Connecting the composition of collaborative governance structure to community‐level performance in homeless services

Abstract

Collaborative governance has become prevalent in public service provision as both government and nonprofit sectors face pressure to solve multidimensional social problems in communities while improving performance. Drawing on collaborative governance and homeless services literature, this article explores how providing services in a collaborative governance network through government and nonprofit service providers differentially relates to multiple dimensions of performanceeffectiveness, internal efficiency, social efficiency, and service heterogeneity-at the community level. By using a two-way fixed effects estimator and a unique nonprofit and homeless services dataset, the findings indicate that collaborative governance between government and nonprofit service providers relates to increased effectiveness (e.g., less homelessness), and mixed results for service heterogeneity relative to using one sector. The composition of collaborative governance networks matters for performance, but its precise relationship with community-level performance depends on the specific aspect of performance. Evidence for practice• The composition of collaborative governance networks matters for performance, but its precise relationship with community-level performance depends on the specific aspect of performance. • Joint government-nonprofit service delivery relates to increased effectivenessless homelessness. • Providing homeless services through both government and nonprofit sectors relates to increased beds for victims of domestic violence.

Am I My Brothers’ Keeper? A Critical Review of Mandated Collaboration Research

“…Given the known benefits, collaboration and its governing mechanisms have often been regarded as the "right thing" to do in contemporary public administration (Ansell et al, 2021). Public administrators across various contexts have fostered collaboration among diverse stakeholders to tackle wicked problems and leverage crosssector strengths (Kim & Sullivan, 2023). However, as research on the effectiveness of collaborative governance has grown, so has the research on its intricacies and contexts which determine its success, with mandated collaboration being a growing area of research (Appendix A).…”

“…For instance, requiring a joint strategic plan and federal funding application necessitates service providers to identify how they work together to create a system of services, increasing external legitimacy to gain resources, advocate for favorable policies and funding, and define shared priorities (Jarpe et al, 2019). Despite existing barriers to effective collaboration, such as a lack of capacity, lack of innovation, and inequities across service populations, mandated collaboration arguably has been more effective than disconnected services (Hafer, 2018;Kim & Sullivan, 2023;Mosley, 2021). Collectively regarding our research question, mandated collaboration stands as sides of the same coin.…”

Scholarly hypocrisy or apostasy in public administration: Preaching to the choir, or to an empty room?

“…We begin with three essays focused on performance. These include Kim and Sullivan (2023)'s look at the role of collaborative structure in explaining the performance of homeless services, Li (2023) study of how bureaucracies respond to the performance information, in this case with environmental inspections, and Hansen's (2023) study to determine the political attention generated by performance information.…”

The impact of institutional guarantee on citizens' participation in grassroots social governance: promotion or inhibition?

“…Although the system of grass-roots people's autonomy we emphasize has played a role in rural autonomy and community autonomy, the deliberative governance of grass-roots people is subject to the inertia of passive participation of grass-roots people in urban and rural communities, so it is urgent to improve the institutional rules of citizens' participation in grass-roots social governance based on the institutional framework (Hong and Li, 2023). It is balanced and compatible with the relationship between "unitary party and government leadership system" and "joint participation of multiple subjects" to activate the enthusiasm of multiple subjects to participate in grassroots social governance (Kim and Sullivan, 2023).…”