Service Coordination by Public Sector Managers in a Human Service Contracting Environment

McBeath, Bowen; Chuang, Emmeline; Carnochan, Sarah; Austin, Michael J.; Stuart, Marla J.

doi:10.1007/s10488-018-0899-1

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study explored how contract arrangements can be a bridging factor. Contracting arrangements as a way for public systems to structure and deliver services through non-governmental organizations is not a new topic [27,31,32,39,40]. What is new is focused attention on the processes (e.g., negotiation, bi-directional influence) that link the outer and inner contexts as systems and organizations implement and sustain an EBP [39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study focuses on one type of bridging factorcontracting arrangements that support the implementation of a specific EBP in multiple service systems. We chose contracting arrangements because they are the most common way for public entities to structure how community-based organizations deliver human services [31,32]. Although this study takes place in the USA, contracting out public health services occurs in a variety of settings.…”

Section: Advancing the Concept Of Bridging Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Through contracts, system administrators specify services, set eligibility requirements, determine billing and outcome reporting processes, delineate the number of type of clients that can be referred to a particular program, and decide the conditions under which organizations will get paid for services [27,31,39]. Contracting out services requires interorganizational collaboration between the public agency and the organizations that deliver services [31,40].…”

Section: Advancing the Concept Of Bridging Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contracting as a bridging factor linking outer and inner contexts during EBP implementation and sustainment: a prospective study across multiple U.S. public sector service systems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bridging factors are relational ties (e.g. partnerships), formal arrangements (e.g. contracts or polices) and processes (e.g. data sharing agreements) linking outer and inner contexts and are a recent evolution of the Exploration-Preparation-Implementation-Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Bridging factor research can elucidate ways that service systems may influence and/or be influenced by organizations providing health services. This study used the EPIS framework and open systems and resource dependence theoretical approaches to examine contracting arrangements in U.S. public sector systems. Contracting arrangements function as bridging factors through which systems communicate, interact, and exchange resources with the organizations operating within them. Methods The sample included 17 community-based organizations in eight service systems. Longitudinal data is derived from 113 contract documents and 88 qualitative interviews and focus groups involving system and organizational stakeholders. Analyses consisted of a document review using content analysis and focused coding of transcripts from the interviews and focus groups. A multiple case study analysis was conducted to identify patterns across service systems and organizations. The dataset represented service systems that had sustained the same EBP for between 2 and 10 years, which allowed for observation of bridging factors and outer-inner context interactions over time. Results Service systems and organizations influenced each other in a number of ways through contracting arrangements. Service systems influenced organizations when contracting arrangements resulted in changes to organizational functioning, required organizational responses to insufficient funding, and altered interorganizational network relationships. Organizations influenced service systems when contract arrangements prompted organization-driven contract negotiation/tailoring, changes to system-level processes, and interorganizational collaboration. Service systems and organizations were dependent on each other as implementation progressed. Resources beyond funding emerged, including adequate numbers of eligible clients, expertise in the evidence-based practice, and training and coaching capacity. Conclusion This study advances implementation science by expanding the range and definition of bridging factors and illustrating specific bi-directional influences between outer context service systems and inner context organizations. This study also identifies bi-directional dependencies over the course of implementation and sustainment. An analysis of influence, dependencies, and resources exchanged through bridging factors has direct implications for selecting and tailoring implementation strategies, especially those that require system-level coordination and change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Advancing the Concept Of Bridging Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Advancing the Concept Of Bridging Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contracting as a bridging factor linking outer and inner contexts during EBP implementation and sustainment: a prospective study across multiple U.S. public sector service systems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the 2008 PEF, a range of developments in the policy landscape have impacted the implementation of EBPs in mental health. First, some policy levers have been subject to further conceptual development (e.g., bidding and contracting [ 18 – 21 ]). Second, federal legislation has produced a set of novel policy levers (e.g., the rise of Accountable Care Organizations [ACOs] [ 22 ], and expansions of value-based purchasing).…”

Section: Aims and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

Wortham,

Rodwin,

Purtle

et al. 2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Over the past three decades, policy actors and actions have been highly influential in supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health settings. An early examination of these actions resulted in the Policy Ecology Framework (PEF), which was originally developed as a tactical primer for state and local mental health regulators in the field of child mental health. However, the policy landscape for implementation has evolved significantly since the original PEF was published. An interrogation of the strategies originally proposed in the PEF is necessary to provide an updated menu of strategies to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of policy action and promote system improvement. Objectives This paper builds upon the original PEF to address changes in the policy landscape for the implementation of mental health EBPs between 2009 and 2022. We review the current state of policy strategies that support the implementation of EBPs in mental health care and outline key areas for policy-oriented implementation research. Our review identifies policy strategies at federal, state, agency, and organizational levels, and highlights developments in the social context in which EBPs are implemented. Furthermore, our review is organized around some key changes that occurred across each PEF domain that span organizational, agency, political, and social contexts along with subdomains within each area. Discussion We present an updated menu of policy strategies to support the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. This updated menu of strategies considers the broad range of conceptual developments and changes in the policy landscape. These developments have occurred across the organizational, agency, political, and social contexts and are important for policymakers to consider in the context of supporting the implementation of EBPs. Summary The updated PEF expands and enhances the specification of policy levers currently available, and identifies policy targets that are underdeveloped (e.g., de-implementation and sustainment) but are becoming visible opportunities for policy to support system improvement. The updated PEF clarifies current policy efforts within the field of implementation science in health to conceptualize and better operationalize the role of policy in the implementation of EBPs.

show abstract

“…The research findings referred to in this analysis feature the survey and interview responses of managers in both nonprofit and public sector human service organizations as part of a 5-year research project that was published elsewhere (McBeath, Carnochan, Stuart & Austin, 2017; McBeath, Chuang, Carnochan, Austin & Stuart, 2019; Carnochan, McBeath, Chuang & Austin, 2019; Chuang, McBeath, Carnochan & Austin, 2020). It is based upon a three-county comparative case study that was followed by a five-county study of management practitioners in nonprofit and public sector human service organizations using mixed methods to capture both quantitative and qualitative data on the experience of contracting.…”

Section: An Example Of Theorizing From Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Practice Research With the Process of Theorizing

Austin

McBeath

2022

Research on Social Work Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this analysis, we contend that theorizing strengthens the connections between practice and research by requiring researchers to check their working assumptions, premises, conclusions, and implications for research, theory, and practice. Our exploration of the process of theorizing in practice research is rooted in the concept of “sensemaking” ( Weick, 1995 ) whereby practice researchers engage in disciplined imagination by reflecting on diverse forms of evidence, being attentive to specific practices and problems, and moving between intuition and reasoned explanation. The analysis includes the following components: 1) tools for theorizing from research findings (abductive analysis and problematization), 2) processes for theorizing about practice research findings (focusing on practice, researcher repertoire, and theory development processes), 3) an example of theorizing from key findings, and 4) the construction of interventive theory. It concludes with implications for social work practice research.

show abstract

Service Coordination by Public Sector Managers in a Human Service Contracting Environment

Cited by 9 publications

References 39 publications

Contracting as a bridging factor linking outer and inner contexts during EBP implementation and sustainment: a prospective study across multiple U.S. public sector service systems

Contracting as a bridging factor linking outer and inner contexts during EBP implementation and sustainment: a prospective study across multiple U.S. public sector service systems

Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

Connecting Practice Research With the Process of Theorizing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About