University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

(USC Thesis Other)

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL MULTI-SECTORAL COLLABORATIVE FROM A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE – DIMENSIONS SHARED BY AWARD WINNING MULTI-SECTORAL PARTNERSHIPS By Peter Pirnejad A Professional Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT May 2017 Copyright 2017 Peter Pirnejad ii Dedication First and foremost, I dedicate this dissertation to my wife and children, who have watched and supported me from the sidelines, as I wrestled with this endeavor for the past five years. I started this undertaking when my kids were both in elementary school, and I only had two. By this dissertation’s end, two were thriving in middle school, and my newest son has added to the joy of fatherhood. My boys enrich my life to no end. I hope they see the value in hard work and higher education. In the years to come, as they flourish into young men and hopefully fathers, I am hopeful they will pass the value of higher education onto their own children, as well. Most importantly, to the love of my life, my wife, who realized that the end of one journey only means the beginning of another journey. She watched me fight my way through Ironman competitions, battle through cancer, and persevered my doctoral studies; she is my biggest cheerleader, most enduring fan, and my best friend. Secondly, I dedicate this dissertation to my committee members that were brave enough to agree to sit through the defense of my proposal, and my final manuscript. They offered counsel and support, as I worked through and defended my work. Selecting each of the four committee members – Frank Zerunyan, Peter Robertson, Robert Denhardt, and James Keene – was a long and very deliberate process. Agreeing to be my mentors and guides through this process has added great value to my life, and I hope the profession. I can only iii hope to pass this on to other students, so their contribution continues to pay dividends. Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to the profession of public administration, for which I have spent two decades and counting serving in, and committed to improve. The profession has offered a livelihood for my family and me, as well as, a venue to grow, share, and contribute to. I hope this dissertation brings the same value and meaning I have been taking from the profession my entire working life. With great humility, Peter iv Acknowledgments I want to acknowledge and share my sincere appreciation to Mr. Frank Zerunyan, J.D., my committee chair and mentor; his perspective, professional leadership, and generosity throughout this process has been immeasurable. I want to also acknowledge his office neighbor – Dr. Debbie Natoli – for her resilient commitment, patient counsel, and dedicated service, while I studied at the University of Southern California (“USC”) Sol Price School of Public Policy. Dr. Natoli’s love for her Doctorate of Planning Policy and Development students, and the University, made a positive change in my life. Finally, I would be remised if I did not acknowledge my three other advisors – Dr. Peter Robertson, Dr. Robert Denhardt, and Mr. James Keene, for their academic and professional perspective in the world of public administration and collaborative governance; my work would not be possible without their guidance. I also want to acknowledge survey respondents, who took valuable time out of their day to further this study; this research would not be possible without their contribution. I will share the results of this survey in both professional and academic circles, in the interest of advancing the profession, and celebrating the success respondents had in their collaborations. From a professional capacity, I want to thank Mr. James Keene for his confidence, by appointing me to the position of Development Services Director for the City of Palo Alto in 2012. In this role, I learned to appreciate and practice v the principles of collaborative governance. In that same light, I want to acknowledge Dr. Robertson for introducing me to “The Theory of Collaborative Governance” in the spring of 2012, as part of Urban and Regional Planning (PLUS) 603. It was in this class, I decided on my dissertation topic, which shaped the next four years at USC. Finally, I want to acknowledge the entire faculty at the Sol Price School of Public Policy – both in Los Angeles and Sacramento, for their commitment and servant leadership to the profession of public administration. USC alumni have a conspicuous presence in local government; this group has served me well throughout my career, and I will always make time to serve my alumni network when they call on me for help. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….… ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………. iv List of Tables………………………………………………………………………….. ix Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..x Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………….… 1 1.1 Purpose…………………………………………………………………...…1 1.2 Rise of Wicked Problems…………………………………………………. 2 1.3 The Slow but Steady Financial Decline of Cities………………………..4 1.4 A Broken Service Delivery Model – Enter Collaborative Governance…………………………………….…8 1.5 Research Approach and Questions……………………………………..11 Chapter 2: Definitions, History and Academic Framing…………………….…13 2.1 Collaborative Governance Defined…………………………………...…13 2.2 Eras of Public Administration………………………………………...…. 15 2.2.A Wilson Era – Elitist…………………………………………….. 17 2.2.B Efficiency Era – The Scientific Method to Public Administration………………………………………. 19 2.2.C New Public Administration…………………………………… 22 2.2.D New Public Management ……………………………………. 24 2.2.E Era of E-Government, Government 2.0 and Open Data….. 28 2.3 Conclusion – From Bureaucracy to Transparency …………………...34 2.4 Opportunities to Advance Collaborative Governance ……………….35 vii 2.5 Theoretical Underpinnings of Collaborative Governance ……………37 2.6 Logic Models ……………………………………………………………38 Chapter 3: Other Sectors and New Tools to Promote Collaborative Governance…………………………………………………………..41 3.1 Private Sector - From Irresponsibility to Corporate Social Responsibility …………………………………………………………..41 3.2 The Third Sector – From Handouts to Heroes ………………………..47 3.3 An Engaged and Enabled Citizenry – A Predisposed Sector for Collaboration …………………………….54 3.4 Big, Crowdsourced, and Open Data/Government Offer Opportunities for Collaboration ………………………………..57 3.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..60 Chapter 4: Methods ………………………………………………………………….61 4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….61 4.2 A Framework for Collaborative Governance………………………….. 64 4.2.A Partnership Mix ………………………………………………..66 4.2.B Problem-Solving Loading Order ……………………………..68 4.2.C Collective Impact Model ………………………………………70 4.2.D Roles ……………………………………………………………75 4.3 Data ……………………………………………………………………….78 4.4 Methods of Analysis ……………………………………………………..81 4.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..82 viii Chapter 5: Analysis …………………………………….…………………………85 5.1 Introduction…………….…………………………………………………..85 5.2 Results – General Trends ……………………………………………….86 5.3 Frequency Analysis ………………………………………………………94 5.3.A Frequency Analysis – Sector Involvement …………………95 5.3.B Frequency Analysis – Loading Order ………………………99 5.3.C Frequency Analysis – Collective Impact Model ………....102 5.3.D Frequency Analysis – Roles ……………………………….106 5.3.E Frequency Analysis – Collaboration Categories …………107 5.4 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………111 Chapter 6: Contributions to Professional Practice ………………………….115 6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………115 6.2 Importance of Roles ……………………………………………………116 6.3 Importance of Problem-Solving Loading Order ……………………..119 6.4 Public Sector Role in Collaborations …………………………………121 6.5 Importance of Citizen Engagement …………………………………..123 6.6 Importance of Subscribing to the Principles of the Collective Impact Model …………………………125 6.7 Importance and Purpose of the Private Sector ……………………..127 6.8 Opportunities for Further Research …………………………………128 6.9 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………129 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………..132 Exhibit A – Results of Survey Standardized into Excel ……………………136 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Collaborative Governance Framework..…………………………......... 65 Table 5.1: Extent of Sector Involvement in Collaboration………………….….….. 96 Table 5.2: Strength and Duration of the Sector Involvement..…………………… 98 Table 5.3: Extent of Sector Involvement in Four Steps of Problem-Solving Loading Order…..………………...…100 Table 5.4: Extent to Which Each of the Five Conditions of the Collective Impact Model was Present in the Collaboration..……...…104 Table 5.5: Sectors involved in Five Conditions of the Collective Impact Model………………………………………… 105 Table 5.6: Extent of the Four Roles in the Collaboration………..………………. 106 Table 5.7: Sector Involvement Among Collaboration Categories..…………….. 108 x ABSTRACT This dissertation is an exploration of collaborative governance in municipal public administration, and the elements that successful collaborations have in common. For this dissertation, the term “successful” means objectives sought after were achieved. As a foundational underpinning of this dissertation, I define collaborative governance as, “a form of multi-sectoral problem solving that brings together multiple stakeholders from different sectors to do what one sector cannot do on its own” (Pirnejad, 2016). This type of governance is a careful and deliberate process of collaborative problem solving and implementation, attempting to co-create meaningful and sustainable solutions too complex, and considered “wicked” 1 civic problems (Rittel, 1973). Wicked problems, in short, are complex problems that go beyond the capacity of any one organization to define or solve; they lend themselves to a process of collaboration among varied stakeholders in multiple sectors. Further, this dissertation provides a historical perspective of how all four sectors – public, private, nonprofit and citizen – have become more receptive to multi- sectoral collaborations to achieve their goals. I describe how these four sectors align over time, being pre-disposed to this type of partnerships. I utilize current examples and profile extensively about developing advances in technology that are facilitating a growing interest in collaborative governance. 1 Further defined in Chapter 1: Rise of Wicked Problems. xi This research stems from four formative research papers in the area of collaborative governance. These include the seminal work of Crosby and Bryson (2005), Thomson and Perry (2006), Ansell and Gash (2007) and Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2011). Those theoretical models, integrated with the benefit of my professional experience, are the impetus behind my collaborative governance framework. The defense of this framework uses academic sources and professional experience. Said compilation of elements and models, I contend, contribute to successful multi-sector collaborations. Using a survey I designed around the four dimensions of my collaborative governance framework, I look for patterns and frequency in the responses. The survey was administered to award-winning, multi-sector collaborations throughout the nation (as defined in the Methods Chapter). The results converted into a 0-4-point standard format, reviewed for general trends, and organized into tables highlighting the frequency of like responses. Finally, this study offers contributions to the practice of public administration by leveraging my professional experience against my academic explorations and survey findings. The primary deliverables of my work are survey analysis and professional contributions to the practice of public administration. By highlighting areas of my collaborative governance framework, I hope other successful public sector collaborations can learn from these patterns, and apply them to future multi-sectoral partnerships. My hope is this analysis will not only xii stress the importance of collaborative governance, but also, offer practical suggestions for pursuing this partnership form going forward. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Purpose This dissertation serves to describe the need and purpose of collaborative governance, by providing readers a history and background of multi-stakeholder partnerships. I explore the background of four sectors involved in these collaborations – public, private, nonprofit and citizen, and explain how they are aligned and pre-disposed to these types of partnerships. Further, I discuss well- cited academic research in the area of collaborative governance. The theoretical underpinnings of collaborative governance and my professional experience are used in the formation of my collaborative governance framework. This framework is validated using academic sources, as well as, participatory observation 2 through my professional experience. The compilation of elements and models, I contend, contribute to successful multi-sector collaborations. Using a customized survey, I explore the components of said framework by surveying award-winning, multi-sector collaborations throughout the nation. 3 The survey results are used to identify general trends across the data and frequency 2 “Participant observation” is a form of data collection used in qualitative research involving firsthand experience or observation of a behavior or activity. 3 The survey explored 39 award-winning collaborations, all of which received the League of California Cities’ ‘Helen Putnam Award,’ or the National League of Cities ‘Municipal Excellence Award’ in a category aimed at successful cross-sectoral collaborations. These awards are further discussed in Chapter 4: Methods. 2 of like responses. Finally, my findings offer contributions to public administration from survey findings and professional experience by highlighting areas that “successful” 4 collaborations have in common. I conclude there are opportunities to learn from these patterns, and offer ways they might be applied to future multi- sectoral collaborations. My hope is this analysis will not only stress the importance of collaborative governance, but also offer a framework for pursuing this partnership form going forward. 1.2 Rise of “Wicked ” Problems Many challenges facing local governments involve dealing with very complex problems. These problems often go beyond the capacity of any one department or organization to define or solve. These complex problems are often labeled “wicked,” lending themselves to a process of collaboration among varied stakeholders in multiple sectors, including public, private, nonprofit, and citizen (Rittel, 1973). Examples of this type of ‘wicked’ problem include things like climate change, groundwater pollution, and teenage suicide, to name a few. The term ’wicked’ was coined by H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, two urban planners at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1970’s (Rittel, 1973, pg. 155). In their publication, Rittel and Webber concluded there is an entire realm of 4 “Successful” collaborations refer to the award-winning collaborative projects. The awards are considered by third-party confirmation the collaborations were effective. Therefore, projects that were awarded are considered “successful” are used in the survey. 3 complex social challenges that cannot be solved in the “traditional sense. 5 To the contrary; “tame” problems are not necessarily simple. Rather, they can be incredibly technical (Rittel, 1973, pg. 160). ‘Tame’ problems are readily solved by employing defined and traditional tools familiar to the public agency tasked with addressing such problems. Wicked problems require multiple departments, sectors, and stakeholders, engaged in a process fostering collaboration and shared governance. This process brings the partnership together to define the problem, agree on the goals, design a solution, measure results, and promotes feedback. The ultimate objective is creating a more-comprehensive and sustainable 6 outcome, not achieved by a single agency. In recent years, there has been a growing number of problems exhibiting elements of wickedness, requiring innovative approaches to problem solving (Camillus, 2016). In a recent survey, GovDelivery – a communication and engagement tool for public agencies – surveyed 400 individuals in city, state, and federal agencies to identify the most significant trends for 2013; the most prominent was “collaboration” (GovDelivery, 2013). The survey examined collaboration with other public agencies and citizens. Most survey respondents 5 “Traditional sense” means those using the skills and abilities typically used by one particular sector. For example, the public sector is more skilled at providing a fair and inclusive process, whereas the private sector is more focused on targeting a market segment, maximize profits for a particular product. 6 “Sustainable,” in this context, is used to mean lasting and viable. Later in this dissertation, I refer to sustainable in the context of the “Triple-Bottom Line.” 4 felt collaboration was a critical element of their job, and their agency was already addressing this. Helping deliver a framework that provides public administrators the tools and approach to address these wicked problems was a primary motivation for this dissertation. In the methods chapter, I describe how I identify and survey award- winning collaborations committed to addressing wicked problems. The projects all require multi-sector collaborations in working toward a common solution. The challenges these projects face extended beyond any one sector’s technical ability and control. It takes multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement efforts to chart a path toward a common goal. 1.3 The Slow, but Steady, Financial Decline of Cities Local government is experiencing a tension between services expected to be provided, and the resources to provide them. The demand on local government to address complex, multi-sectoral problems is outpacing the resources and expertise local government has (Vigoda, 2002). As such problems become more complicated, involve more actors, and resources spread thinner, cities face a dilemma, forcing them to pivot their approach to problem solving. This section explores local government resources, explaining further how and why cities are struggling to meet the expectations placed on them. 5 Cities have slowly and regularly seen a decline in revenue streams, as well as, a steady increase in the cost of retaining talent. Between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, the nation experienced the deepest and longest economic crises since the Great Depression of the 1930’s (Ciment, 2013). Job losses nationwide spiked to over ten percent, and the economy shrunk by eight percent (Ciment, 2013). Concurrently, spending cuts, such as those experienced in 2012 due to the federal budget’s “fiscal cliff,” 7 resulted in further significant financial constraints on local governments. Poverty in the nation and Southern California rose in the last two decades (Southern California Association of Governments, 2014). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost fifty million Americans are “poor,” 8 and without Social Security, more than half of all seniors would be living in poverty (Short, 2014). A look at the year- over-year percentage change in state and local government tax receipts demonstrates a significant decrease, due to significant declines in sales, personal income, and corporate income taxes (Czerwinski, 2010). Total compensation costs for local government account for approximately 55% 9 of local government spending (McNichol, 2012). Therefore, as compensation 7 The term refers to the $500 billion plus in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after January 1, 2012 (Calmes, 2012). 8 “Poor,” as defined by the Supplemental Poverty Measure released by the U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Short, 2014). 9 “Total compensation figures were estimated by applying a multiplier for state and local workers based on the BLS Employer Cost survey to the wage data from the Census Government Finances data. All data are for 2008.” Footnote provided by McNichol, 2012, pg. 3. 6 costs increase, it becomes increasingly more difficult for local governments to balance their budgets. Rising employee pensions and healthcare costs, and in some parts of the country – especially the San Francisco Bay Area, increasing costs of housing make it further difficult for local municipalities to offer competitive salaries. In 2012 and 2013, three of California’s then 478 municipalities filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection from creditors – San Bernardino, Stockton and Mammoth Lakes. On July 18, 2013, Detroit, with a population of 706,585 at the time, became the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy, with an estimated debt between $18-20 billion (Davey & Walsh, 2013). Throughout the United States, especially since 2008, there have been 51 municipal Chapter 9 bankruptcies, and 13 General-Purpose Local Government Bankruptcy Filings (Maciag, 2013). New Government Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) rules enacted June of 2012, and effective June 15, 2014, mandate the publicity of poor financial conditions, bringing to the forefront unfunded pension liabilities having gone unreported on most municipal financial statements (Tysiac, 2012). Local governments cannot ignore future financial obligations associated with unfounded pension liabilities; GASB rules now require pension debt be added to financial disclosures, undoubtedly affecting local government’s credit ratings, and changing the dynamics of municipal finance (Tysiac, 2012). As a result of the Great Recession’s significant income losses and increased labor costs, revenues have not been able to keep pace with rising expenditures. 7 To bridge this gap, local agencies have had to re-balance their budgets, establishing a new base budget; in other words, quickly reduce expenses. Initial municipal reaction to accommodate reduced expenses has been to issue furloughs and reduce total staff counts, resulting in some of the lowest per-capita employment trends in local government in US history (Dadayan & Boyd, 2013). Ultimately, this reduction in staffing levels and increasing furloughs resulted in a new “baseline,” or what some public administrators referred to as, “a new normal for local government” (Martin, Levey, & Cawley, 2012). This new normal has forced local agencies to make more permanent and lasting changes to the number of services they provide, as well as, the way they provide current services (Martin, Levey, & Cawley, 2012). The need to reduce the total workforce within local government came at a time where the average age of public servants was close to retirement (Miriam King, 2010), also offering an opportunity to further reduce personnel costs through attrition. Local agencies also reduced their payroll obligations, as employees retired early, or left to seek other and more lucrative employment opportunities. This downsizing through attrition and departures compromised the organization’s institutional resources, as employees with the longest tenure were the ones leaving en masse (Leung, 2009). The public-sector employment departure, in turn, often leaves some departments too lean to offer necessary services, while other departments’ staffing levels remain untouched. The resulting perfect storm of staffing levels has contributed to agencies seeking creative ways within, and outside their organizations, partnering with other sectors, departments, divisions, 8 and work units to find solutions. New partnerships have caused a growing need for agencies to seek creative collaborations to meet their service demands, avoiding additional financial and programmatic obligations (Bryson, 2006). In addition to a shrinking workforce, local agencies have experienced a growing complexity of municipal ordinances and state-issued mandates. For example, Title 24 – California’s building codes, which govern how cities enforce building construction – has a three-year cycle, with new requirements consistently added and changed from previous versions (California Building Standards Commission, 2016). Cities must adhere to these changes without over-complicating the development review process; thereby, inadvertently stifling economic development or encouraging illegal construction. The aforementioned situation exemplifies the notion of doing more with the same, if not less. 1.4 A Broken Service Delivery Model - Enter Collaborative Governance The service delivery model for local government is based on a set of roles, assumed by both the city and citizens they serve, and has historically lead to an unsustainable relationship 10 . Traditionally, elected officials and city staff – implemented through an appointed city manager or administrator – identify problems, design and implement solutions, and become open to community 10 “Unsustainable relationship” refers to the traditional government service model, in which the public agency provides a service and the citizen receives it. Given the public sector does not have the freedom to easily raise revenues, and expectations of public agencies, as we discussed, continue to rise, the service model is challenged. 