Collaborative Governance Models Research Project

1
Collaborative Governance Models Research Project

• Collaborative Governance Project - CUISR
  Internship
• Social Economy Workshop
• May 2, 2008, 1000 p.m. to 1030 p.m.
• Saskatoon Indian and Metis Friendship Centre
• 168 Wall Street
• Summer Internship Research Project with
  Saskatchewan Association for Community Living
  (SACL) and the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) in
  Saskatoon as part of the SSHRC sponsored project
  
• Linking, Learning, LeveragingSocial Enterprises,
  Knowledgeable Economies,and Sustainable
  Communities

2
The Project

• Purpose of the research project was to compile a
  literature review on the topic of collaborative
  governance models
• From this literature review, observations and
  conclusions are drawn about factors that lead to
  successful collaborative practices.

3
This Presentation

• Scope of the literature review
• What is Collaborative Governance?
• History of the collaborative governance lexicon
  in the policy realm
• How the research is clustered
• Conceptual frameworks
• Common themes in the research
• Analysis of the literatures significance
  vis-à-vis the partner organizations

4
Scope of the Literature Review

• Collaborative governance models are found in
  diverse forms literature encompassing a wide
  range of cases
• Searches focused on key terms such as
  collaborative governance, collaborative
  management, collaborative policy development,
  collaborative funding, funding tables, shared
  management, participatory strategic planning,
  community development and planning, deliberative
  democracy
• Searches yielded many results given the diversity
  of the fields

5
Reviewing the Literature Process

• A survey of the literature shows significant
  clusters by field of study, including management
  theory, economics, health management, political
  science and public policy, planning, community
  development, and public administration.
• Different scholars have proposed various
  conceptual frameworks and typologies in
  discussing the literature
• Some relevant themes can be ascertained from a
  review of this literature

6
What is Collaborative Governance?

• Collaborative Governance is a new model of
  governance that has arisen in the last two
  decades.
• It can be characterized as bringing multiple
  stakeholders together in a common forum for
  consensus decision-making, often led by public
  agencies (Ansell and Gash)
• A principle characteristic of collaborative
  processes is that they lead to outcomes
  satisfactory to all parties involved. (Gray 50)
• Boohers analysis of collaborative governance
  case studies shows some common characteristics
  such as policy consensus, community visioning,
  consensus rule-making, and collaborative network
  structures.

7
What is Collaborative Governance?

• One of the obstacles to theory building is that
  researchers employ different definitions of
  collaboration (Imperial 2005 286)
• Jody Freeman argues that collaborative governance
  requires problem-solving, broad participation,
  provisional solutions, the sharing of regulatory
  responsibility across the public-private divide
  and a flexible engaged agency. (Freeman, 2)
• Innes and Booher argue that collaborative
  governance models must engage in authentic
  dialogue with each stakeholder legitimately
  representing the interests for which they claim
  to speak, coming to the table with interests, but
  also with open minds about their positions and a
  willingness to seek mutual gain solutions
  (Innes and Booher 38).

8
Collaboration and Cooperation

• Collaboration is a purposive relationship
  designed to solve a problem by creating or
  discovering a solution within a given set of
  constraints (Agranoff and McGuire, 4) such as
  knowledge, time, money, competition, conventional
  wisdom (Schrage, 1995).
• Co-operation refers to working jointly with
  others to some end but also normally implies
  those working jointly have a relationship of
  mutual help, rather than divergent, and possibly
  adversarial, interests (Agranoff and McGuire, 4).

9
Collaborative Governance and Collaboration

• Collaborative governance is virtually
  indistinguishable from collaboration theory in
  the literature
• Takahashi and Smutnys broad conceptualization of
  governance purposive means of guiding and
  steering a society or community consisting of a
  particular set of organizational arrangements
  (169)
• Collaborative governance therefore encompasses
  a wide variety of fields.

10
History in the Policy Realm

• Inter and Intra-governmental collaboration, some
  examples
• cooperative federalism in the 1930s under
  Roosevelt
• Blair government document Modernising Government
• Interagency collaboration in the war on terror
• In Canada, provincial and federal negotiations in
  the 1990s over budgets, jurisdictions, and
  cost-sharing agreements (Delacourt and Lenihan,
  eds).
• Given the budget cutbacks in the 1990s,
  collaboration entered the policy lexicon in an
  effort to seek new ways at service delivery,
  contracting out to the private sector and
  offloading service delivery onto the third
  sector.

