-74. doi:10.1086/683061
20.
GaleyS. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests, and ideas [Special issue]. Policy Studies Journal, 43, 12-39. doi:10.1111/psj.12100
21.
GerberE. R.HenryA. D.LubellM. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 598-610. doi:10.1111/ajps.12011
22.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
23.
HandcockM. S.HunterD. R.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.KrivitskyP. M.Bender-deMollS.MorrisM. (2016). statnet: Software tools for the statistical analysis of network data. The Statnet Project (http://www.statnet.org). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=statnet
24.
HandcockM. S.HunterD. R.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.MorrisM. (2008). statnet: Software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(1), 1-11.
25.
HenigJ. R. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. New Haven, CT: Harvard University Press.
26.
HenryA. D.LubellM.McCoyM. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 419-444. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq042
27.
HenryA. D.LubellM.McCoyM. (2012). Survey-based measurement of public management and policy networks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 432-452. doi:10.1002/pam.21623
28.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: Longman.
29.
KleinbergJ. M. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46, 604-632. doi:10.1145/324133.324140
30.
KolaczykE. D.CsárdiG. (2014). Statistical analysis of network data in R. New York, NY: Springer.
31.
LeeY.LeeI. W.FeiockR. C. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration networks in economic development policy: An exponential random graph model analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 547-573. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00464.x
32.
LeifeldP.SchneiderV. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 731-744. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00580.x
33.
LewisJ. M. (2011). The future of network governance research: Strength in diversity and synthesis. Public Administration, 89, 1221-1234. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01876.x
34.
LubellM. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 537-559. doi:10.1111/psj.12028
35.
LubellM.FultonA. (2008). Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 673-696. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum031
36.
LubellM.RobinsG.WangP. (2014). Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 23. doi:10.5751/ES-06880-190423
37.
LubellM.ScholzJ.BerardoR.RobinsG. (2012). Testing policy theory with statistical models of networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 351-374. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00457.x
38.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
39.
MannaP. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
MannaP. (2014). Education policy. In Haider-MarkelD. P. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of state and local government (pp. 669-690). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
MannaP.McGuinnP. (Eds.). (2013). Education governance for the Twenty-First Century: Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
42.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 271-293.
43.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689-699.
NewmanM. (2010). Networks: An introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
Nicholson-CrottyS.MeierK. J. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single state studies. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2, 411-422. doi:10.1177/153244000200200405
47.
OrsiniM. (2012). Autism, neurodiversity and the welfare state: The challenges of accommodating neurological difference. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45, 805-827. doi:10.1017/S000842391200100X
48.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
O’TooleL. J.Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45-52.
50.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J. (2004). Desperately seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the dark side of public management in networks. Public Administration Review, 64, 681-693. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00415.x
51.
PitneyJ. J.Jr. (2015). The politics of autism: Navigating the contested spectrum. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
52.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org/
53.
ReckhowS. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
ReedD. (2014). Building the federal schoolhouse: Localism and the American education state. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55.
RhodesR. A. W. (2008). Policy network analysis. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425-447). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
RitcheyM.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2015). “Blue Ribbon” commissions, interest groups, and the formulation of policy in the American states. Policy Studies Journal, 43, 70-92. doi:10.1111/psj.12091
57.
RobinsonS. E. (2006). A decade of treating networks seriously. Policy Studies Journal, 34, 589-598. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00192.x
58.
RobinsonS. E.EllerW. S.GallM.GerberB. J. (2013). The core and periphery of emergency management networks: A multi-model assessment of two evacuation-hosting networks from 2000 to 2009. Public Management Review, 15, 344-362. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.769849
59.
RobinsonS. E.GaddisB. S. (2012). Seeing past parallel play: Survey measures of collaboration in disaster situations. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 256-273. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00452.x
60.
SchneiderM.ScholzJ.LubellM.MindrutaD.EdwardsenM. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 143-158. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00010
61.
SongM.MiskelC. G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration, 41, 7-48. doi:10.1177/0013161X04269515
62.
SteuernagelT. (2005). Increases in identified cases of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 138-146. doi:10.1177/10442073050160030101
63.
StoneC. N.HenigJ. R.JonesB. D.PierannunziC. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
64.
SwainC. M.YetterV. M. (2014). Federalism and the politics of immigration reform. In JenkinsJ. A.MilkisS. M. (Eds.), The politics of major policy reform in postwar America (pp. 179-202). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Virginia Department of Education. (2016). Composite index of local ability to pay. Available from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/
67.
WeibleC. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 461-475. doi:10.1177/106591290505800308
YoungT. V.LewisW. D.SandersM. S. (2010). Structural location and reputed influence in state reading policy issue networks. American Journal of Education, 117, 25-49. doi:10.1086/656345