9 feedback. This relationship is based on the premise the government agency is the service provider, and the citizen is the client. In this case, the citizen/taxpayer is expecting a service in exchange for their payment – whether through established taxation, or additional service payments. This government service model works when the problems are within the public sector’s skillset. However, as civic problems continuously become more complex, public agencies lack the resources and expertise to deal with these wicked problems. In these cases, the model fails, and a new, multi-sectoral approach is needed. Eran Vigoda – Director of the Center for Public Management and Policy at University of Haifa – describes the highly representative form of government, where the citizen is a customer as a, “growth in citizens' passivism” (Vigoda, 2002, p. 527). He explains that citizens, “favor the easy chair of the customer over the sweat and turmoil of participatory involvement” (Vigoda, 2002, p. 527). Vigoda wrote this nearly 15 years ago, indicating there was progress being made toward a more enhanced collaborative governance through which public agencies, citizens, nonprofits, and other players, such as academia and media; therefore working together to share the responsibility of governance (Vigoda, 2002). Throughout this dissertation, my findings affirm Vigoda’s conclusions. When it comes to solving wicked problems, parties must adopt a “partnership mentality.” This mentality approach to problem solving allows for a more comprehensive platform of the problem, leading to more widely accepted solutions. Such a platform would need to be one that allows these types of 10 collaborations to quickly come together, target a problem, design a solution, implement the program, measure results and promote feedback – all toward a shared solution. Tim O’Reilly – founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media – introduced the notion of “Government 2.0”: the idea that government should be a platform to foster new ways to share information, enter into collaborative arrangements, crowdsource problems, and share the responsibilities of improving the things we share as a society (2010). The alternative to the aforementioned collaboration is government continuing to solve these problems alone. Given the mounting number of wicked problems, and the limited capacity of local governments to act upon them, maintaining the status-quo is a losing operation. Trust in government, mostly at the federal level, began a steady decline in the 1960’s (Nye Jr., Zelikow, & King, 1998). Collaborative governance as an approach to problem solving can address this issue. A fundamental principle of collaborative governance, as will be expanded upon later, is to build and maintain trust and reciprocity through continuous communication. Many cities have decided to take this new approach to problem solving with some of their most vexing problems, as a way to engage multiple stakeholders, build a common narrative around shared goals, and guide their work toward sustainable results. This approach shifts the focus from local government as the one holding all the answers. Instead, the city establishes the framework and 11 engages itself as an equal stakeholder, along with three other sectors: private, nonprofit and citizen. Collaborative governance is essentially actors from multiple sectors – public, private, nonprofit and citizen – coming together to work on a common problem that any one of the sectors could not solve alone. Depending on the academic definition, collaborative governance can offer a framework, or a defined process, directing multi-sector teams toward shared results. I offer that collaborative governance is a way for varied stakeholders to work toward solving complex civic problems. 1.5 Research Approach and Questions This dissertation attempts to further the understanding of collaborative governance by building a model based on research, professional experience / participatory observation, surveys and frequency tables. The outcome is a set of recommendations highlighting the qualities of collaborative governance that lead to successful outcomes. I explain why collaborative governance is important, how it is of rising importance in the field of public administration, as well as, among the other three sectors. Based on literature reviews and my professional experience, I create a “Collaborative Governance Framework” defining key aspects of the design. Through the use of a survey tool, I compare award- winning examples of public sector collaboration to find similarities between respondents. This is accomplished by looking at general data trends, and 12 frequency of answers for each question, and the results are organized into color- coded frequency tables, highlighting the data patterns. Based on the resulting patterns, I analyze the results, overlaying professional experience to make recommendations on how to advance the practice of collaborative governance through my framework. Based on this research approach, the following questions relate to the logical progression of my collaborative governance framework, building the case for collaborative governance, and ending with findings of the model I can extrapolate: 1) Is there a role for collaborative governance in addressing the wicked problems experienced by local government? 2) Is there a framework for collaborative governance that bridges academic principles and professional practice, offering local government’s directives to promote successful multi-sector collaborations in the face of wicked problems? 3) Do successful collaborative governance projects share any traits that would support said framework for collaborative governance? 4) What communalities can be identified by comparing successful multi-sector collaborations? 5) What contributions to professional practice can be offered as a result of comparing successful multi-sectoral collaborations against a common framework? 13 Chapter 2: Definitions, History and Academic Framing 2.1 Collaborative Governance Defined Collaborative governance is a form of multi-sectoral problem solving, bringing together stakeholders to do what one sector could not do on its own. 11 Working together, these cross-sectoral collaborations target wicked problems, and through a deliberate process of cooperative problem solving and implementation, attempt to co-create meaningful and sustainable solutions. There is not one definition for collaborative governance; rather, it depends on the goals and parameters of the research. As it relates to this dissertation, I take liberty to define collaborative governance as, “a framework or guiding principle that should be followed in order to work toward success in a multi-sector partnership” (Pirnejad, 2016). To understand collaborative governance, it is important to examine this meaning in simplest parts. “Collaboration” is the process of multiple stakeholders engaging in a process of co-creation, that could not be done by any one entity (Thomson & Perry, 2006). These stakeholders, for the purpose of this dissertation, are categorized by sectors to represent the groups most regularly participating in shared stakeholder engagement with the public sector. These stakeholders include representatives from the public, private, nonprofit and 11 This dissertation’s denotation of “collaborative governance” is a synthesis from Pirnejad (2016) and Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006). 14 citizen sectors. In this dissertation I define the public sector as any level of government representing the public’s interest. This dissertation examines collaborative governance from the perspective of local government. 12 The private sector represents non-public groups, individuals, or entities engaged in profitable ventures. Private companies could have a variety of motivations and/or involvement, not all of which are profit. However, to remain financially viable, they must ultimately be engaged in for-profit ventures. The nonprofit sector, also referred to as the “third sector,” is considered to include not-for-profit organizations that are mission-driven. As I will discuss, the line between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors has become blurred, but the distinguishing feature for these sector is they are primarily mission-driven, as opposed to being financially-driven. Finally, for the purpose of this dissertation, I define the “citizen sector” as, “an unrepresented 13 group of individuals, interested in the challenges facing local government” (Pirnejad, 2016). Unlike other sectors more formally organized and structured, the citizen sector is informal, and represents a broader category of people, loosely organized into a catch-all 12 Although the terms “public sector” and “government” can refer to all levels of government – from single purpose districts, up to state and federal bodies, this dissertation specifically focuses on local government; referring to, local municipal general law, charter cities, or towns that govern a specified geographic area. Such local governments have the ability to enact laws, levy taxes, and otherwise, administer their city or town, in any way, provided it does not conflict with the state, regional or federal laws the local government is subject to. 13 “Unrepresented citizen,” in the context of this dissertation, is meant to refer to individuals that are not necessary bound or represented by any particular public sector, nonprofit group or for- profit company. Citizens refer to anyone, regardless of where they live, as to what groups they are affiliated with, or what city, state or county represents them. 15 designation. Although engaged in local government and civic matters, the citizen sector, in general, represents the public at-large. Governance (n.), to be distinguished from government (n.), is the act or manner of governing; government is the institution, and governance is the way in which such institutions makes decisions and manages. Governance also implies a collective, stakeholder-engaged process of shared democracy. Unlike the term ‘government,’ which often implies rigid bureaucracy and distinct structures leading toward a defined goal, governance is intended to be flexible and a relationship-based process of working toward a shared definition of success. Whereas bureaucracy is focused on efficiency 14 , efficacy and quality control, governance is focused on transparency, collaboration and consensus (Kanigel, 1997). In this dissertation, I focus on governance, and propose a framework that offers principles and guidelines to organize a multi-sectoral collaborative, advancing a shared goal. 2.2 Eras of Public Administration Although growing in popularity, collaborative governance is complicated, fragile and slow, frustrating public officials struggling with its practice. An AmeriCorps Michigan program director stated, “Collaboration is like cottage cheese, it occasionally smells bad and separates easily" (Thomson & Perry, 1998, p. 20). 14 As defined by Kanigel (1997) and discussed later in this dissertation under the section titled “Efficiency Era – The Scientific Method to Public Administration.” 16 More recently, collaborative governance has shown growth in popularity over the last twenty years (Vigoda, 2002). In this chapter, I examine further its progression – the end of the 19 th century to of late. I provide a narrative showing how public administration has evolved from a rigid, tightly controlled system of administrative silos, that attempted to promote efficiency, efficacy and precision, to a loosely tied collaboration of civic-centered stakeholders, working together to define civic dilemmas, then attempting to implement a sustainable solution. Additionally, I outline foundational literature in the area of collaborative governance that has contributed to current knowledge. Historical review of collaborative governance in public administration begins with understanding the traditional form of ‘top-down’ government, and evolves into a more technology-based governance process, requiring multi-stakeholder collaboration and network-based decision making. This progression can be described in three phases: introspective (Wilsonian and Efficiency Eras), extrospective (New Public Administration and Management Eras), and redefining (E-government Era). In each phase, government administration takes a clear shift in focus and purpose. The introspective phase looks at public policy as a science, focusing on these tools with an emphasis on a politician’s role in government. The ‘extrospective phase’ is seen as a shift to an outward view of government, where the needs of the people being served are taken into consideration. Finally, the ‘redefining phase’ looks to change the role of government from a “service” to a 17 “platform.” These three phases are explored and explained in greater detail in the following sections of this chapter. This is not to say the evolution of collaborative governance is complete; rather, its purpose continues to change. In fact, it can be argued there still needs to be a transformative change in the inward-facing system of public administration, preventing collaborative governance from becoming viral and/or systemic. This dissertation is not attempting to argue that public administration has evolved with a single purpose, but rather, that collaborative governance is one of the outcomes of its evolution. 2.2.A Wilson Era – Elitist We begin with formal public administration scholarship, from the late 1800s to 1920. At this stage, Woodrow Wilson formalized the institution in an 1887 article titled, "The Study of Administration." After writing the article, Wilson continued the study of public administration in his Princeton University political science teachings. The article emphasized the need for studying public administration, as a discipline, apart and distinct from overall politics. He argued, "most important to be observed is the truth already so much and so fortunately insisted upon by our civil-service reformers; namely, that administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions" (Wilson, 1887, p. 210). In Politics and Administration (1900), Goodnow took the position that government had two separate functions: politics, "has to do with the expression of the state will," while administration, "has to do with the execution of 18 these policies" (Goodnow, 1900, pp. 10-11). The foundation of modern American bureaucracy was born under the premise that public administration was a job only for the most educated. Further, Wilson saw public administration as a function to be implemented by society’s elite. There were only a select few that possessed the proper pedigree, formal education, and necessary discipline to interpret and carry-out the, “will of the politicians.” This educational understanding contributed to bureaucracy in the way many know today – top down, command and control leadership, operating best in paramilitary organizations requiring predictable, repeatable and efficient processes. For Wilson, the role of public administrators was to find ways to streamline and institutionalize processes, reducing the level of effort necessary to do the business of government. These efforts resulted in more consistent outcomes, saving both time and money in the process. Collaborative governance played no role in the Wilson-Era public administration model, since the creation of bureaucracy and formation of institutions were focused on the process, not the result; the outputs, not the outcomes; the means, and not the ends. Public administration, at this point in American history, was an emerging doctrine. According to Wilson, “The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the debatable ground of constitutional study" (Wilson, 1887, p. 209). 19 This Wilsonian doctrine continued to be a point of debate in coming decades, as to where to draw the line between politics and administration. It is clear, today, that the definition is not so black-and-white, public administration continued to seek efficiency and consistency in its operations. 2.2.B Efficiency Era: The Scientific Method to Public Administration In the next two decades – 1920-40, there was a movement to improve public administration’s efficiency and economy. Scholars of Wilson adopted a scientific view of public administration that favored a rigid/defined view of public management. These scholars, such as Fredrick Taylor 15 , were convinced that science would lead to the best way of administration (Kanigel, 1997). This public administration-era moved into a scientific method of public management, steering away from prior “rule of thumb,” 16 and into a new set of administrative principles. Along those same lines, Luther Gulick – an expert in public administration and Professor of Municipal Science at Columbia University – developed a theory of administration in 1937 using the scientific method (Fry, 1989). Gulick summarized the function of management in the acronym “POSDCORB” – 15 Fredrick Taylor was an American mechanical engineer with an eye for process improvement; he is known as, “the father of scientific management.” His seminal work in 1950 related to time- and-motion systems led to modern mass-production techniques. 16 Rather than rely on “rule of thumb” to govern work, Fredrick Taylor subdivided production processes into specific tasks to achieve greatest efficiency. He used his time-in-motion studies to determine the most efficient methods for getting work done, which included providing necessary rest periods. 20 planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (Cook, 1996). Again, there was a deep-rooted need for control and structure in the heart of public administration, as it continued to evolve in this era. The POSDCORD method sought to further varied/separated silo activities into single-discipline compartments, so that results could be measured and monitored for efficiency and productivity. By dividing administration into these measures, the formation of modern public administration began to take shape. This included administrative specialties, such as human resource professionals, auditors, accountants, budgeting experts, and so forth. These specialties created technical and highly specialized solutions and approaches for each implementation. The more specialized these roles became, the more specialized the personnel needed to manage in these roles. Trained administrators would not only specialize in their trade, but were called to maintain a ’moral barometer’ toward ethics. There was tension between an inward focus on the tools and trade of the profession, and an outward focus on moral and ethical judgements. This morality consideration was a precursor to the types of reform seen in the New Public Administration era (1920-40). The difference being the focus continued to be based on an elitist view, using scientific and tightly controlled methods, rather than a collaborative, citizen- centered approach. Still identified as a role reserved for society’s most elite, scientific management was introduced as a means to handle the business of public administration. The 21 premise was to treat public administration as a business, and rely on the scientific method to advance the practice. Government administration was seen as a process; systems-focused on the tasks, not on the people or policies they were designed to serve. In this era, the debate was centered on the role of administration in the dichotomy between politics and administration 17 . Scholars were fixated on how to define and structure the role of public administration in pursuing, "a pure science of administration," based on, "a thorough grounding in social psychology” (Henry, 1975, p. 380). This inwardly focused perspective on technical skills was more fixated on the role of government administrators, and how they might improve the quantity of their output. Relatedly, this public administration era can be seen as a kind of self-awareness, where the profession began to realize the complexity and multi-faceted interdependence of its role. The internal focus on technical means and methods to conducting a specialized technical role proved to fall short of producing the desired interdisciplinary outcomes; thus, leading to the next era of public administration. It could be said that public administrators of the time were too 17 Tansu Demir, Ph.D, Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Illinois, defined the difference between politics and administration as, “The function of politics is to provide guidance, or what Wilson said, ’setting the task for administration’” (Wilson, 1887, p. 210). “The function of public administration, on the other hand, is to provide neutral competence to the governance process. Elected officials provide political guidance, as they rely primarily on policy leadership and legislative oversight.” Invalid source specified. 22 focused on the problems, as they viewed them, rather than the way the public viewed them. Comparing this phase of public administration to that of a relationship, the first actor needs to be completely self-aware and resolute with their strengths and weaknesses, before they can have a successful relationship based on trust and reciprocity. As identified in the next phase, the role of public administration began to be less introspective, and started to exhibit more extrospection in understanding the role of public perception, and the interconnectedness of government’s various roles. This deeper understanding ultimately led to an environment fostering greater and more open collaboration, not only between public administrators and the other three sectors, but more importantly, with the citizens the public sector served. 2.2.C New Public Administration New Public Administration started in the 1960s during a turbulent time in American history. It was in this era public policy needed to respond to the needs of rapidly changing popular values. During this era, public policy leaders determined they needed to form an administration that could handle this role and accommodate the needs of the populous. In other words, the discipline became extrospective, looking outward from inside, of its own working, and toward the people it was serving. As discussed in section 2.2.B, the era prior to this one, the Eficency Era, was focused on the science of politics – i.e., political science, 23 which included budgeting, efficiency and decision making. Post-1960, during the era of New Public Administration, there grew a need to form a discipline that would be focused on the administration of policy, rather than the science behind it. Clifford Dwight Waldo, an American political scientist and considered the father of this movement, sponsored a conference 18 about the need for this form of administration (Thompson, 1972). The objective of this era was to design a type of public administration that could accommodate and adapt to the changing values, ethics and morals of the people it would serve. The objective could also be seen as a move away from the science of public policy, and toward a geographically-sensitive focus on the needs of particular communities and groups that a public administer is appointed to serve. This decentralized and community-centric form of government focused on meeting the needs of the people it serves, and as such, was much more collaborative and responsive to its constituents. Keeping with my notion that there was a movement toward collaboration, the New Public Administration was seen as a collaboration of sorts with the people it served. It called for institutions that were more responsive to their customers – the public. It focused on creating a type of public administration that would empower citizens, rather than simply serve them. This, as we read later in this 18 This conference refers to the first Minnowbrook Conference held in 1968, which gave rise to the concept of New Public Administration. 