11
Collaboration in Public Management Theory

• Collaborative management is seen as a new
  paradigm from New Public Management (NPM) theory
  that was predominant since the 1980s in public
  sector reform
• NPM was characterized by more market orientation
  in the public sector aiming toward increased
  cost-efficiency and running government more like
  the private sector.
• Public-private partnerships lead to more
  collaborative models with social economy
  stakeholders.
• Collaborative governance can be seen as a
  reaction to NPM with its emphasis on efficiency
  (Steins Cult of Efficiency)
• Some argue collaborative approaches will
  increasingly dominate with globalization in a
  digital age (five discussion pieces from the
  Centre for Collaborative Government) to address
  democratic deficits

12
Reviewing the Literature Deliberative and
participatory democracy

• These tend to be more theoretical pieces
  examining the nature of democracy, leadership, or
  policy making and collaboration as a new model of
  governance (Freeman, 1997 Fung, 2001 Innes and
  Booher Healey, 2003 Adronovich, 1995 Gazley et
  al. Ghose, 2005)
• Caledon Institute,Tamarack, Vibrant Communities
• Literature in community planning genre looks at
  collaboration as a means of community engagement.
  Participatory planning genres build on key
  pioneers such as Paulo Friere.

13
Reviewing the Literature Resource Management

• There are a significant number of case studies in
  collaboration and resource management. This
  literature tends to focus on cases where
  stakeholders have opposing interests but
  resolutions are economically paramount and
  adversarial decision-making is costly (Leach et
  al, 2002 Beierle, 2000 Wondolleck and Yaffee,
  2000 Weber, 2003 Smith 1998 Schuckman 2001
  Porter and Salveson, 1995 Plummer and
  Fitzgibbon, 2004 Nelson and Weschler, 1998
  Manring, 2005 Lee, 2003 Leach 2002 Hamalainen
  et al, 2001 Echeverria, 2001 Ebrahim, 2004
  Connick and Innes, 2003 Coggins, 1999 Heikkila
  and Gerlak, 2005)

14
Reviewing the Literature Healthcare and
Community Health

• A cluster of literature focuses on healthcare and
  community health usually examining collaborative
  governance as a management strategy for service
  delivery (Weech-Maldonado and Merrill, 2000
  Hageman et al, 1999 Erickson et al, 2003
  Fawcett, 1995)

15
Reviewing the Literature Voluntary Sector

• Another body of literature clusters around the
  collaborative governance models in the voluntary
  sector, looking at service delivery and citizen
  participation
• Some of the literature is theoretical in nature
  looking at issues such as deliberative and
  participatory democracy as alternatives to
  vertical management structures (Bingham, 2006
  Phillips, 2001 Pine et al, 1998)

16
Reviewing the Literature Evaluation and Best
Practices

• There is a body of literature regarding
  accountability of collaborative governance
  processes, and effective evaluation of
  collaboration (Taylor-Powell et al., 1998)
• Less academic but more practical guides and case
  studies concerning effective collaborative
  processes (Tamarack Caledon Institute)

17
Conceptual Frameworks

• Ansell and Gash argue in their preliminary
  research that collaborative governance literature
  can be characterized as either
• normative adopting a tone how policy making,
  decision making or negotiations ought to be
  (Scholars such as Freeman, Gray, Innes and
  Booher)
• descriptive describing how a case is operating
  (Seidenfeld, Lober, Takahashi and Smutny, Booher,
  Fung and Wright) or
• instrumental showing how adopting a
  collaborative process would lead to certain
  outcomes (Smith, Gray, Coggins, Walter and Petr,
  Manring)

