Collaborative Governance Models Research Project

Collaborative Governance Models Research Project Collaborative Governance Project - CUISR Internship Social Economy Workshop May 2, 2008, 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 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

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.

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 literature’s significance vis-à-vis the partner organizations

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

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

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) • Booher’s analysis of collaborative governance case studies shows some common characteristics such as: policy consensus, community visioning, consensus rule-making, and collaborative network structures.”

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).

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).

“Collaborative Governance” and Collaboration • Collaborative governance is virtually indistinguishable from collaboration theory in the literature • Takahashi and Smutny’s 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.

History in the Policy Realm • Inter and Intra-governmental collaboration, some examples: • cooperative federalism in the 1930’s 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 1990’s, 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.

Collaboration in Public Management Theory • Collaborative management is seen as a new paradigm from New Public Management (NPM) theory that was predominant since the 1980’s 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 (Stein’s 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”

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Freeman’s 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)

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)

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.

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

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 region’s 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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 • Funder’s tables -- examples such as the collaborative funding process to address homelessness in Alberta

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

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 funder’s' categorical program requirements. • Lobour issues, such as salary differences between workers from different organizations in a collaborative project.

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.

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.

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

Questions? • Researcher: Robert Dobrohoczki Rob.Dobrohoczki@usask.ca

Collaborative Governance Models Research Project