24 chapter, is a shift that has led to the notion public service may need to be more of a ‘platform’ then a service. In the new public administration era, there was a shift away from government being the initiator and driver of policy, to becoming an equal stakeholder in the outcome resulting from cooperative decision making. Public administrators continued to shift focus away from a strict concentration on their role, to an understanding of how all variables involved in ’good governance’ come together to work toward a collaborative solution. As described by Bourgon, the new focus for government was ‘democratic citizenship,’ public interest, public policy, and services to citizens (Bourgon, 2011). Democratic citizenship refers to where the common person has a broader role in policy formation than just voting through a continuous and intimate relationship with policy makers (Bourgon, 2011). 2.2.D New Public Management The New Public Management era, which began in the 1990s, was focused on a new managerial approach to the type of public administration described in Section 2.2.C. In this new period, the focus was on fixing government from the inside and treating it more like a business. This era focused on using tools that made the private sector more effective, applying them to the public sector, and using market dynamics and competition to drive efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector. 25 In line with Bourgon's notion of Democratic Citizenship in the 1980's and 1990's (2011), a new focus of public administration was formed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their 1993 book, Reinventing Government. Similar to the Contract Cities model made popular in the 1950s, advocating economies of scale by leveraging and sharing public services with other jurisdictions, this new model promoted the use of private sector-style organization models (Gaebler & Osborne, 1993). Incorporating the lessons learned from the 1950's and 1960's about running government more like a business, the New Public Management era also focused on ethics and values to propose, yet a new model. Gaebler and Osborne's ideas proposed a new paradigm that would improve efficiency and service-orientation of the public sector, by applying the best practices from both previous models. Best practice sharing among cities, as well as, engaging in public-private partnerships, was a method used to find new efficiencies, while trying to stay committed to the common good and social equity. This partnership form invited practices involving splitting agencies into smaller units; thereby, promoting competition with other public agencies, as well as, private corporations. The new era attempted to move governments toward a more collaborative- and networked-based form of governance, aimed at encouraging customer focused outputs that are also entrepreneurial. However, cities would have needed to demonstrate a commitment to this administrative shift, entailing changes to their organization and ensuing political challenges. Although there was overwhelming 26 support for Reinventing Government’s ideas, there were clear limits to actual implementation by city leaders and resulting success (Kearney, 2000). Despite the popularity of the book and its principles, it had its limitations. In cities where this ’reform’ was possible, such restructuring put government in the driver's seat to solicit private-sector-style competition and efficiencies into public administration principles. Essentially, public sector services would compete against comparable private-sector services. The argument opposing this form of administration made cost and efficiency the primary objectives, rather than the efficacy of the solution. As a result, some argued that by placing more focus on the profitability versus the efficacy of public service, it would raise the risk of causing inequity, and become bottom-line focused. For collaborative governance to be successful, the public and private should be collaborators, not competitors. It was in this New Public Management era, public administration as a discipline made a drastic and noticeable shift from an inward examination of its strengths and ability, to an outward focus on its role in a larger citizen-centered system. The new focus could be considered a correction of sorts, from an internal, to an external focus. The transformation started with realignment away from the science of administration, to the results of the outcomes; i.e., the citizens they served. As with such corrections, actual implementation of citizen-focused practices was overcorrected. With the Public-Private Partnership model (“P3”) growing in use in the 1980’s, critics thought the agreements formed between the public and private partners were too profit-driven, and less focused on outcomes 27 (Kearney, 2000). This correction away from strict results-based administration was notable, and did produce more collaborative-type arrangements between the public and private agencies entering into them. Missing in this collaboration was an engaged citizenry that would help steer the collaboration’s end result toward the most appropriate citizen-centered solution. Historical Perspective on New Public Administration & Management Eras We can see a chronology of how the New Public Administration and Management played out in practice in post-WWII America, as neighborhoods in the Los Angeles metropolitan area began demanding more personalized government structure. Veterans returning from the war demanded more control and ownership over use of land and services enjoyed by neighborhood residents. For the unincorporated community of Lakewood, the choices were either to stay in unincorporated Los Angeles County, become annexed into the neighboring and expanding city of Long Beach, or incorporate as their own city. A vocal collection of citizens demanded more local control of all the city services, rather than being part of a larger metropolis, threatening to compromise the small-town character citizens valued. In contrast to the pre-WWII form of government focused on economies of scale and efficiency, this new form of government demanded focus on more refined outcomes people of similar interests valued. Thanks to an innovative collaboration lead by Lakewood citizens, the community incorporated, and the newly formed city was able to partner with private industry and Los Angeles County to retain and administer essential city services. For Lakewood to administer public services from scratch – public safety, recreation, planning, civic litigation and defense, and other related departments, the city could not be supported by their limited tax base. Instead, Lakewood officials collaborated with the citizen sector, other local governments and the private sector to implement municipal services necessary for incorporation in 1954. This collaboration became known as the “Contract Cities Model,” as well as, the “Lakewood Plan.” This transition from a larger, one-size-fits-all form of government focused on economies of scale, and the Lakewood-inspired “Contract Cities Model” shifted the focus to the specific needs of individual cities. The benefits of size and scale achieved at the metropolitan level were replaced with the efficiencies gained by having scalable contract services. Meanwhile, Lakewood citizens were able to divert long-term healthcare and pension costs associated with full-time, benefited employees. This move to partnerships resulted in service levels and areas of concentration specially aligned with the specific needs of Lakewood stakeholders. 28 In Lakewood’s footsteps, other cities soon followed, leveraging this model of collaboration to customize their specific civic needs. For example, the cities of Vernon and Industry could focus on heavy industrial activity, maximizing its infrastructure to accommodate such uses, while Lakewood could focus on neighborhood-friendly design and more mixed-use zoning designations accommodating family life. By 1957, the California Contract Cities Association was formed with an initial 77 member-cities statewide. 2.2.E Era of E-Government, Government 2.0 and Open Data The New Public Administration and Management eras set the stage for the resulting “e-government” era, which continued enabling the citizen sector to have a more prominent seat at the table in collaborations. This began the process to redefine the role of government. With more stakeholders at the table, the role of government became more of a facilitator, or even an equal partner, and less of a position to independently define and solve the problem. Furthermore, e- government empowered citizens to take a larger role in the formation of the solutions that public administrators used to govern the public. This shift in power, control, and responsibility began to distribute the ownership of the problems and solutions, previously administered solely by government. Janet V. and Robert B. Denhardt are two notable academics in the field of public administration. Janet Denhardt is the director of the USC Price School of Public Policy in Sacramento, with Robert Denhardt also a Professor. They are both well-known for their scholarship in public service, public administration, 29 organizational development, ethics, and leadership. Both have described this most recent period as the, “New Public Services Model,” focused on the digital age of e-governance (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). The focus of e-governance is on integrating government responsibilities with digital capabilities, providing for greater transparency, along with more readily-shared data. The intent is to offer more and improved information technology, providing the ability and opportunity for improved communication between government and its citizens. The emphasis is on the dialogue between citizen and government, rather than entirely on service delivery. Explored further in this section, the overall dialogue improves by opening access to more data, and providing tools for citizens to engage with government on multiple levels. Ultimately, this allows the private citizen to have greater input into, and control, by treating government less as a service, and more as a platform. Government as a platform provides that government acts more like a framework of giving stakeholders the tools and access to data, helping identify and solve problems. Referred to as “Government 2.0,” this open and transparent structure of public administration sparks civic innovation, improving citizens’ communication (O'Reilly, 2010). The term ‘Government 2.0’ follows the term “Web 2.0,” related to the web becoming a platform that people, not only used for consuming data, but also sharing data and engaging with others (O'Reilly, 2010). In this new construct, the public has greater access to data and government priorities that shape the policies potentially affecting them. As an example, ‘government as a platform’ can be equated to how the tech company Apple uses 30 its devices as a platform for other innovators, creating solutions that improve user’s quality-of-life. By approaching government as a platform, civic innovators can use government data to develop solutions, thereby sharing in the identification and potential solution of challenges that affect citizens. An example of this platform approach would be the “311” telephone system deployed across multiple jurisdictions, crowdsourcing the management of city assets by involving citizens. The 311 service is typically developed by a private vendor, offering a specific technology addressing a narrowly-defined problem, otherwise known as, “Software as a Solution.” The solution acts like a work- order management system, accepting service requests from the public through accessible mobile phone apps. Citizen’s simply take a picture of the “service order” – pothole, malfunctioning street light, graffiti, etc., which is then geo- located and transmitted to the city. The 311 platform routes the service order to the appropriate department(s) for resolution. This process involves layers of technology – including spatial intelligence to understand where the location is and whether the location is within the City's jurisdiction; organizational understanding to know where to route the request within City government; as well as, work-order management protocols to track the request throughout its initial routing and eventual completion. The system not only monitors the service order, but provides the customer with real-time updates, as government agencies route, process, and eventually close-out the order. Companies such as Accela, 31 SeeClickFix and CitySource establish these systems for a determined set-up fee, in addition to an annual licensing fee 19 . The benefit of this technology is citizens get to crowdsource information about potholes, malfunctioning city equipment, public nuisances, downed trees and other municipal concerns, and a corresponding public agency can track, schedule, and fix. Such concerns are then transmitted to the respective city office, and the progress and resolution are communicated back to the citizen. In this system, the city benefits by getting an early notification from citizens, without tying up City phone lines, thus potentially reducing staffing costs. Citizens can also deliver concerns to relevant agencies and receive associated progress reports, all without having to navigate the agency’s organizational structure to find resolve. Data from this system can be made publicly available, which in turn, can spark further innovation. The above-referenced example is one of the first adopted Government 2.0 solutions, and offers a glimpse of how technology can help improve the exchange of information between government and citizens. In standard government procurement policies, implementing a solution like 311 requires a competitive bid process needing to be “scoped” 20 and clearly laid-out by the procuring public agency. This process assumes the city fully understands 19 A standard set-up fee for a city with a populous of 100,000 might be $50,000, plus a $25,000 annual licensing fee. Additionally, at least in California, these costs are low enough to avoid competitive bid requirements, and are, therefore, easier to advertise a contract. 20 “Scoping” is the term used to describe the parameters of a project. The scope of a project describes the process and deliverables associated with a project used to meet government procurement and contracting requirements. 32 their needs, as well as, the system’s capabilities. In reality, at the rate of changing technology and new innovations, Government 2.0 offers a new approach to this procurement dilemma. Rather than find a vendor, some cities have chosen to open their data and make it readily machine-readable 21 . In this way, anyone motivated enough to gain necessary domain knowledge about the problem, ability to access the open data, and possess such programing skills, can create a viable solution. That solution could, in turn, be sold to the government agency, the people that use it, or through another delivery model. This approach to making data publicly-available and machine-readable is called “open data” (Open Knowledge International, 2012). Open data enables citizens to access such information, in helping identify problems in respective services, and design new approaches to existing problems using customized solutions. This concept has led to creative, third-party solutions to complex problems that cities may neither have the means, nor interest to pursue, given their budgets, or immediate priorities. The idea of open data and the ability to easily access government figures by the public comes at a time of unprecedented calls for transparency in government operations. Beginning at the Wilsonian-era of public administration, this reflects a sixty-year culmination of transition to an open system of government, starting 21 According to Data.gov – the “Federal Open Data” page, as of August 15, 2016, there are 40 states, 48 U.S. cities and counties, 52 countries and 164 international regions that offer open data. Some of the participating cities include Chicago, Los Angeles, Honolulu, New York and Palo Alto. Machine-readable data is that which can be interpreted and used in a digital form without the help of a person manipulating it. 33 with California’s “Brown Act” of 1953, ensuring the public's right to participate in local legislative meetings. The Brown Act was followed by the federal “Freedom of Information Act” passed in 1966, providing for the sharing of previously privileged national information and documents. These statutory mandates were leveraged by non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), who made it their mission to open government operations. Such open government mandates continued to become more rigorous, such as with the enactment of California’s “Public Records Act” of 1968 (“PRA”); PRA not only requires inspection of public records upon request, but indicates said records should be provided to the requester in ten business days. Organizations such as Transparency International, Open Society Institute, and the Sunlight Foundation advocate the implementation of openness and transparency across the U.S. and the world. The philosophy of open data gives rise to open government, which aims to put the power of public information in the hands of the public – not administrators or bureaucrats. This approach enables the citizen to have access to information on their own terms, enabling more people to work together, and helping government solve complex problems. Further, as local agencies continue to standardize their open data, innovative technologists 22 can design applications that query the open data, providing further insight, answering questions, adding value to an existing 22 “Technologist” is a term used in local government circles referring to a technical specialist with the skills and abilities to use data, software and programming to design solutions to problems. In the context of this dissertation, technologists are typically involved in solutions focused on civic problems that serve the citizen and/or the government agency. 34 process, or even providing new services. Without data standards, working with data becomes cumbersome and less valuable, requiring data experts to organize it before being usable. Furthermore, as updates to that data become available, the process is additionally complicated by the need to further manipulate the newer data. As expectations for immediate answers mount in this age of smart phones and instant information, the need to collaborate with these technologists intensifies. 2.3 Conclusion - From Bureaucracy to Transparency The evolution of public administration from hierarchical, top-down bureaucracy to open and transparent collaborative governance started in the late 19 th century and continues today. This evolution can be explained in three phases: introspective (Wilsonian and Efficiency Eras), extrospective (New Public Administration and Management Eras), and redefining (E-government Era). In the 1880s, public administration scholars searched for purpose to improve public administration, and in that pursuit, refined the process around efficiency and rigorous control. Until 1960, public administration was enveloped in defining and perfecting its role, purpose and scope. Motivated by a pursuit of precision, scholars looked for the one best way to administer using scientific methods and principles (Kanigel, 1997). Beginning in the 1960s, public administration became citizen-centric in an effort to meet the needs of the stakeholders it served, by partnering with, and 35 attempting to learn from the private sector. Lessons were learned from Reinventing Government, and the rise of contract cities gave way to new collaborations with the private sector, providing more responsive and effective services to constituents. From the 1990s onward, there has been a movement toward redefining government – from a service to a platform – with the advent of Government 2.0. Government traditionally has been acting as an equal partner, alongside other public, private, nonprofit and citizen sector groups, helping define, as well as, solve the next set of civic dilemmas. This movement has promoted the use of technology and open data to empower citizen stakeholders, so that public administrators can be facilitators, rather than gatekeepers, in the formation and administration of public policy. 2.4 Opportunities to Advance Collaborative Governance Similar to how Moore’s Law describes the exponential advancement in technology 23 , the last twenty-plus years in the public sector have seen rapid innovation and collaboration, compared to the previous fifty years of public administration. The way technology continues to improve and advance at an increasing rate, government is being expected to adapt to the growing list of civic problems and/or deficiencies. Unlike technology that can respond quickly to 23 First observed in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. This advancement in semi-conductor industry has been used to represent the general trend of advancement in the technology sector. 36 demands and changes in the market, government systems are much deliberate with adaptation. Government’s internal operation systems – procurement, hiring, budgeting, accounting, etc. – are not designed to deal with this dynamism and rapid change. In fact, government decision-making is inherently slow and labor- intensive. Furthermore, unlike today’s risk-tolerant private sector that can afford to make mistakes and learn from them, the public sector is risk-averse, and more cautious when considering changes. Therefore, for government to keep pace with the increasing demands that make this type of innovation possible, this requires being more risk-tolerant and agile. The standard public procurement process, for example, requires that the lowest and most competitive bid be sought through a solicitation process, called a “Request for Proposal.” This process of seeking the most competitive bid, followed by contract negotiation, and finally, City Council authorization, can take many months to enter into. The type of small, civic startups that typically deliver the citizen-centric solutions cannot absorb these long and uncertain processes, and as a result, are hesitant to compete for a formal engagement with a public agency. This results in civic startups having a hard time engaging cities through formal agreements, unless they are able to weather long procurement cycles. Furthermore, many of the solutions that these civic start-ups propose require an exploratory period, where start-ups work hand-in-hand with a public agency, ultimately leading to a “scope of work” – an exhaustive service overview between parties. This type of uncertainty in the ultimate scope of work and open-ended 37 arrangement for contract services is far from typical in public agencies. The scope-of-work is worked-out well in advance of entering into a contract, or going through an open-bid process 24 . In essence, the public agency traditionally defines the problem, outlines the solution, lists the expected outcomes, then finds the contractor(s) best suited to address the problem, before commencing a formal bid process. As much as collaborative governance and the potential of e-government is poised to change the way government works from the perspective of the external stakeholder, government’s internal operations have to catch-up to speed for this to become fully operationalized. Meanwhile, there continues to be small and focused examples of Government 2.0 working surprisingly well; however, for it to become “viral” – adopted en masse and systemic – government needs to overhaul its operating procedures, and allow for more nimble and responsive operations. 