18
Freemans Model of Collaborative Governance

• A problem solving orientation. The focus is on
  solving regulatory problems. This requires
  information sharing and deliberation among
  parties with the knowledge most relevant to
  devising and implementing creative solutions
• Participation by interested and affected parties
  in all stages of the decision-making process.
• Provisional solutions. Rules viewed as temporary
  and subject to revision requiring a willingness
  to move forward in uncertainty, adopting
  innovative solutions.
• Accountability transcending traditional public
  and private roles. New mechanisms of governance
  aimed at supplanting traditional roles and
  functions seen as dysfunctional or not
  accountable.
• A flexible engaged agency. Collaborative
  governance used to facilitate multi-stakeholder
  negotiations, seeking broad participation and
  building capacity of the parties through the
  sharing of information and resources. (Freeman,
  p. 22-26)

19
Reasons for collaboration

• Collaborative governance generally arises in
  response to three problems
• jurisdictional entanglements - seek to overcome
  procedural inefficiencies in the decision making
  process (lack of efficient procedure)
• efficiency problems in decision-making - use
  collaboration to achieve better results than the
  status quo (lack of results)
• legitimation crises - use collaboration to
  alleviate democratic deficits through
  participatory democracy (lack of legitimation)

20
Reasons for collaboration

• Commonly cited advantages of collaboration
• - Effective and efficient program delivery
• - professional development / capacity building
• - Improving communication
• - Elimination of duplication
• - Increasing use of programs
• - Increasing access and effectiveness of programs
• - Improving public image
• - Better needs assessment
• - Quality of information
• - Increasing available resources.

21
Principle-Agent Problem

• Literature in management theory about the
  principle-agent problem
• Principle-agent problem is the problem of
  motivating one party to act on behalf of another
• Managers and employees. Bureaucracies as agents
  of governments that are agents of the public.
• Collaborative governance models seek to overcome
  this engaging the stakeholders directly

22
Reasons for collaboration

• Jurisdictional Legal fragmentation and
  multi-jurisdictional problem-solving--The
  intricate labyrinth of federal and state
  regulatory policies for removal and destruction
  of contaminants creates an almost insurmountable
  task for those charged with improving and
  protecting the regions water resources. Under
  such conditions, the appeal of collaboration is
  understandable (Kraft and Johnson 134).
• Efficiency highly adversarial or costly nature
  of many decision-making processes lead to a
  search for more collaborative forms of governance
  or decision making (costs of litigation, appeals,
  high costs of delays).
• Legitimation a search for more direct modes of
  legitimating public decisions through
  participation from indirect modes of legitimation
  through forms of representative democracy to more
  direct and participatory democracy (Thomas 1995
  Daniels and Walker 2001)

23
Themes from the Literature

• A need to be inclusive of all the stakeholders.
• Collaborative governance strategies are best
  suited for situations that require on-going
  cooperation--building ongoing relationships.
• Power and resource imbalances among stakeholders
  need to be mitigated. Each participant must have
  an equal voice.
• Participants need to feel empowered to take
  ownership of the process and render results
  legitimate.
• Bureaucratic turf wars can hinder collaboration.
• Accountability standards can be used as
  mechanisms of control power and resource
  imbalances (measures of success, accountability)

24
Analysis

• A need to be inclusive of all the stakeholders.
• Consistent with the social model of disability
  and the aim of empowering stakeholders in the
  policy and decision making process.
• Consistent with traditional Aboriginal forms of
  governance aimed at consensus building. The
  chance for all those at the table to have a say.

25
Themes from the Literature

• Collaborative processes can succeed even where
  there is antagonism and a lack of trust.
• Where incentives to collaborate exist and power
  distribution is relatively equal there may be
  success.
• An antagonistic history requires more time to
  foster effective collaboration and build trust.
• Choosing winners or losers early in the process
  may be problematic.
• Mandated participation may be needed in
  situations where there is little incentive for
  participation, but it may encourage short term or
  instrumental perspectives.

26
Analysis

• Collaborative processes can succeed even where
  there is antagonism and a lack of trust.
• Collaboration does not necessary mean sharing the
  same views. Where incentives to participate are
  high it can succeed.
• Collaboration does not mean ceding jurisdiction
  or sovereignty (it occurs often between levels of
  government). Maintaining control or jurisdiction
  does not preclude collaborative practices (voice
  vs vote)
• Collaborative governance processes are about
  building relationships. Cultural considerations
  are crucial.

