An adaptive governance approach to disaster‐related behavioural health services

Abstract

This paper explores the provision of disaster-related behavioural and mental health (DBH) services as a problem of institutional collective action in the United States. This study reviews the challenges that providers have in surmounting multi-organizational disconnects, unstable professional legitimacy, ambiguous information, and shifting disaster needs in developing a system for delivering DBH services. Based on the adaptive governance framework, it argues that existing protocols such as the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) may be helpful in advancing collective action, but that real progress will depend on a recognition of norms, expectations, and credentials across many spheres-in other words, on the ability of responders to continuously adjust their procedures and administrative boundaries for behavioural health institutions.

The Institutional Collective Action Framework

“…Coordination, division, and defection issues create risk for participation in any of the mechanisms classified in Figure that seek to address the fragmentation of jurisdiction or function that underlies ICA dilemmas (Andrew & Kendra, ; Feiock, , ; Maser, ). The nature of the specific problem is important in shaping the level of risk that particular ICA issue imposes on the actors.…”

A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions

“…AG is increasingly recognized as a way to address this need (Dietz et al 2003, Folke et al 2005, and the concept is being applied in a variety of arenas. For example, theoretical and empirical exploration of AG is ongoing in disciplines of international trade (Cooney and Lang 2007), health research (Andrew and Kendra 2012), political science (Heilmann and Perry 2011), disaster research (Djalante et al 2011, Djalante 2012, and appropriately, in law (Ebbesson and Hey 2013, Garmestani and Allen 2014. The purpose of this paper, however, is to organize and clarify conceptualizations of AG posed in the literature on environmental governance, resilience, and the management of SESs.…”

Ebola crisis response in the USA: Communication management and SOPs

“…About 66.7% of those we interviewed face-to-face agreed that the SOP provided them with a template or general guidance to coordinate activities, which in turn, created a sense of trust they hoped to receive from their peers. 1 The psychological benefits of SOPs on the ability of their organizations to respond to the crisis may also be regarded as a noteworthy accomplishment of crisis planning practices. Statements favoring SOPs included, "the [SOPS] were a basis for us to develop our response plan from" and "we followed standard practices for infection control.…”

“…From an adaptive governance perspective, activities of emergency response are regarded as by-products of collective action where, given the limited cognitive ability of individuals and organizations to interpret the event immediately for appropriate actions, actors are assumed to be intentionally rational but bounded by institutional constraints [1]. The response system (formal or informal) shapes individuals and organizations strategic actions to the extent that they adapt to the unintended consequences of actions that are performed by other agencies.…”