2.5 Theoretical Underpinnings of Collaborative Governance Collaborative governance has roots in a variety of literature across multiple disciplines. The disciplines intersecting are too broad to cover, but the following are some of the more prominent topics that contribute to its understanding: public-private partnership, organizational development, citizen engagement, 24 Open-bid process refers to the municipal procurement process that begins with a request for proposal from the public agency that contractors respond to in an effort to compete for projects. The effort is intended to promote equitable review and selection of qualified contractors. 38 democratic systems, citizen-centered government, public administration and management, intergovernmental relations, game theory, dispute and conflict resolution, consensus building, labor and contract management practice, as well as, a series of case studies done in specific areas, such as law enforcement, public health, education, transportation, and local economic policy. 2.6 Logic Models In my research, I realize there are a number of established and well-respected collaborative governance logic models that demonstrate value and significance in academia. These models provide a structure and framework of how collaborative governance can be organized, and have inspired my research, as well as, my collaborative governance framework described later in this dissertation. This section provides a brief overview of these logic models, for the purpose of identifying the bases for principles. Said bases are integrated with the design of my proposed collaborative governance framework, and the survey created, administered and studied. In the chapter on methods (four), I explore these models in detail, relating them further to my research. There are a number of theorists attempting to organize collaborative governance into logic models, describing the components observed in various types of these partnerships. The most notable of these theorists include Crosby and Bryson (2005), Thomson and Perry (2006), Ansell and Gash (2007), and Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2011). Crosby and Bryson describe their model as, “The 39 Leadership for the Common Good Framework” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 178), and designed the model specifically for public and nonprofit organizations. Thomson and Perry focused primarily on the structure and orientation of inter- organizational partnerships (2006). Ansell and Gash focused on partnerships initiated by a public agency, with non-government stakeholders (2007). Emerson, Natatchi and Balogh attempted to provide a comprehensive collection of all leading models, illustrating a framework that applies to individuals, as well as, collaborative groups across all sectors, and a variety of scales. In addition to the mentioned four logic models of collaborative governance theory, there is a fifth model I believe offers a practical approach to collaborative governance, and is worth exploring in my framework. “Collective Impact” has had practical applications in areas such as educational reform, environmental restoration, and public health reorganization (Kania & Kramer). This model describes five key factors that, when applied to a multi-stakeholder partnership, can produce effective and sustainable results. These five factors include: common agenda, shared measurements, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication and backbone support organizations. The model touches on many aspects identified by the four fundamental models described earlier – Crosby and Bryson (2005), Thomson and Perry (2006), Ansell and Gash (2007), and Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and Balogh, S. (2011). Ultimately, I decided to include this model as one of the four dimensions of my collaborative governance framework, discussed in more detail in chapter four. 40 Throughout this dissertation, I describe my proposed framework, defining essential elements of successful collaborative governance, and validate the elements with the concepts discussed in the logic models described earlier. I also expand on these models, as well as, the elements of my proposed framework, not being proposed as another stand-alone and separate logic model. Instead, my framework offers a compilation of elements that, through my research and experience in professional practice, has demonstrated to be of importance in defining successful collaborations. 41 Chapter 3: Other Sectors and New Tools to Promote Collaborative Governance In the prior chapter, I explored varied aspects of the public sector, including the current broken service model, and the rise of collaborative governance–from the Wilsonian-era (1887-1920), to today’s age of e-governance. The public sector is, not only more receptive and poised to enter into multi-sectoral collaborations, but with e-government’s proliferation, this type of collaboration has become increasingly viable. In this chapter, I explore the other three sectors – private, nonprofit and citizen – and explain how, they too, are more open and poised to enter into collaborative partnerships. 3.1 Private Sector - From Irresponsibility to Corporate Social Responsibility The nation’s private sector, like public administration, has gone through a remarkable transformation over the last one hundred years. This transformation has, in more recent terms, led corporations to be more open, transparent and collaborative. A reason for this change has to do with the adoption of “Corporate Social Responsibility” (“CSR”), a new business standard affecting the private sector over the last twenty years. CSR’s awareness has business roots back to the early 20 th century (Dodd, 1932), and refers to the social and environmental responsibilities of for-profit 42 corporations, not only to their customers, but to all stakeholder in their supply chain. This concept is also related to the “Triple Bottom Line,” developed in 1994 by John Elkington (1998). This section explores CSR’s beginnings, and describes how companies have evolved, not only be more aware of their operational impact, but also, proactively engage themselves into solutions to problems that face us all, no matter which sector. More importantly, this dissertation explores how CSR adoption opened the door for the private sector to be more collaborative with public and nonprofit organizations; thereby, promoting “civic good.” 25 Managers of private sector firms have realized the heightened interest in CSR and have demanded that additional resources are focused in this regard (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). In fact, not only does CSR help promote the legitimacy of the brand, it has been determined to improve employee attitudes toward the company (Suh, 2016). As the private sector has grown, so have the sector’s contributions to social programs and philanthropic endeavors (Useem & Kutner, 1986). In fact, $2 billion in donations came from the Fortune 100 companies alone (Useem & Kutner, 1986). CSR has roots in the birth of the modern U.S. civic and environmental movements, starting in 1950, with a series of landmark events. The Civil Rights 25 “Civic good,” in this context, is used to refer to general humanitarianism. These are actions that improve the quality of life, not just of the consumers of a product, but to society as a whole. 43 movement was fueled by the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, declaring laws establishing separate public schools for white and non-white students were unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954). As well, following publication of Rachel Carson's (1962) book Silent Spring, an environmental movement was underway nationwide. The book was credited with the ban of the pesticide “dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane,” commonly known as “DDT.” Additionally, following the 1965 publication of Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed, a consumer-protection movement began, with citizens taking greater interest in product safety and consumers purchases. Nader’s book detailed the resistance of car manufacturers to take responsibility for including safety features, such as seatbelts, in the general production of cars; therefore, greatly improving safety (Nader, 1965). Consumer awareness and the demand for product protection are are the reason corporations are taking greater interest in the decisions they make, affecting society and the environment (Brobeck, 1990). More recently, since the 1980’s, most large firms participated heavily in CSR efforts (Haley, 1991). The effects of unwanted media attention as a result of the irresponsible corporate actions listed prior, have led to consequences significant to drive corporate change. A company’s blatant disregard of public opinion can lead to a reduction in sales, an increase of unwanted litigation, and promotion of restrictive legislation. WorldCom – a.k.a., MCI World Com – and Enron are examples of corporate greed being unchecked for too long, resulting in the severe loss of 44 public trust. Bernard Ebbers and Jeffery Skilling – former CEOs of WorldCom and ENRON – become symbols of corporate greed, ignoring the stakeholder- ship of an open public market system (Zerunyan & Pirnejad, 2014) (Beresford, 2003). Their associated scandals ultimately led to the conviction of many executives, and the incarceration of the former CEOs. It was due, in large part, to these scandals, President George W. Bush promoted the “Ten-point Plan of Corporate Responsibility” in 2002 (President’s Ten-Point Plan, 2002). That same year, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requiring companies to be more transparent with their public investors (Zerunyan & Pirnejad, 2014). More recently, in April 2010, the British Petroleum (“BP”) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had tremendous environmental and economic impacts, being the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2011). The effort to control the oil spill lasted 87 days, and resulted in the total discharge of 210 million gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2011). The negative economic impact of the spill on the Gulf Coast’ travel and tourism industries, over a three-year period, was estimated at exceeding $23 billion (U.S. Travel Association, 2010). The total expense related to the cleanup was estimated at $37 billion (Fahey & Kahn, 2012). BP’s market share, by some accounts, dropped from the second, to the fourth-largest oil company in 2013, as a direct result of the spill (Callus, 2013). Resulting fines, charges, and lost contracts were substantial. 45 A jury convicted BP on 11 counts of manslaughter for the BP employees who died on the oil rig “Event Horizon,” as well as, one felony for lying to Congress. BP was penalized with four years of government monitoring, banned from new federal contracts in the U.S. 26 , and settled a record $4.5 billion in fines and payments (Gardner, 2012). Additionally, billions more were spent in settlements with the oil company. The total financial toll on the company, Golf Coast communities, surrounding industries, as well as, the general market was estimated at over $25 billion (Gardner, 2012). Today, there is greater demand for companies being mindful of social justice issues important to consumers, as well as, being good stewards of the environment. This is driven by the social consciousness of a new generation of consumers, willing to pay more, and punish those companies who do not adhere to sustainable practices. An example of this is what has been called the “Starbucks effect.” This phenomenon refers to the acceptance of people to pay up to $5 for coffee, in a white recyclable cup, with a green logo, for the satisfaction of knowing Starbucks promotes sustainable coffee practices, as well as, fair trade in pricing the commodity (Vishwanath & Harding, 2000). More examples of similar CSR practices exist, adding value for intangible assets, then amplified through social, digital, and print media. These efforts have roots with the Triple-Bottom Line, in which social and environmental consciousness is as 26 The federal ban was removed in 2014 after BP filed suit claiming it was ‘unfairly penalized’ for its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill Invalid source specified.. 46 much a part of the corporate mission, as is the ethical generation of profits. Originally considered a responsibility external to the main corporate mission, CSR is now integrated in company’s core values. Through these social justice and environmental stewardship commitments, many companies are also competing to be more civic-minded, availing themselves to mission-driven collaborations. CSR became mainstream, as companies realized a significant driver of their organization’s image was their CSR reputation. Bloomberg, the news company, worked with the National Conference on Citizenship and Points of Light to recognize the most civic-minded corporate citizens. They designed a survey identifying companies that actively used their workforce to volunteer in local communities. The result was the “Civic 50” – a report card for America’s most civic-minded companies (Brady, 2012). Among the top 50 included IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. Another popular ranking system is “RepTrak,” based on a global reputation database looking at a number of factors, and familiarity among consumers, in fifteen global markets – including the U.S., U.K., Japan and others. As seen in these examples, corporate reputation continues to be of utmost importance, and CSR plays a critical role in defining it for the better. To increase their impact, corporations are leveraging relationships, collaborating with other mission-driven groups, such as various NGOs. Companies, such as Intel, have entire departments dedicated to reaching-out to other companies, building relationships, and collaborating with potential partners to advance 47 common organizational goals. Companies realize they need to do more than just give monetary donations to a philanthropic group or cause. Rather, these companies need to partner for accomplishments such efforts, utilizing the strength of their workforce to build relationships, and invest time in the endeavors that have the largest impact. Today, there has been an evolution of corporations going from a single to a Triple-Bottom Line. Corporate commitment to social, environmental and economic prosperity comes in the wake of some of the worst examples of greed and environmental pillaging (Zerunyan & Pirnejad, 2014). Corporations are being judged and valued by their reputation 27 , and consumers are making informed decisions about how they spend their money. 3.2 The Third Sector - From Handouts to Heroes NGOs and Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs) have been responsively adaptive to the changing environment around them (Zerunyan & Pirnejad, 2014). In the 1990’s, for-profit companies had little trust for the third sector (nonprofits), and partnerships among them and companies were limited. Like governments, companies often looked at NGOs/NPOs with suspicion, keeping their engagements superficial and limited. More recently, through CSR, partnering with the third sector has increased. There has been noticeable increase in incidents where all three sectors – private, public, and NGO/NPO – created 27 “Reputation,” in this context, is deemed by a corporation’s socially responsible actions. 48 opportunities for inter-sectoral collaborations, delivering essential public goods, infrastructure and public services (Zerunyan & Pirnejad, 2014). CSR, also known as “business with a heart,” is well-suited to align with the third sector, benefiting all business participants. Private and nonprofit sectors recognize the natural strength in partnerships, fueled by a mission to address a social need Nonprofits have transitioned from conflict to collaboration to promote more successful outcomes. One such example is in the Great Bear Rainforest. By the mid-1990’s, International Forest Products, Western Forest Products, and MacMillan Bloedel – later purchased by Weyerhaeuser – owned the majority of timber harvesting rights in the Great Bear Rainforest, located on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia (“B.C.”). These for-profit companies were in continuous conflict with Greenpeace and other environmental nonprofits, fighting to stop the companies’ deforestation practices. It was not until the conflicts turned into collaborations things changed. A partnership between the private sector logging firms, environmental nonprofits and the B.C. government resulted in the preservation of 85% of the rainforest (National Observer, 2016). As nonprofit companies changed their tactics from conflict to collaboration, there was a growing trend to partner with corporations working toward reducing their environmental impact in developing countries. Rainforest Alliance (“RA”) accomplished this objective by partnering with companies, such as Chiquita and Kraft, in the launch of the ‘RA-certified’ farms and coffees, respectively. The number of partnerships RA has with private companies has grown to the 49 thousands (Rainforce Alliance, 2012). In 2006, global sales of RA-certified coffee, chocolate and bananas exceed $1 billion, sales of RA-certified products have increased by 225% (Rainforce Alliance, 2012); in the eyes of consumers, RA’s seal signifies social and environmentally-sustainable practices. The nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”) moved from an adversarial position in the fighting of DDT and the banning whale hunting, to later collaborating with Fortune 500 companies. Since the 1980's, EDF has worked with McDonalds to institute biodegradable food packaging, and eventually, a higher percentage of recycled content in their packaging; thereby, reducing McDonald’s environmental impact. In turn, this also resulted in cost savings for McDonalds, reducing paper supplies. By 2000, seven of the world’s largest firms 28 partnered with EDF to set greenhouse gas emission levels, reducing global warming (Behr, 2000). For example, in 2004, following four years of negotiations, EDF come to an agreement with FedEx to develop and deploy hybrid electric trucks, and in 2012, FedEx’s revenue neared $150 million (Environmental Deffence Fund, 2013). Even a company such as Greenpeace, known for staging large, high-profile protests to draw global attention against companies engaged in environmentally- destructive practices, is trying something new. In 2004, Greenpeace 28 The companies in the partnership included: BP Amoco PLC, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, DuPont Co., Suncor Energy Inc., Ontario Power Generation Inc., Alcan Aluminum Ltd. and the French aluminum company Pechiney SA (Behr, 2000). 50 implemented a different tactic, collaborating with the electronics industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use of hazardous materials, recycling their products, and halting the use of unsustainable materials in their merchandise and packaging, implementing a “Clean Electricity Plan” (Greenpeace, August 2012). This Greenpeace-created scoring system allowed consumers to see which of the manufacturers were being the most responsible with use of sustainable environmental practices in the electronics manufacturing. Similar to CSR, this system of accountability became a scorecard companies used to gauge their reputation among consumers. In the case of the Greenpeace Clean Electricity brand and the RA-certified seal, the partnership proved to be very effective in furthering the mission of Greenpeace, as well as, providing a value for the private companies that incorporated the seal into their CSR strategy (Greenpeace, August 2012) (Rainforce Alliance, 2012). This collaborative trend between private and nonprofit sectors eventually found its way into the public sector. Collaborations between corporations and local governments began to become a viable opportunity to provide a societal benefit. One such example is Code for America (“CfA”), a nonprofit committed to bringing high-tech programmers together with local governments, solving real-world problems. Companies such as Google, ESRI, and O'Reilly Media came together, 51 not only to sponsor CfA, but also provide needed human capital 29 . A number of these creative collaborations have improved school infrastructure, fire stations, and other public buildings. More importantly, cloud-based collaborations 30 are becoming popular. CfA began its first fellowship program in 2011 with a class of 20 fellows assigned to four cities selected to partner in this experiment - Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Seattle (Opsahl, 2010). Over the next year, CfA fellows collaborated with host cities to develop web-based applications, solving a civic problem identified by their host city. The completed applications, or ‘case studies,’ were shared with other city governments, with these products modified to meet other cities’ needs. The model was so successful, it went on to include more fellows and more cities. In 2013, CfA announced “Code for All” as an effort to expand the model internationally. One such success story was with the City of New Orleans, who partnered with CfA in 2012 to help resolve the slow identification of blighted properties. After Hurricane Katrina, the City of New Orleans had 35,000 abandoned properties, and no restoration tracking system. Developers had no way to track down the 29 “Human capital,” in this context, refers to the experience, knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by an individual or population, viewed in terms of the value they can bring to an organization or cause. 30 Cloud-based collaborations are virtual partnerships that have the ability to draw stakeholders regardless of location. These platforms include virtual desktop experiences such as google docs that allow multiple stakeholders to contribute on a single document at the same time. Such tools, are especially beneficial to the public sector – reducing travel costs, lowering travel emissions, and allow greater involvement. 52 status of properties without spending countless hours on the phone, at city hall, and searching through archived data. A fellow from CfA launched “BlightStatus,” an application that would scour through layers of digital data and offer up-to-the- minute information on properties (Code for America, 2010). Picking-up on this success, the largest governmental licensing and permit management software company – Accela Inc. – collaborated with the founders of “BlightStatus,” connecting this for-profit organization with the City of Palo Alto, California. The technologist, now known as ‘Civic Insights,’ began designing a new way to visualize the City of Palo Alto’s permit process, making it easier and more transparent for applicants. The small startup was eventually absorbed into Accela, where they continue to work on innovative ways to visualize data. This new tool promises to do the same for a multitude of new cities across America. It is because of public/nonprofit collaborations, such as those between the city of Palo Alto, CfA and Civic Insights, that allow for these innovative new services to come on the scene. Another such urban nonprofit accelerator is Tumml – a small civic innovation startup accelerator, helping early-stage companies develop new products and services that improve urban living, connecting entrepreneurs with funding, mentors, civic leaders, and a community of people dedicated to civic good. Some of Tumml’s work has been partnering with a network of blue-collar trade workers, forming a group called “WorkHands,” having grown to over 5,000 53 registered users, using the service to find work, as well as, build a reputation online. A similar start-up also accelerated by Tumml is “HandUp,” a high-tech startup with a social mission. This young group of innovators created a new way to donate directly to homeless people via web donations and SMS – "Short Message Service," commonly referred to as a 'text message.' Users of this service can use their credits for essentials –food, clothing and medicine – through their partner organization, Project Homeless Connect. These types of innovative, high-tech collaborations are enabling citizens, nonprofits and the private sector to partner in an effort to address civic problems. Citizen-enabled civic innovation has been gaining momentum for several years. Today, talented people across the world can quickly come together and collaborate on civic problems. In 2008, amidst Kenya’s post-election violence, an organization called “Standby Taskforce” was created by Patrick Meier. Having seen the violence unfold through the mainstream media, he decided to take action. Anyone in Kenya with access to a mobile phone could report human rights violations via a text message. With the help of colleagues, this nonprofit was able to crowdsource human rights violations on a map. These messages were mapped and updated in real-time, giving complete coverage of Kenya in a way that could not be matched by the mainstream media. The heat map could show areas of concentration where most reports were being filed. This innovation was repeated in January 2010 in Haiti, following a 54 devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake. A live map of human distress was updated in real time for United States Marine Corp teams to use in strategic deployments, maximizing relief. The 1,200 volunteers that made this happen were recruited from 49 different countries through social media (Stand By Task Force, 2010). The power of collaboration is no longer a function of proximity. Today, highly capable, civic-minded technologists are collaborating with public agencies around the globe to find solutions to real-world problems. As it relates to public sector collaboration, the nonprofit sector offers underutilized leveraging opportunities, as well. Today, as the financial securities of cities weaken, and the complexities of problems heighten, the need to collaborate with other entities can bring fresh perspectives and resources to public administration issues. The time has come for the public sector to reach out to the mission-driven, high tech industry, creating the tools that will enable the public to meet the needs of an increasingly complex world and citizenry. 