27
Themes from the Literature

• Strong leadership and/or mediation that commands
  the respect of all the stakeholders is important.
  
• A neutral and mutually trusted mediator is often
  the key leadership figure.
• Strong mediation is often key in offsetting power
  and resource imbalances.
• Among adversarial participants with little
  interdependence, strong leadership and/or being
  the only forum for decision making is crucial.
• Work must often be done to make the participants
  respect the decisions of the process where it is
  not the authoritative decision maker.

28
Analysis

• Strong leadership and/or mediation that commands
  the respect of all the stakeholders is important.
• Bureaucratic initiative / inertia is important
  when public agencies are involved.
• Strong leadership and neutral mediation are key
  for the process.

29
Collaborative Processes

• Is the collaborative process addressing
  horizontal or vertical issues (alleviating
  vertical power structures or coordinating diffuse
  and weakly related structures)
• Both may require intersectoral approaches
  (coordination across a rage of sectors) as well
  as addressing power and resource imbalances.
• Both seek to remedy principle-agent problems
• How standards of accountability and measures of
  success are defined is crucial.

30
Urban Aboriginal Strategy

• Horizontal bringing together diverse players
  under one roof avoiding duplication,
  coordinating programs (UAS)
• Inclusion of all stakeholders important
  consensus based decision making
• Bridging jurisdictional boundaries
• Legitimate decision making collaboration while
  retaining jurisdictional sovereignty. Taking
  ownership of policy formation and service
  delivery.
• Parties may be adversarial different interests,
  representational politics
• Funders tables -- examples such as the
  collaborative funding process to address
  homelessness in Alberta

31
Saskatchewan Association for Community Living

• Vertical seeking to flatten historically
  vertical relationships through a collaborative/
  participatory process addressing power resources
  imbalances, top-down service delivery,
  participatory policy making
• Efficiency changing traditional service
  delivery--flexibility
• Legitimation participatory rather than top down,
  alleviating resource and power imbalances
• Social vs medical model of disability IF and IFS
  -- cognitive disabilities action plan

32
Barriers to Collaboration

• A study, conducted by Orland, summarized by
  Ginsler, lists the following barriers (from
  Ginsler 16)
• Structural/Monetary/Legal Barriers
• Confidentiality requirements and reticence to
  share are potential barriers to service
  provision.
• Structural difficulties in transferring funds
  hampered by the funders' categorical program
  requirements.
• Lobour issues, such as salary differences between
  workers from different organizations in a
  collaborative project.

33
Barriers to Collaboration

• Inadequate Knowledge and Commitment to
  Collaboration
• Lack of experience in joint service delivery.
  Most administrators spend their working lives
  promoting the activities of the organization they
  work for, not the activities of others.
• difficulty getting other administrators to attend
  meetings to discuss collaboration.
• Collaboration challenges the authority structure
  of an organization. Employees sometimes see
  collaboration as a threat to their status in
  their organization.
• Collaboration allows others to challenge the
  assumptions of one's profession or occupation.

34
Barriers to Collaboration

• Lack of Sustained External Political Support
• Operating collaborative delivery systems in the
  face of sometimes volatile political support is
  difficult.
• Inadequate Information and Evaluation Data
  Systems
• Funders demand increased accountability and
  evidence that new initiatives provide better
  service at lower cost.
• Limited in ability to demonstrate
  cost-effectiveness for two main reasons
• Inadequate and uncoordinated data collection and
  lack of outcome information
• Inability to document outcomes in the initial
  phases of the collaborative's work due to a
  predominant focus on preventative measures and
  the long term nature of initiatives.

35
Considerations

• Clear articulations of interests / roles by the
  stakeholders, and policy guidelines so members
  clearly understand their roles
• Inclusion of all stakeholders in process
  representation, giving all a voice
• Capacity building of stakeholders
• Accountability and reporting measures (too much
  or too little problematic bureaucratic lack of
  inertia, or offloading responsibility)
• Measures of success (different stakeholders may
  hold different measures). Evaluative criteria
  must be agreed upon
• Distinctions between control, jurisdiction, and
  collaborative participation

36
Questions?

• Researcher
• Robert Dobrohoczki
• Rob.Dobrohoczki_at_usask.ca