3.3 An Engaged and Enabled Citizenry - A Predisposed Sector for Collaboration Today, there is a generation of young urban professionals 31 with the talent, resources, time, and motivation to create solutions to complex civic problems. They are on track to be the most educated generation in history, primarily 31 In this context young urban professional refers to millennials. This generation was born between 1981 through 2000. 55 motivated by the highly technical knowledge base, and, ironically, a high unemployment rate (Taylor & Keeter, 2010) (Pew Research Center, 2010). These young professionals work well in groups, and are not inhibited by physical proximity. Virtual networking, through a host of web-enabled engagement tools, allows this collaboration across continents. This cohort is also highly entrepreneurial, and as such, is more likely to start their own business, as prospects for gainful employment becomes less likely. This class of innovators is very civic-minded, but prefers to do so on their terms, using technology and social media as a tool. In addition to being entrepreneurial, they are socially- responsible and seek exposure in mission-driven ventures. The “millennial generation” – those born between 1981 and 2000 – has distinct characteristics and strengths, proving to be a complement to the need for collaboration. This aligns with the CSR movement in the private sector, as well as, the formation of civic tech-enabled nonprofits that aim to leverage this energy. Mission driven, high-tech nonprofits have the networks to put this highly skilled, technically-savvy workforce in touch with meaningful causes, solving complex civic problems. Janet and Robert Denhardt call this the, “New Public Service” era, built on work in organizational humanism, community, and civil society, discourse theory and democratic citizenship (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). The focus is on reintegrating government responsibilities with digital capabilities, providing greater transparency (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). Many of the 56 people in this entrepreneurial-minded group of technologists have the skills and creative energy to bring new perspectives and inventiveness to solve complex civic problems. Further, they have a sense of ownership and social justice that compels them to get involved and make a change. Following the 2007 presidential election riots in Kenya, Ory Okolloh – a Nairobi lawyer – was reporting about it on her blog, “Kenyan Pundit.” Shortly after the riots broke out, she continued to provide updates via her blog. She was quickly overwhelmed, and told her followers she could not keep up with the amount of information. This led to the creation of the aforementioned Standby Taskforce. This geographical reporting activity is called “crisis mapping,” and has since been replicated in cities across the world (Shirky, 2010). All efforts mention were done using the time and talents of this engaged and enabled citizenry. Clay Shirky – author, consultant and professor on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies – calls this, “cognitive surplus,” and credits it with the potential to solve some of our most challenging and wicked civic problems (Shirky, 2010). 57 3.4 Big, Crowdsourced, and Open Data/Government Offer Opportunities for Collaboration Opportunities to achieve far-reaching goals, such as Ushahidi 32 , are possible through collaborative and innovative partnerships. The possibilities are endless, considering the tools, resources, and innovation available to resourceful agencies, or corporations willing to take advantage of them. One of the more prominent tools, “Big Data,” for example, has become such a powerful tool, IBM acquired the Weather Company for its big data capabilities. This acquisition created possibilities for IBM to make valuable – and lucrative – decisions surrounding aviation safety, early warning systems for potentially catastrophic weather events, and other data-driven business decisions (IBM, 2015). Using the power of a large number people organized around one purpose, or what is commonly referred to as “crowd,” 33 offers a wide range of advantages. ‘Crowd funding’ was arguably the most effective use of fundraising to help elect President Barack Obama (Luo, 2008). The potential to find these valuable solutions lies in the willingness to partner across private, public, and third sector arenas, using the common language of data and innovation. Similar to crowd 32 “Ushahidi” is Swahili for ‘Savior’ or ‘witness.’ It was also the name of a project created in the wake of civil unrest in Kenya, created as an open-source project allowing users to crowdsource crisis information and send via mobile. 33 “Crowd,” in this context, refers to the modern definition of crowd: a large group of people, especially an online community, rather than just from employees or suppliers, that can help solicit ideas, gain feedback and otherwise contribute to a particular goal. 58 funding, ‘crowdsourcing’ offers the ability of many people to contribute information about a common issue. In the previous 311 example, this approach to managing city operations and infrastructure allows the citizen sector to contribute in the direction of city services. Whether data is crowdsourced, as is the case with 311, or generated by city operations, such as permit data, there is arguably great value in this data. More than any other asset, cities produce a wealth of data; this can be used to design helpful applications, create predictive analytics, find patterns 34 , and otherwise, add great value to the creating agencies. This data is also being made available by a growing number of cities in machine readable forms, as part of their open data strategies. Open data enables citizens to access collective knowledge and information to create new services, suggest new ideas, and identify critical errors in the infrastructure and services. Such a concept has led creative third-party solutions to complex problems, in which cities may neither have the means, nor ability to pursue such solutions, given their budget, limited resources, or technical capabilities. Open government realigns the traditional model of public administrators as public servants, putting the power of public information in the hands of the public. 34 Patterns can be found in similar complaints coming from common areas, or at consistent times of the day. This type of information could be helpful in finding related issues, pointing to a larger systemic problem. 59 Rather than having to ask for data, stakeholders simply access the City’s platforms and search for the data needed. Crowdsourced and open data together are being used to provide higher levels of service and transparency in local governments. As mentioned prior, 311 applications, such as SeeClickFix or CitySourced, enable smart phone users to track service orders. Other services, such as Open Budget – made available by OpenGov – enable citizens to review city budgets and expenditures with simplified pie charts. Advancement of e-governance innovations are even seen in Karnataka, India, where the state government displays online all public administration services, for citizens to see both the services and the progress of these services in real-time. This type of data, previously only available to a government department or technical employee, is now available for all to see on the internet. The rate at which government data is growing is paralleled by the appetite for citizen expectations. These two variables are a great catalyst to spark citizen and civic innovators to collaborate with administrators. Civic innovation is possible anywhere. All that is needed is a laptop computer, internet connection, and open data. Gone are the days where multi-sectoral collaborations are a result of proximity; collaborative governance is now boundary-less. Collaborative governance, with civic innovation at its core, can pull people together from across the globe, and scale quickly. Not only can an idea develop and scale quickly, but the number of innovations in one agency is limited mainly by the bandwidth of stakeholders. 60 3.5 Conclusion The three sectors are clearly positioned to work collaboratively on wicked problems. The private sector and its interest in CSR understands the value in partnering with mission-driven nonprofit and public sector organizations, with a commitment to the Triple-Bottom Line. Nonprofits have seen that partnering with the private sector can advance their missions. Meanwhile, the civically-minded citizen sector has both the cognitive surplus and entrepreneurial spirit to make meaningful contributions to all other sectors. With the advent of open and crowdsourced data, there are boundless opportunities to create solutions and solve problems. Collaborative governance has willing partners, a set of complementary tools, and the challenge of wicked problems to make an incredible impact to public administration. 61 Chapter 4: Methods 4.1 Introduction Methods for this dissertation involve the use of a variety of means, as I researched trends in collaborative governance initiated by public agencies. Using the results of a custom survey, my research sought to find a common pattern in all responses. With these patterns, I provide some insight into what successful collaborations have in common. I first created a model that described elements of a successful collaboration. This framework was based on academic and professional sources that support four dimensions 35 that, I believe, are necessary for a successful multi-sector collaboration. Using this model, I administered a survey using Survey Monkey – built in a way that explored each of these four dimensions of this framework. That survey was provided to a selection of 39 award-winning collaborations, all of which received the League of California Cities’ “Helen Putnam Award,” or the National League of Cities’ “Municipal Excellence Award” 36 in a category aimed at successful cross-sectoral collaborations. These problems were selected because they were wicked and extended beyond the ability and/or control of any 35 To eliminate confusion throughout this dissertation, I refer to the four sections of my theoretical model as “dimensions.” 36 For more information on the Helen Putnam Award, visit: http://www.helenputnam.org/; for the Municipal Excellence Award, visit: http://www.nlc.org/about-nlc/award-programs/past-program- awards-for-municipal-excellence. 62 one sector to solve. I utilized these two award programs, as both programs underwent neutral, third-party reviews by a committee that looked at the pool of applicants and assessed submittals based on established and objective criteria. The California and National Leagues are both well-respected and regarded nonprofit agencies, representing local governments within California and the nation. The survey was based on my collaborative governance framework. Findings from the survey were used to develop standardized Excel spreadsheets. The survey results are summarized in the analysis and professional contributions section of this research – chapters five and six, highlighting patterns in successful collaborations, as well as, relationships between specific attributes of my framework. The results provide key insights into common attributes of successful collaborations, based on the aforementioned four dimensions. My research was qualitative, in that I examined and critiqued data collection in the form of academic and professional journals, reports, web content, interviews, and videos. While some research for this dissertation was derived from sponsored studies or white papers – potentially introducing varied interpretations in the research – only studies that used academically- and professionally- accepted quantitative and statistical methods were included. Simply put, although some sponsored material was used, I ensured that said sources were trustworthy. Additionally, my research was also quantitative, as I constructed, administered and analyzed a custom survey. 63 The dissertation survey consisted of 52 questions, divided into six parts. The first part was an introduction and “framing” section, designed to orient the respondent, and collect contact information. The next four sections dove into the four dimensions of my collaborative governance framework, described below. The last section of the survey asked respondents to select from a list of civic technology tools that may have been used by the city during the collaboration. This last section was collected to determine if there were any relationships between the use of specific civic technology by respondents and the outcomes of the collaboration. This part of the survey was not a formal part of the dissertation; rather, it provided perspective relative to the technology that was employed during these collaborations. The methods used to analyze survey results involved creating a summary table of all survey data, using a standard scoring system based on a zero to four-point scale. A standard scale was necessary since my survey questions ranged from four to five possible answers. Further, some of the survey questions involved a range that included zero. Therefore, I created a standard scoring system that could include zero and four points for a total of a five points system. Next, I completed a general overview of the data using an Excel spreadsheet, examining the relationships among the various attributes and highlighting those that were most common and prevalent among all respondents. Using a similar Excel spreadsheet, I then created frequency data for all four dimensions of the survey, with the intended purpose of providing a richer and deeper perspective of the data. With the help of color-coded frequency tables designed using the 64 frequency data, I highlight less-obvious patterns in the data. Finally, using both the summary table and the frequency data, I organized all data into four collaboration categories, creating another frequency table exploring patterns in these combinations across all four sectors, and highlight additional insights about collaborations. In other words, I explored which of the four sectors were most and least involved in each of the collaboration’s four category types. The survey results reflect collaborations representing a diverse set of projects, including construction, neighborhood safety, economic development, health advocacy, charitable, community building, leadership and environmental. Without highlighting specific respondents, the cities ranged dramatically in population, area and demographics. Populations were as low as 8,000, and as high as 500,000. Jurisdictional boundaries ranged from two to almost 51 square miles. The socioeconomic level of the cities was just as diverse, ranging from some of the wealthiest to the poorest cities in California. 4.2 A Framework for Collaborative Governance Over the course of this research and my professional career, I have come to appreciate aspects of collaborative governance necessary for successful outcomes, categorized into four dimensions: 1) Partnership Mix – did the collaboration include participation from a diverse set of stakeholders, helping fuel a discussion with enough perspectives to advance a comprehensive debate and solution; 2) Problem-Solving Loading Order – did the decision-making body 65 tasked to foster a solution go through the deliberate steps, and in a logical order, to sustainably solve the right problem; 3) Rules of Engagement – in the course of the collaborative effort, did the group follow pre-established rules of engagement that laid the ground rules to make for successful outcomes; and, 4) Roles – in the process of collaborating, were the roles necessary to ensure success filled by reliable and affective actors? Table 4.1 organizes these four dimensions with the labels and terminology used throughout this dissertation. Table 4.1 Collaborative Governance Framework Partnership Mix 4 Sectors  Public  Private  Non-Profit  Citizen Problem-Solving Loading Order 4 Steps  Problem Identification  Solution Creation  Implementation  Feedback Roles 4 Actors  Champion  Sponsor  Facilitator  Leader Collective Impact Model 5 Conditions  Common agenda  Shared measurement systems  mutually reinforcing activities  continuous communication  backbone support The following sections explore the four dimensions of my framework, working through the logic and supporting academic and professional rational I used in its construct. Through this exploration, I gained inspiration from the four theoretical models discussed in the previous chapter, as well as, drew on professional experience – participatory observation. The relationship of these dimensions, as 66 they were reflected in the outcome of the survey, is discussed later in the analysis chapter – five. This section, however, will focus on the explanation of the model, and the qualifications of the four dimensions. 4.2.A Partnership Mix The partnership mix survey portion asked respondents to rate the presence and strength of the four sectors – public, private, nonprofit, and citizen – that may have been involved in the collaboration. The number, strength and length 37 of those sector partnerships were also important in the collaboration’s outcome. Unlike other papers looking to identify successful collaborative governance components, such as Ansell and Gash, this research focuses specifically on successful collaborations, and finding associated patterns (Ansell & Gash, 2007). This dissertation is also distinct, in that it examines a range of examples of collaborative governance, rather than a single illustration. Much of the theory behind collaborative governance is focused on single case studies dedicated to sector-specific examples. While the benefits of exploring a single collaboration can discover skills and approaches applicable to similar collaborations, my research looks at many different collaborations, and finds commonalities between them. With forestry as an example, this research could be described as finding patterns in the forest, rather than looking at the characteristics of an 37 The “strength” of a partnership is defined by how involved the partners were in the collaboration, and if that engagement was committed to the overall success of the project. The “length” of the partnership is determined by the length of time partners stayed engaged, from project inception to its completion. 67 individual tree. Ansell and Gash describe it as, “focused on the species rather than the genus” of collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 544). The respondents identified for this research were based on award-winning collaborations, including a minimum of two sectors in each partnership. The notion of multiple sectors in collaboration is not new, nor trivial; it is supported by noted research that contends having multiple and varied perspectives is critical in solving complex problems (Ansell & Gash, 2007) (Crosby & Bryson, 2005) (Thomson & Perry, Collaboration Process: Inside the Black, 2006) (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011). The identification of these specific sectors as being paramount in the necessary collaborative governance partnerships is cited in respective academic journals. Barbara C. Crosby – associate Public Affairs professor at the University of Minnesota – noted, “Clearly, government policy makers and managers who want to contribute significantly to social improvement must be adept at collaborative, cross-sector leadership methods” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 178) (Luke, 1998). Further, Kirk Emerson – Professor of Practice in Collaborative Governance at the University of Arizona – makes the point that “multi-partner governance” includes varied partners across all four sectors, with any one of the sectors taking the lead (Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S., 2011, p. 3) (Agrawal, 2007). Involvement from non-state actors is one of the critical elements of the model for successful collaboration identified by Ansell and Gash (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 544). 68 4.2.B Problem-Solving Loading Order My framework dimension contends that there are four critical and sequential steps in solving a complex, multi-sector problem. These four steps include: i) identifying the problem, ii) crafting a solution, iii) implementing that solution, and along the way, iv) providing feedback that improves the quality of the solution. In the course of solving complex, cross-sectoral problems, there is general agreement on the necessary order and sequence of steps to reach a successful resolve. Crosby and Bryson describe a similar sequence of steps in their description of their collaborative governance model entitled, “Policy Change Cycle” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 186). The model starts with identifying the problem, formulating a solution, reviewing the solution, implementing it, and finally, codifying it (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 186). Feedback is also an integral part of the model, allowing multiple iterations to exist, as the process moves toward continual improvement, modification, or elimination (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 186). The first step in the loading order is the identification of the problem. This may seem simplistic, but far too often, public policy makes far too much progress on solving the wrong problem. In a multi-stakeholder collaboration, agreement on the problem definition will ensure all sectors are committed to the same goal. Until the problem is clearly defined by all sectors, and some level of consensus is reached, efforts toward solving the problem could be duplicative at best, contradictory at worst. 69 Designing solutions to complicated, multi-sectoral civic problems requires many perspectives committed to a logical and methodical problem solving process. This effort should seek to build consensus from the sectors involved. This practice of thinking-through the problem sets ensures all parties are heard, prior to moving to the next step. Once the problem is defined by all sectors involved, a solution can be developed. My research contends that, not only are all steps important, but so is the order parties follow in solving a multi-sectoral problem. Collaborating on an agreed-to solution ensures that the right problem is being solved. Similar to how the Collective Impact Model defines common agenda – described later in this chapter, agreeing to a solution that meets all parties’ goals is important to a successful outcome. Finally, the solution is only implemented once all parties have provided input, and have reached some level of consensus the right solution has been designed. On its surface, this may seem unnecessarily slow and laborious; however, in collaborative governance, consensus building throughout the process is a cornerstone of successful outcomes. Therefore, moving from designing to implementing a solution requires added vigilance, ensuring all the partners are still aligned. This over-communication and redundant consensus building at every, seemingly minor step in the process, is necessary to ensure the collaboration remains intact. 70 The last step reinforces fragile characteristics of collaborative governance by emphasizing the importance and necessity of feedback. Feedback throughout the problem solving, solution ideation, and implementation phases, is a necessary step, ensuring there is alignment and agreement from all parties that the right problem is being solved, sufficient progress is being made, and every member is being valued in the process. In practice, these checks and balances would happen intentionally and seamlessly throughout the process by all actors involved in the collaboration. Later in this chapter, I review the importance of roles in collaborative governance, and further, explore how the “champion” or “facilitator’s” role may include ensuring these steps were taken throughout the project’s lifecycle. 4.2.C Collective Impact Model The third dimension of my collaborative governance framework comes from the Collective Impact Model (“CIM”). This model – developed by Mark Kramer, FSG 38 founder, and John Kania, Managing Director – contends multi-sector groups have attempted, unsuccessfully, to solve social problems by building on failed models of the past (Kania & Kramer, 2011). CIM has successful practical applications in multiple areas, such as multi-jurisdictional partnerships, educational reform, environmental restoration, and public health reorganization 38 “FSG” is a mission-driven consulting firm, focusing on social change issues: http://www.fsg.org/about. 71 (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Kania & Kramer’s research demonstrates successful collaborations typically have five conditions 39 working together, producing effective and sustainable results: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations (Kania & Kramer, 2011). The distinction between PSLO and CIM can be best compared to baking a cake. PSLO can be considered the steps and sequence of actions that need to occur, whereas CIM is the list of the ingredients themselves. In PSLO, I explain the need for a progression of steps in a process toward a common goal. In the survey, I approach this by asking respondents to identify the degree to which the sectors where involved. There were also open-ended questions in this section to allow the respondent to provide additional clarity. As I will discuss in the Analysis chapter, respondents restated the importance and distinction in the steps. This is in contrast to CIM, identifying the five conditions that need to occur in order for there to be successful collaboration. These conditions exist throughout the project and should be considered throughout the life of the collaboration. In the survey, I approach this dimension by asking respondents to identify the degree to which the condition existed, and which of the four sectors participated. 39 Kania and Kramer refer to these five characteristics as “conditions,” and, therefore, throughout this dissertation, the term “condition” will be used to refer to these five attributes of the Collective Impact Model. 72 In CIM the first condition – common agenda – requires that all partners have alignment and agreement on the definition of the problem, as well as, a shared approach agreement to solving it. This parallels my second dimension of collaborative governance, contending there needs to be agreement on the problem’s definition, solution design and implementation. The main distinction that my second dimension – PSLO – emphasizes a particular order to solving a problem. Common agenda need not mean all parties agree on the agenda, but rather, find a compromise and alignment where partners can agree to a common theme. This one condition reassures the existence of trust, reciprocity and respect among the partners, by ensuring they all have equal voices and standing with each other. Therefore, as the project progresses and framework intact, lines of open and effective communication are maintained. Common agenda is a topic Crosby and Bryson refer to as “agenda setting,” as a primary ingredient in “Leadership for the Common Good” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 182). Thomson and Perry refer to a common agenda when they describe the need for “transmutational purpose” 40 (Thomson & Perry, Collaboration Process: Inside the Black, 2006, p. 23). Ansell and Gash define common agenda as, “a shared understanding” (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 560). Emerson, et.al., also makes reference to the need for a common agenda through 40 Transmutational purpose is defined as, “shared, goal-directed activity among the participants to fashion a set of raw materials (objects, ideas, or social relations) into a developed product.” (Roberts & Bradley, 1991, p 212) 73 the description of their fifth and sixth propositions, making reference to joint action and shared theory of action (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011, p. 16). The second condition – shared measurement systems – dictates that there is a system in place to measure progress, and ensure that efforts are effective and aligned with achieving shared vision success. Simply put, this is the dashboard that members of the collaboration can periodically consult, measuring results and progress toward established goals. This condition ensures that, not only is there a shared and transparent measuring system providing partners the needed data to prove they are making adequate process, but it also implies there is a level of agreed accountability each member has to each other. In other words, partners in the collaboration should have the ability and assurance from other members to hold each other accountable to these metrics. This shared and transparent accountability helps drive success by encouraging follow-through, as well as, sets an expectation to learn and adapt from shortcomings. The third condition of CIM – mutually reinforcing activities – builds upon previous model conditions. Once members have the data to measure progress, and the responsibility to hold each other accountable, they must ensure their activities are aligned and non-duplicative. Furthermore, their activities build, and reinforce, each other’s efforts. Each member plays a distinct and intentional role, complimenting and contributing to the efforts of other partners. This can be compared to how a well-organized general contractor would build a house; from a distance, the activities may look chaotic and haphazard, but at closer 74 examination, one notices there are multiple teams at work. The framer may be assembling the structure, the electrician installing the wires, the plumber laying rough plumbing, and the roofer is installing the roof. Each trade is distinct, not duplicative, and building-off others toward completion of the house. Similarly, mutually-reinforcing activities assign each partner in the collaboration tasks that excel the ultimate goals of the collaboration. The fourth condition – continuous communication – is similar to feedback in my collaborative governance framework, representing a deep understanding and mutual respect of collaboration actors built over time. Continuous communication is more than just an active dialogue between the partners; it is an understanding and relationship that is built on trust, reciprocity and respect of other members. In collaborative governance, developing trust among the sectors is crucial and well-supported in academia. Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh highlight the importance of mutual trust and understanding in their publication, “Logic Model Approach to Collaborative Governance” (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011, p. 7). Thompson and Perry specifically call-out the importance of reciprocity and trust in their description of Mutually Beneficial Relationships (Thomson & Perry, Collaboration Process: Inside the Black, 2006, p. 27). Crosby and Bryson explain, “team leaders should foster communication that aligns and coordinates members’ actions, builds mutual understanding and trust, and fosters creative problem solving and commitment” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 27). Ansell and Gash describe a series of factors imperative within the collaborative process as ‘trust building’ (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 1). 75 The fifth and final condition of CIM is ‘backbone support.’ The needs of a collaborative project change, as it exits initial design and implementation phase, and begins to operate, as designed. This condition of the model focuses on maintaining a consistent and effective set of deliverables over time. The inability of collaborations to establish a supporting infrastructure after the project is operational, is one of the reasons they fail (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Backbone support requires assigned and dedicated staff, separate from the original participating partners, and focused on the ongoing operations of the initial collaboration. Without getting into specific roles and assignments, it is important to note CIM demonstrates the need to have this infrastructure in place, and that it be resourced properly, and in perpetuity, or until the collaboration is no longer needed. 4.2.D Roles This dissertation contends that collaborations often include four types of roles carried out by actors, contributing to the success of the collaboration. The four roles include: champion, sponsor, facilitator, and leader 41 . Each role has a distinct set of responsibilities and characteristics that contribute to the collaborative’s success. This is not to say that one person cannot fulfill multiple 41 The word “leader,” in the context of my collaborative governance framework, refers to the broad leadership exhibited from a public agency. In the context of this dissertation, the definition is very tightly designed to refer to the person, such as a Mayor, or group of people, such as a City Council, that set the broad vision for a city. 76 roles, nor that one person will fulfill the role throughout the collaboration’s life. Rather, this dimension of collaborative governance claims these roles need to be carried out in some way, shape, or form, by one person, multiple people or different people over time. A “champion” is a person or group of people who is the most-closely committed to the daily activities of the collaboration, ensuring the goals of the collaboration are being met. This role can be considered as the collaboration’s “caretaker.” Those in the caretaker role are the most direct hands-on contributors; they would be a person someone might credit with the success of the project, since they would be most-visibly involved, engaged, and committed to the collaboration’s success. “Sponsor” is a person or group of people, providing the key resources necessary to support the collaboration. These resources could include funding, staffing, contractors, supplies, or any other means necessary to launch and sustain the collaboration. Without the support of the sponsor(s), the collaboration would not have the financial means to administer its work. In some cases, funding comes from a grant, which the sponsor would have the control and obligation to provide the initial application and subsequent reports to pay for services or resources. “Facilitator” is a person or group of people, who is/are able to facilitate meetings, and help reach consensus at key points in the collaboration’s life. The facilitator ensures that all collaborators remain engaged and represented in the process, as decisions are made and compromises formed. Facilitators are often well-aware 77 of all members’ needs, and the appropriate procurement of those needs throughout the collaborative process. It would be the facilitator, for example, who would ensure there is continuous communication between partners, as described in the third dimension of collaborative governance – collective impact. Finally, the “leader” is the actor(s) with the broadest role. For the purpose of my research, the leader is considered to be from a public agency. Although all four sectors have leadership, this survey and research is local government-oriented, and therefore, I chose to focus on local government leadership. Further, in the context of this dissertation, the leader is a person or group of people at a public agency, who set the general vision for the organization, and inspires willingness to collaborate across sectors. The leader sets the tone of how supportive the primary public agency is of this partnership form. The leader does not necessarily control all collaboration resources, and therefore, is distinct from a sponsor. The leader may also not be involved in any of the day-to-day operations, making this role distinct from the champion or facilitator. The purpose of the leader’s role is to set the mission, vision, and general tone or posture of the collaboration. This research makes the assertion that the most critical leadership role in multi- sectoral collaborations is organized to solve a public agency’s wicked civic problem. It is normally the public agency that is identified as the initiator and originator of the collaboration, and as such, is typically encouraged with the responsibility to create the framework, orchestrating collaboration. Ansell and 78 Gash have a similar notion, in that, “public agencies have a distinctive leadership role in collaborative governance” (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 546). An assortment of research shares the importance of these roles, but may call them different names, or assign them to the same actor. Crosby and Bryson identify sponsors and champions as necessary roles in collaborative governance. “The personal leadership of champions and sponsors is vital throughout, but especially important in the early phases when the involvement of these people signals that a change effort may actually be sustained and successful” (Crosby & Bryson, 2005, p. 199). Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh refer to the importance of specific roles by describing the necessary leadership roles of sponsor, convener, facilitator / mediator and others (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011, p. 15). Thomson and Perry reiterate the importance of roles in collaborative governance by describing the role of various partners – convener, advocate, technical assistance provider, facilitator and funder – each playing a vital role in the collaboration’s success (Himmelman, 1996; Thomson & Perry, Collaboration Process: Inside the Black, 2006). 4.3 Data The survey was built with the understanding that sample size would be small, as compared to typical sample sizes used in statistical analysis; therefore, the number of respondents, and the quality and completeness of the results, limited the data pool. However, this survey was not designed to produce a large number 79 of samples for complex statistical analysis; rather, the intent was to draw attention to patterns and analyze frequencies within the responses to the survey questions, highlighting elements of the collaborative governance framework. Starting with 39 qualified projects, I received 28 responses (71%), and of those, only 24 completed most of the survey (61%); the remaining four were partially- complete. The latter four surveys still had value, so they were kept, but as will be discussed later, these four introduced variability in the results. These variabilities, however, did not affect observations or the outcomes discussed in this chapter. The 24 projects accounted for 23 cities – 20 in California. The majority of projects were recipients of the League of California Cities’ ‘Helen Putnam Award,’ with the three out-of-state having received the National League of Cities’ ‘Municipal Excellence Award.’ The survey was designed to evaluate my four dimensions of collaborative governance framework, as well as, one question explored any relationship to a selection of civic technologies, such as Geographic Information Systems, Open Data, or Citizen Engagement platforms. This last survey question was informational only, and was not included in this chapter, or the succeeding professional contributions chapter. The survey was a total of 52 questions, took most respondents less than 30 minutes to complete, and was broken into six sections: the first section was the welcome and information gathering about the respondents; next, four sections explored the four dimensions of collaborative 80 governance described in the methods chapter; and lastly, the sixth section explored the civic technologies mentioned above. The survey explored the first dimension of the collaborative governance model by asking respondents to rate the level of involvement from each of the four sectors – public, private, nonprofit, and citizen. It also asked how “strong” that involvement was, over the life of the project. The second dimension sought to measure how involved the collaboration was with the four elements of PSLO, as identified in the previous chapter. This section also rated how many of the sectors were involved in the four steps of PSLO – problem identification, problem solving, solution roll-out and feedback. In the survey, the third dimension measured the five conditions identified in CIM. For each of these conditions, the survey sought the degree to which the participants of the collaboration had a common agenda, actively used metrics, reinforced activities, engaged in continuous communication and had strong backbone support when the project was fully operational. For each of those conditions, the survey asked which of the four sectors were actively involved. The fourth dimension of my collaborative governance framework was explored by asking for the presence or absence of the four roles identified in the previous chapter – champion, facilitator, sponsor and leader. Finally, the last question explored the civic technologies in use during the time of collaboration. 81 4.4 Methods of Analysis I used a series of computer tools to complete the review, including Survey Monkey, Microsoft Excel and Google Docs. The survey was first designed in Survey Monkey; results were exported into an Excel spreadsheet, then cleaned and standardized. The average rating was recorded for each question across all respondents. This can all be seen in full detail in Exhibit A. These answers provide insight to how responses aligned and differed. I organized the data into frequency tables, so relationships between responses could be easily detected. As discussed earlier, the survey was broken into four dimensions, following the four dimensions of my collaborative governance framework. In each section of the survey, I created a frequency table that counted the total number of similar responses. For example, in the section of the survey where I measured sector involvement, I gave the respondent the option to rank involvement of each of the four sectors in the collaboration, from not involved to heavily involved. I then created a matrix by listing the sectors on the vertical axis and the level of involvement on the horizontal access. I documented the total number of responses in each of the categories for each of the sectors, color-coding each cell, depending on frequency count; cells with a high- frequency count, I colored red, and those with a low-frequency, yellow. I discuss the outcomes of these results in the analysis chapter. 82 In addition to the frequency tables based on responses to individual questions, I organized all 24 collaboration projects into one of four categories: capital improvement projects, civic engagement projects, projects promoting community health and education, and projects supporting economic development. These themes resulted from each projects review, and my experience dealing with a variety of collaborations. Based on the data, I recorded the involvement score, essentially a reflection of the answers from survey questions three, six, nine and ten. The average involvement score for each of the four categories was recorded for each of the four sectors; results are discussed in more detail in the following chapter. 4.5 Conclusion This research asserts that there are many reputable and established models of collaborative governance. Drawing on my experience / participatory-observation as a public official, I witnessed aspects of these models leading to successful collaborations. Drawing from respected academic research and professional experience, I propose a framework for collaborative governance, bringing together elements of established models. My framework for collaborative governance does not intend to take the place of, or improve on, any of these established models; it is, rather, a framework I observed in research and practice, detailing the dimensions necessary for successful multi-sector collaboration. The intent of this dissertation is to compare my model against a 83 survey of successful collaborations. My contribution to public administration practitioners is my collaborative governance framework, for use when deploying a multi-sectoral collaborative effort, while attempting to solve a wicked civic problem. A primary motivation for this dissertation was to provide a framework to address these wicked problems. In this chapter, I describe how I identified and surveyed award-winning collaborations committed to addressing wicked problems. The projects surveyed all required multi-sector collaboration in an effort to work toward a common solution. These challenges extended beyond any one sector’s technical ability and/or control. In contrast, this approach to problem solving may not be as effective to solve a “tame” problem, as defined in chapter one, that may be technical, but not beyond a single sector’s ability. The four dimensions of this collaborative governance framework include: i) the mix of sectors involved in the collaboration, ii) the methodology used to define and attempt to solve the problem, iii) rules and structure used during the course of the collaboration, and finally, iv) roles that are necessary for the collaboration to be successful. A survey tool was created and administered to award-winning, multi-sector collaborations, in an effort to determine dimension perspectives of the collaborative governance framework. The survey was not intended to prove the efficacy of the framework, but rather, explore if these dimensions were observed in such collaborations. Further, the survey analyzed if there were any notable 84 observations when looking at frequency data. Survey results were analyzed using a few comparative tools in Excel. The results of that analysis are explored further in the next chapter. 85 Chapter 5: Analysis 5.1 Introduction In this chapter, I explore the data and provide analysis of the outcomes. Results were considered two ways; the first overview, or pass, of the data provides an initial impression of the general trends of the data, while the second provides greater insight and depth into the data. In the first data pass, I looked specifically at primary trends apparent by comparing the results of the respondents across each of the four dimensions of the survey. In this same review, I found simple and clear areas where the respondents had similar responses. By highlighting these patterns, I could see the prevalence of certain findings that were in my collaborative governance framework. In a second data pass, I used frequency analysis of each of the data’s four dimensions to find relationships in the way respondents answered. This method highlights where the respondents aligned, as well as diverged, in every question. With the help of the associated frequency tables included in this section, less- obvious insights into the data become easy to detect. In addition, I organized projects into four general categories: i) capital improvement projects, ii) civic engagement projects, iii) projects promoting community health and education, and iv) projects supporting economic development efforts. Similar to the 86 approach described in the Introduction section of the Methods Chapter, I used frequency analysis to compare the average engagement score of each of the four sectors in each collaboration category. 5.2 Results – General Trends From a thorough examination, there were clear and obvious patterns worth exploring in the data. They not only validate certain aspects of the model, but provided some insights as to what patterns these successful collaborations had in common. I review these patterns in order of prominence. The one area of almost uniform alignment was around the four roles identified in my collaborative governance framework: champion, sponsor, facilitator, and leader. These roles came from both academic research and professional practice, where specific characteristics were deemed necessary for there to be a successful collaboration. Of the 24 responses, 20 of them completed the entire survey and finished the portion of the survey covering roles. For each of the four roles, the respondents were asked if that role was prominent, and if it persisted throughout the life of the collaboration. The four choices ranged from no involvement to clearly involved. The results were placed in a scale that include zero to three to capture all four possible choices. More information on the scale conversion can be seen in the Introduction section of the Methods Chapter. Out of a maximum of 3, the average response for the champion was 2.8, 2.95 for the 87 facilitator, and 2.85 for both sponsor and leader. All but one of the respondents rated the sponsor as present throughout the life of the collaboration. A second area of notable convergence was around PSLO – the notion that collaborators must follow a sequence of steps in order to solve a complex multi- sector problem. All 24 respondents answered questions about the loading order portion of the survey. Respondents were asked to what extent the collaborators were involved in the identification or definition of the actual problem or issue being targeted by the collaboration. Eleven of the respondents stated that all of members were involved in defining the problem, eleven more stated that some of the members were involved in defining the problem, and the remaining two respondents claimed only one member was involved in this decision, or that it never happened; therefore, 90% of respondents stated that some or all of the members of the collaboration were involved in defining the problem. The next question asked to what extent the collaborators were involved in the design of the solution to the problem identified. Similarly, over 90% stated that all or some of the members were involved in designing the solution, and the remaining two respondents claimed that only one member was involved in designing the solution, or that this step never happened. The third question was focused on the implementation of the solution, asking respondents to what extent collaborators were involved in the implementation of the solution. In other words, to what degree were the members of the collaboration involved in the solution to the problem. With three respondents 88 claiming only one of the members was involved with implementation, 87% of the respondents agreed that all or some of the members of the collaboration were involved in the implementation. The final question measured the degree of feedback throughout the collaboration. This question asked to what extent the collaborators were involved in providing constructive feedback to the parties that defined the problem, designed the solution, and/or implemented the solution. With three respondents claiming only one sector of the collaboration was involved in providing feedback, 87% of respondents agreed that all or some of the collaboration’s sectors were involved in providing feedback throughout the project. The majority of respondents indicated that some or all of the sectors involved had a part in the four steps of the loading order. The four survey question’s average response was either some or all of the sectors were involved either 87 or 90%. The comments section for survey questions suggest that the partnership mix depended on the project, and the expertise each particular sector brought to each step of the loading order. One of the respondents, for example, indicated that those involved in identifying the problem were not involved in solving it. Another respondent indicated that the private sector was brought in specifically to define the problem when dealing with economic development concerns. Further, another respondent indicated that when dealing with a civic engagement effort, the citizen sector was heavily involved in the definition of the problem. It was clear the majority of the respondents agreed there was importance in including 89 some, if not all, of the sectors involved in the collaboration through a sequence of problem solving, and providing feedback along the way. Another pattern developed when looking at the results of the survey that discussed the partnership mix, and longevity of the four sectors involved in the collaboration. For each of the four sectors, the survey explored the extent of involvement, followed by the strength of that involvement over time. In other words, how involved was each sector, and was that involvement maintained over time? All 24 respondents completed these questions. It was not surprising the public sector was involved in nearly all (79% or 19/24) of these collaborations. What was surprising, however, was that not all of these collaborations involved the public agency. I would have thought that the public agency would be critical for any successful multi-sectoral collaboration that aimed as addressing a “wicked” problem. As my research and professional experience suggest, the public agency is typically central to multi-sectoral collaborations. One of the more interesting findings from the data was that more than 20% of respondents claimed the public agency had moderate or limited involvement in partnership and decision making. Such results suggest these collaborations did not necessarily require the City to take active role in the process. This touches on a previous point discussed in this dissertation, namely, a growing trend in local government that seems to suggest that public agencies can be part of a successful multi-sectoral collaboration aimed at addressing a “wicked” problem without having to be the main contributor or participant. As seen in the 90 collaborations I surveyed, it is possible that the public sector is merely a stakeholder in the collaboration with limited partnership and decision making. Another interesting data trend concerned the citizen sector. It was quite apparent this sector was involved the most, and absent the least, of the non- public sectors. Compared to the nonprofit and private sectors, respondents rated the citizen sector as being the most involved. Furthermore, only one respondent indicated that the citizen sector was not involved in the collaboration; therefore, 23 respondents indicated the citizen sector played some role in the collaboration. It is evident, based on responses, most successful collaborations, at least at the local government level, involved the citizen sector. The survey’s Collective Impact Model section had the least obvious, yet most curious results. The five conditions described earlier in this dissertation were explored in the survey in two ways: first, each respondent was asked to identify the degree each of these five conditions of CIM were witnessed in the collaboration. Second, respondents were asked to identify which of the four sectors were involved in each of these five conditions. This survey section included ten questions, and was answered by 22 respondents. According to the results, of CIM’s five conditions, only one condition was viewed by the respondents as being present less often and not as relevant in the collaboration – use of measures. Over 60% of respondents indicated that metrics was used moderately or less to hold the members of the collaboration accountable. Only 36% of the respondents (8/22) indicated that 91 measures were used more than moderately. The other four conditions, however, were seen by respondents as more prevalent. In order of frequency, respondents rated the level of involvement in continuous communication as the highest, followed by having a common agenda, having backbone support, and finally engaging in reinforcing activities. Continuous communication proved to be the most-cited among respondents. As described in CIM, this condition outlines the degree of trust, reciprocity and respect among members involved. Essentially, the survey intended to discover the extent to which collaborators were in constant dialogue, fostering a fair and equitable partnership. Over 90% of the respondents indicated there was complete trust, or close to it, among partners involved. Agreement of a common agenda was the second area that respondents indicated was usually present. As discussed previously, having a common agenda indicated participants of the collaboration had a shared vision for the collaboration, one that included a common understanding of the problem, and a collective approach to solving it through agreed-upon actions. Of the 22 respondents, 86% (19) felt there was either close to or complete alignment in the agenda among all members. A third area addressed by the respondents was ‘backbone support.’ Kania and Kramer define backbone support as the extent to which there were dedicated resources, funding, and/or a separate organization formed to support the ongoing needs of the collaboration. (2011). In other words, were there adequate 92 resources and/or staffing in place, dedicated and focused on the needs of the collaboration to meet its ongoing goals? Of the 24 respondents, 82% (18) indicated there were adequate, or close to adequate, resources or staffing in place to support the collaboration’s ongoing goals. A fourth area addressed by the respondents was ‘reinforcing activities.’ This question measured the extent there was engagement by various partners in activities, supporting achievement of the project’s goal(s). Twelve of the respondents (55%) indicated that all partners were involved in mutually reinforcing activities, helping achieve the shared goals. Another interesting outcome from the model portion of the survey reflected which sectors were identified as being engaged in each of these five conditions. Respondents were asked to identify which of the four sectors were engaged in CIM conditions. In line with previous findings, in all five conditions, the public sector was involved most of the time. Interestingly, the citizen sector came in a strong second in all five CIM conditions. The two conditions that the citizen sector were not rated as second most-involved was backbone support and measurement. This is not surprising, as citizens are typically not tasked with maintaining collaboration once it is launched, or using metrics to hold a project team accountable. As I point out later in this chapter, this observation remains affirmed when data frequency analysis is performed. Another observation from the data was, next to the public sector, the private sector was rated as most involved in providing resources for backbone support. 93 It seems reasonable that the private sector can be useful in the collaboration’s operationalization, once it is stable. This is also explored in more detail later in this chapter, when I analyze data frequency. Generally speaking, the takeaways from this data are as follows. 1) The majority of the respondents indicated that all four of the roles were present in their collaborations. 2) There is also agreement that the first three steps of the PSLO were utilized. Feedback was the only step that had a slightly lower rating in the survey results. 3) There is an interesting indication that public agencies were not always actively involved in the partnership or decision making in these collaborations, corroborating some current trends in the practice of public administration. 4) Citizens were almost always involved in these collaborations, and were rarely not engaged at some level. 5) All of CIM’s conditions were identified as being present to some degree in these collaborations. 6) Also related to CIM, citizens were identified as a significant player in three of the conditions, but not backbone support and measurement. 94 7) Finally, respondents indicated the private sector was noticeably more involved in providing backbone support then all sectors other than the public sector. 5.3 Frequency Analysis This section explores each of the four dimensions independently and discusses patterns and outcomes realized. The result of this frequency analysis provides additional insight beyond what was discussed in this chapter’s general trends section. The frequency analysis organized all the answers to each question by frequency, providing additional insight to how some answers compared to others. In this section, I also organized the survey’s questions into four categories and compared similarities. In chapter six, I overlay the survey with my academic research and professional experience, offering a synthesis of this information, in order to offer suggestions regarding the professional contributions to public administration. This section builds on the previous one by exploring observations in the data that go further than what the general data analysis provides. Whereas, the general analysis provides the reader insights on how the data trends through the use of averages, the frequency analysis looks at how all the respondents answered each question. When looking at a range of possible survey answers, this analysis can demonstrate which side of that range the answers fell, as well as where, if any, respondents did not select answers. To simplify findings, I provided 95 color-coded frequency tables to highlight these attributes and help the reader visualize data trends. The following sections explore each of the four parts of the survey. These parts include Sector Involvement, Loading Order, Collective Impact Model, Roles and finally, the Collaboration Categories described earlier. Each section will describe how the data was organized, provide color-coded frequency tables that help illustrate my points, and reviews findings from the analysis. 5.3.A Frequency Analysis – Sector Involvement The first section of the survey comprised nine questions: included was one question directed at each of the four sectors regarding the extent of their engagement, another four questions targeting the strength of that engagement over time, and finally, one open-ended question asking respondents to report on other partners in the collaboration not captured by the survey. The pattern across the four sector’s level of engagement is depicted in the following frequency table. The number of responses for each of the four sectors is organized according to the five choices available to rank sector engagement. The choices provided to all respondents were: 1) heavily involved in most, if not all the decision making, and present at all the or most meetings; 2) moderately involved in decision making with limited attendance at meetings; 3) involved on a limited basis, or played in an advisory role for specific topics; or, 4) minimally 96 involved. For all but the public sector, a fifth choice was provided – “Not involved.” The results of questions 3, 6, 8, and 10 are seen below in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Extent of Sector Involvement in Collaboration Engagement Sector Heavily Moderate Limited Minimal Not Total Public 19 3 2 0 - 24 Nonprofit 5 3 4 3 9 24 Private 6 5 4 2 7 24 Citizen 8 3 7 5 1 24 Table cells are color-coded, based on the frequency count; red for high-frequency, yellow for low-frequency and white for cell counts not considered significant. As seen in Table 5.1, the public sector is by far the most engaged, followed by the citizen sector. Also apparent is the nonprofit and private sectors are more polarized, with more respondents claiming they are either heavily involved or not at all involved in the collaboration. The fewest respondents reported that citizens were not involved, as compared to private and nonprofit sectors. Interesting to point out, as well, is the citizen sector was relatively evenly-distributed across the top four choices of engagement, from ‘heavily’ to ‘minimally.’ As I discuss in more detail later, this is, in large part, due to the fact that citizens are needed in various and distinct parts of a collaboration. As some of the respondents described in open-ended questions, citizen sector engagement is not always consistent throughout the lifecycle of the collaboration. It may start and stop 97 depending on the type of the collaboration, and where the project is in its lifecycle. Another interesting observation also reinforcing one of the general trends discussed above is there were two cases where the public sector had limited involvement, suggesting the public sector does not always have to be in complete control of these collaborative projects. Respondents were also asked to rate the nature of the organization’s involvement in the partnership over time. The choices provided were: 1) strong from the beginning and through to the end, or the present; 2) strong at first, but waned over time; 3) moderate or weak from the beginning and stayed that way, or got weaker over time; or, 4) present only for a short stint at some point in the collaboration. For all but the public sector, a fifth choice was provided – “Not involved.” The results of that frequency analysis are seen below in Table 5.2. 98 Table 5.2 Strength and Duration of the Sector Involvement Sector Strength of Engagement over Time Strong Beginning to End Strong at Beginning Only Moderate throughout Short Stint Not Involved Total Public 21 1 1 1 0 24 Nonprofit 7 3 2 2 10 24 Private 7 2 5 3 7 24 Citizen 10 3 4 6 1 24 TOTAL 45 9 12 12 18 Similar to Table 5.1, the findings are conclusive. The public sector is seen as the most consistent participant, with the citizen sector second, and both the nonprofit and private sectors again demonstrating high polarity. It is interesting to note that, similar to Table 5.1, these were a few collaborations in which the public sector’s involvement was not strong throughout the project. This points to the possibility that cities can play a limited or shrinking role in successful multi-sector collaborations. In this nine-question section of the survey, there was one open-ended question asking respondents to report other public sector partners involved in the collaboration. In summary, responses to this question demonstrated participation in many of the collaborations extended beyond local government by including other public organizations, such as public schools, public safety and county 99 agencies, special purpose districts, and in some cases, state and federal agencies. The majority of the other public sector partners were public school districts. 5.3.B Frequency Analysis – Loading Order The next frequency analysis looked at the responses to PSLO questions. In this survey section, questions 12, 14, 16, and 18 asked respondents to consider the extent to which collaboration members were involved in each of the four PSLO steps. Respondent’s choices were: 1) all members were involved, 2) some of the members were involved, 3) members from one sector were primarily involved, or, 4) this step never happened. This same question was asked in relation to each of the four PLSO steps: 1) problem identification, 2) solution ideation, 3) solution implementation, and, 4) presence of feedback throughout the process. To see how the data was directly distributed, I color-coded results with red cells indicating a higher-frequency choice by respondents, and cells colored yellow indicating a lower-frequency choice (Table 5.3). 100 Table 5.3 Extent of Sector Involvement in Four Steps of Problem-Solving Loading Order Loading Order Steps Extent of Sector Involvement All Some One None Total Problem Identification 11 11 1 1 24 Solution Design 11 11 1 1 24 Implementation 12 9 3 0 24 Feedback 9 12 3 0 24 TOTAL 43 43 8 2 This matrix reinforces findings from earlier in this chapter. First, it is clear that nearly all of the respondents felt that all or some of the sectors were involved in all four PSLO steps. A closer look reveals that the first three steps of the loading order – problem identification through implementation – stand out slightly, in that a larger number of respondents felt all sectors were involved. However, the distinction between the first three steps and last step is less clear when looking at the total number of respondents that selected all and some sector involvement. Another way to describe this would be that nearly all the respondents agreed that either some or all of sectors where involved in all four PSLO steps. According to the survey, half of the 24 respondents indicated that only some of the sectors were involved in providing feedback. As discussed below, respondents’ comments reinforced the conclusion that feedback was something not done by all sectors. Predominantly, feedback was given by the citizen and 101 public sectors; this would explain why more respondents indicated that some, rather than all of the sectors, were involved in giving feedback. Following each question focused on PSLO steps, I asked respondents an open- ended question to provide further clarification, if needed. These were questions 13, 15, 17, and 19. Question 13 related to the loading order’s first step – defining the problem – and eleven respondents provided additional comments. Generally speaking, respondents indicated that some sectors were more suited to engage in this step, while other sectors were more suited to help in other loading order steps. One participant indicated that those who were involved in defining the problem were not necessarily involved in solving it, and vice versa. Some respondents reported the private sector was brought in after the solution was designed. Others felt the citizen sector was best suited to help define the problem, but not necessarily to be involved in implementation. The commonality among respondents was that these steps were important, but not all the sectors needed to be involved in every step; in fact, they were differentially suited to help in specific steps in the loading order. Seven respondents provided comments on the second step in the loading order – solution design. Similar to the previous question’s comments, respondents felt the citizen sector was better suited to define the problem, versus design the solution. One respondent indicated the citizen sector could define the problem, but did not know how to address it. 102 Seven respondents provided comments on the loading order’s third step – solution implementation. Those responses, similar to previous responses, indicated that involvement varied. Most agreed the public agency was best suited to implement the solution, but some agreed other sectors were involved at some point, and in various degrees, in the implementation. Although many of the respondents agreed the city was funding and supporting implementation, for the project to be maintainable, there needed to be involvement from other sectors. In response to the last step in the loading order – feedback – only three parties responded. The commonality between respondents was the public and citizen sectors were primarily the sectors that provided feedback. Although feedback was described as a separate PSLO step, and the survey addressed it separately, many of the responses to the first three open-ended questions described sector involvement in providing feedback. Based on respondent’s comments, it seems ‘feedback’ was provided by the participating sectors throughout the first three PSLO steps. In other words, based on all the comments provided, feedback was greatly manifest throughout the loading order, and was not a stand-alone step in the process. 5.3.C Frequency Analysis – Collective Impact Model This section of the survey explored CIM, accounting for questions 20 through 29. There were 22 responses to this survey portion, two fewer than the prior section. The survey explored all five CIM conditions: common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous 103 communication, and backbone support organizations. Each condition was explored in two ways, as the survey was designed to collect two perspectives about the five conditions. The first question asked about the degree to which collaboration participants were alignedin each CIM condition. These questions had the following five choices to rate the involvement: 1) there was no alignment, 2) there was somewhere between ‘no’ and ‘moderate’ alignment, 3) there was ‘moderate’ alignment, 4) there was somewhere between ‘moderate’ and ‘complete’ alignment, and lastly, 5) there was ‘complete’ alignment. The second set of questions asked respondents to identify which of the sectors involved in each Collective Impact Model condition. I created a frequency table for each of the two sets of questions, summarizing all responses. The first frequency table displays the number of answers in each response category for each Collective Impact Model condition, with cells color- coded red for greater frequency response and yellow for less frequency (Table 5.4). 104 Table 5.4 Extent to Which Each of the Five Conditions of the Collective Impact Model was Present in the Collaboration Five Condition of the Collective Impact Model To what degree did the participating sectors engage in each condition of the Collective Impact Model Complete Moderate><Complete Moderate None><Moderate None Total Common Agenda 8 11 3 0 0 22 Measurement 5 3 9 3 2 22 Reinforcing Activities 12 3 6 1 0 22 Communication 11 9 1 1 0 22 Backbone Support 8 10 3 1 0 22 TOTAL 44 36 22 6 2 Results from this frequency analysis align with the general data trends discussed earlier in this chapter, but provide greater insight. Overall, the majority of respondents felt there was more than moderate alignment among the sectors involved in all Collective Impact Model conditions, other than measurement. A closer look at the data suggests sectors involved were most aligned around three of CIM’s conditions: common agenda, communication, and backbone support. Another observation is that very few respondents thought the sectors involved were less than moderately aligned in any of CIM’s five conditions, with most of this again found in the measurement condition. The second frequency analysis explores the specific sectors involved in each of the five conditions. Table 5.5 provides this detail, with color-coded results to highlight sectors heavily involved in each of the conditions. The maximum 105 number in each cell is 22, which would mean the sector identified was involved in that particular condition in all 22 collaborations. Table 5.5 Sectors Involved in Five Conditions of the Collective Impact Model Condition of the Collective Impact Model Sectors Involved Public Private Nonprofit Citizen Total Common Agenda 19 8 10 16 53 Measurement 19 5 7 6 37 Reinforcing Activities 19 10 9 13 51 Communication 20 9 6 13 48 Backbone 19 9 8 8 44 TOTAL 96 41 40 56 One clear observation from this analysis is the public sector being identified as involved in each condition by nearly all of the 22 respondents. Also of note was that the common agenda condition had the most involvement by all sectors, followed by reinforcing activities and communication. Another distinct outcome from the frequency table is that backbone and measurement were conditions that had the fewest instances of sector involvement. I explore these findings, as they relate to the practice of public administration, in the next chapter. 106 5.3.D Frequency Analysis – Roles My collaborative governance framework and the survey identify four key actors, referred to as “Roles.” The four survey questions exploring this dimension were completed by 20 of 24 respondents. Questions 30 through 33 asked respondents to identify if each role, as defined earlier, was enacted during the collaboration. The response choices were: 1) the role was clearly present throughout the project; 2) the role was present at the beginning, but waned over time; 3) the role was present, but played a weak or ineffective role; as well as, 4) the role was not present. Results again are color-coded based on level of frequency. Table 5.6 Extent of the Four Roles in the Collaboration Extent of Involvement in Collaboration Roles Clear Beginning Weak/Ineffective None Totals Champion 18 1 0 1 20 Sponsor 19 0 0 1 20 Facilitator 19 1 0 0 20 Leader 18 1 0 1 20 TOTAL 74 3 0 3 Analysis results again support general data trends reviewed earlier, but with help of the frequency analysis, added perspective is available. It is very clear from the frequency table that, in nearly all of these projects, all roles were clearly present and lasted throughout the collaboration. It is also apparent none of the 107 respondents indicated roles were weak or ineffective. Although outliers are few – six in total, the data imply that these roles are not only clearly needed, but are almost always present in these successful collaborations. These results will be addressed further in the next chapter. 5.3.E Frequency Analysis – Collaboration Categories In this section of my analysis, I organized all 24 collaborative projects into four general categories. The first category includes ‘capital improvements,’ referring to large public works or related construction projects. The second is ‘civic engagement efforts’ designed to build community engagement, participation or coordination, with the main public agency involved in the collaboration. In this category, the projects have the intent to promote citizen involvement, and as a result, bring awareness to issues or challenges being experienced by the community. The third category, ‘community health and education,’ includes projects intended to enhance public education, or increase awareness of a particular public health or social justice issue. The final category is ‘economic development;’ these collaborations are intended to spur economic growth in the form of job creation, business development, increased sales tax generation, tourism, and other measures enhancing traditional economic development. This frequency analysis divides responses into four categories, and organized into the four sectors. The number in each of the corresponding cells is the average involvement rating as detailed in questions three, six, eight, and ten, divided by the total number of collaborations in that category. As described in 108 the methods chapter, the answers to these questions were given a score from zero to four, based on the response. As with previous frequency analyses, results were color-coded, with red cells reflecting higher average involvement by that sector in that type of collaboration, and yellow cells indicating lower involvement. Table 5.7 Sector Involvement Among Collaboration Categories Collaboration Category Count Average Sector Involvement Score Total Average Public Nonprofit Private Citizen Capital Improvement 5 3.2 0.2 1.2 2.8 7.4 1.9 Civic Engagement 8 3.6 2.0 1.6 3.5 10.8 2.7 Community Health and Education 5 4.0 3.4 2.0 1.6 11.0 2.8 Economic Development 6 3.7 1.0 3.5 1.7 9.8 2.5 Total 24 14 7 8 10 It should be noted first that sample size for each category is relatively small; although we can make some observations, such will be tempered by my literature review and/or my professional experience, before conclusions are made. The purpose of this analysis is to use the data from the survey to explore additional data patterns as seen in clusters of collaborations that have some common attributes. The results further highlight observations related to collaborative governance and my collaborative governance framework. 109 One observation from this frequency analysis is that the public sector is most often heavily involved in civic engagement, community health and education, and economic development collaborations, whereas it scored the lowest in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), out of the four categories. Even though public sector involvement was the highest of the four sectors in the CIP category it was still the lowest of the four categories. One might think that, because of the nature of the large public improvements being made, the public sector would be a significant player. In looking at the results, although non-public sector engagement was low it was clear that other non-public sectors were involved in these CIP’s. Three of the five collaborations had more than one public agency involved in the project. These other public agencies include other cities as well as regional and state agencies. This could have affected the score attributed to public sector involvement if in some cases, for example, the public agency completing the survey was not the main agency involved in the collaboration or if there role was diluted by a more prominent role of another agency. In any case this could have resulted in a lower score for question 3 which was asking for the respondent’s public sector participation. Another interesting observation from the data suggested a relatively higher citizen sector involvement as compared to the other two non-public sectors. The reason for this, in these projects, was that they all had a large construction and operational impact on the public. Therefore, getting the citizen sector 110 involvement early in the process ensured future impacts could be mitigated and/or avoided resulting in a smoother project. The fact that these were award winning projects is evidence that the public interest was not forgotten and one of the reasons the projects were deemed exceptional. Another interesting observation is the categories that seemed to garner the greatest participation across all four sectors were civic engagement and community health and education. Again, this finding will be addressed in detail in the next chapter. However, for the purposes of initial observations, civic engagement had very high engagement from the public and citizen sectors, which seems reasonable, considering that ‘civic engagement’ targets citizens and their collaboration with the public sector. Based on the cluster of community health and education collaborations it seems reasonable that the reason the public and non-profit engagement is so high is that these two groups have the distinct pre-disposition and mission that would be best suited to reach the citizen sector as the target audience. In other words, the public sector, working in the interest of the public has a vested interested in positive outcomes and the non- profit sector, given their mission driven focus, is also well suited to work in collaboration with the public sector to leverage positive outcomes that align with their purpose. A final observation is the private sector involvement being low in all these categories except for economic development. Again, this finding seems reasonable, since the private sector’s involvement is imperative when spurring 111 economic development. The fundamental take away from this analysis is that the second main sector participant, after the public sector, varies depending on the project type – private in economic development, nonprofit in community healthcare/education, and citizen in the other two. 5.4 Conclusion The data in this analysis resulted from a custom survey designed with Survey Monkey, and the survey was administered to representatives from numerous award-winning, cross-sector collaborations. Survey results were analyzed using the tools in Survey Monkey and Microsoft Excel. Data were analyzed at two levels; the first level of analysis was searching for general trends in the survey data, and the second level used frequency analysis to highlight trends, patterns and observations in the data. Frequency analysis was applied to each of the four collaborative governance framework dimensions captured in survey questions 3 through 33. An additional frequency analysis was applied to the first section of the survey (sector involvement) by examining the results for four collaboration project categories. In reviewing general data trends, the findings are numerous across all four sections of the survey. First, the majority of respondents agreed there was clearly a person filling each of the four roles identified in the collaborative governance framework. Second, nearly all the respondents agreed that either some or all of the sectors that participated in the collaboration were involved in all four PSLO steps. Third, evidence regarding both the level and duration of sector 112 engagement indicates cities are not always in the ‘driver’s seat’ in these collaborations, corroborating previous research findings. A fourth finding is that citizens were almost always involved, and rarely not engaged at some level. Fifth, in the CIM model, participants were actively engaged in most of the five conditions, the exception being the measurement of collaborative performance. Sixth, also related to CIM, citizens were identified as active players in three of these conditions, but not ‘backbone support’ and ‘measurement.’ Finally, respondents indicated the private sector was slightly more involved in providing ‘backbone support’ than most other sectors, other than the public sector. This was reinforced in the open ended comments section where respondents indicated that the private sector was more suited to operationalize the collaboration once it was underway. In reviewing frequency data, general data overview findings were reinforced, and additional insights discovered. As it relates to involvement, responses regarding the citizen sector were evenly distributed across the four levels of engagement, from ‘heavy’ to ‘minimal.’ As discussed earlier, according to the open-ended PSLO comments, some respondents indicated citizen sector involvement was dependent on the collaboration stage. Therefore, this could, for some collaborations, explain the distribution across the four levels of engagement. Frequency analysis related to PSLO provided additional insight into why feedback was rated as happening less often than the three other loading-order steps. As seen in respondents’ comments, feedback is not usually provided by 113 all sectors. Predominantly, feedback is given by the citizen and public sectors; this explains why more respondents indicated feedback was provided by some, rather than all sectors. Frequency analysis related to CIM revealed interesting findings, as well. One finding is that very few respondents thought any of the sectors involved were less than moderately aligned in any of CIM’s five conditions. This implies the majority of respondents felt the conditions of CIM were important, at some level, to all sectors participating. Also notable was that the ‘common agenda condition’ had the greatest level of sector involvement, followed by a three way tie between ‘reinforcing activities’, ‘communication’, and ‘backbone support.’ The two conditions that were rated as having the fewest instances of sector involvement were ‘backbone’ and ‘measurement.’ As I discuss in the next chapter, these few instances of 'backbone' and 'measurement' have a lot to do with some sectors being better-suited to participate in different types of collaborations, and at different points in the collaboration lifecycle. Frequency analysis, as it relates to ’roles,’ highlighted some less-than-obvious takeaways. Most notable, none of the respondents felt roles were ‘weak’ or ‘ineffective.’ Roles were being carried out in most cases, and when present, they were effective, either throughout the project or at least at the beginning. Since the outliers are few – only six –the data imply that roles were clearly present and are rarely carried out ineffectively. 114 Lastly, the frequency analysis examining the level of involvement in the four collaboration categories proved to be very insightful (Table 5.7). One distinct observation was, relative to the four collaboration categories, the public sector is often heavily involved in civic engagement, community health and education, and economic development collaborations, but less so in, capital improvement projects. As I discuss further in the next chapter, this confirms my professional experience. Another interesting observation is, the categories that seemed to garner the greatest participation across the four sectors, were civic engagement and community health and education. Again, this seems reasonable when related to professional experience in dealing with collaborations. And finally, as seen in the frequency analysis, the three non-public sectors had a broad range of involvement in each of the four collaboration categories. The reason for this will be explored in detail in the next chapter. Suffice to say, the reason these variations in engagement were reflected in survey responses, has to do with what different sectors contribute to different collaborations. 115 Chapter 6: Contributions to Professional Practice 6.1 Introduction This chapter is a culmination of my literature review for this dissertation, the analysis of my custom survey, and my twenty years of professional experience in the public sector. This dissertation is written for the seasoned elected or appointed public official, valuing information that will improve their ability to govern. The Doctorate of Planning Policy and Development is a professional doctorate intended to add value to the field of practice. My career over the last four years, while working on my doctoral studies, was spent in the City of Palo Alto developing a brand-new department focused on creating a multi- departmental collaborative. The lessons learned from that experience oriented my research and interest in collaborative governance. Therefore, many of the findings and results of my literature review and survey were in line with my professional experience in the last four years at Palo Alto, as well as in the sixteen years prior. Therefore, this chapter will consider the findings of my literature review and survey results in light of my professional experience. In the event that my professional experience does not align with the research findings, I will explain my professional perspective, avoiding any definitive findings. Instead, I will explain my professional opinion and leave an open window for further research opportunities. When my research aligns with my professional experience, I will 116 explain how my professional experience is compatible with research and or how “real world” examples of successful collaborations provide context and perspective to my findings. The following sections describe specific findings realized in the course of my literature review and survey analysis. Each section is supported by examples and related to my professional experience. These findings are intended to be contributions to the field of public administration, either being new discoveries or affirmations of professional intuition. 6.2 Importance of Roles Both my literature review and my survey results underscore the importance of the four roles I laid out in my collaborative governance framework – champion, facilitator, sponsor, and leader. These roles were clearly enacted in almost all of the projects surveyed. As discussed in the methods chapter, there is literature in the field of collaborative governance that supports the importance of these roles. My professional experience aligns with these findings as well, and would suggest that there is a strong relationship between these four roles and successful multi- sectoral collaborations. More specifically, based on the frequency analysis, the sponsor was the one role that could be considered the most valued of the four. This role was the only selection that was always clearly present, short of one respondent. This also 117 parallels my professional experience, as I have found funding is the most important factor in ensuring a multi-sectoral project is successful. Speaking again from professional experience, the champion and facilitator role are also incredibly important, as these roles play a key part in ensuring that stakeholders are engaged and the mission and purpose of the collaboration is intact. As an example, in my current career role, I personally perform all three of these roles, as head of a multi-sectoral department designed to deal with complicated multi- departmental challenges. Not only do I fund all the activities in my cross- departmental function, I also champion the cause and facilitate ongoing dialogue with my stakeholders to ensure they remain informed and engaged. This all takes committed and focused energy that otherwise could quickly dissipate. In this dissertation, I describe the “leader” in the context of my collaborative governance framework as the role of the City Council or Mayor that sets the general tone and direction of the elected leadership of the city, As discussed in my Analysis chapter, the leadership role is also one that the majority of the survey respondents saw being carried out in their collaboration. From my professional perspective, however, I would add some additional nuance to this finding. Although the leadership of the elected officials is important, I would say that in some cases, a city can have a successful multi-sectoral collaboration, despite the support of elected officials. In situations where staff realizes the importance of collaboration, and even when for political reasons does not garner the support of elected officials, there still could be positive outcomes from said collaboration. Although the support of the elected leadership is important for the 118 public agency’s overall health and organizational structure, there can still be successful collaborations in agencies where the “leadership” are not supportive of multi-sector partnerships. In practice, individual projects can achieve success, despite the lack of support of their elected leadership. A collaboration’s success is more dependent on there being the sponsorship necessary to fund the partnership, the champions to carry the cause, and the facilitators to help moderate for a successful collaboration. The lack of leadership in the form of support from the elected officials may be an obstacle, but not an insurmountable barrier. I find successful collaboration can more often be achieved with strong and supportive elected leadership, but there are cases where collaborative projects can achieve success with a strong and committed team of champions, sponsors, and facilitators. This is an area of my research that I would suggest be further developed. In light of my findings about roles, I would make some recommendations for practitioners within local government. There are few positions that have the authority or charter to work across departments, within or outside the city 42 . In light of the growing trend for local governments to collaborate with other public agencies as well as with other sectors to accomplish shared goals, I suggest cities continue to support the creation of these cross-cutting positions, assigning a champion to address these types of multi-sectoral wicked problems. Provided they are given the support they need, these multi-sector managers could act as 42 These positions include the City Manager / Administrator, as well as their Assistant or Deputy. 119 delegates of the city, cutting through organizational lines and silos, accomplishing shared goals, helping provide the direction in addressing civic problems. As noted in the projects surveyed, these roles clearly exist and have been effective in shepherding award-winning collaboration projects. Further, while these cities have a wide range of demographics, population size, budgets, and structures, the one thing they have in common is they value the roles that cater to the success of multi-sector collaborations. A lesson learned is the importance of establishing these multi-sector manager roles in an organization, or at least within the collaboration, in order to improve the chances of a successful cross- sectoral collaboration. 6.3 Importance of Problem-Solving Loading Order Another area of importance is the PSLO. As a local government practitioner, I can see how an organized approach to problem solving can produce better results. My professional experience running multi-sector teams of stakeholders through the steps described in the loading order reinforce some of the findings of my research. When engaging in the steps of the loading order I am able to achieve greater buy-in the process and support for the outcomes. A recent example here in Palo Alto has been the formation of our City’s “Green Building Advisory Group.” This is a group of stakeholders from all four sectors, coming together to chart the future of how sustainable the City’s built environment will be 120 in the future. The effort began with a day-long retreat designed to define the problems associated with our new and existing buildings / development, in terms of their environmental impacts. This single day retreat was followed by more events focused on designing solutions, and ended with an implementation plan that involved all the partners. Throughout the process, feedback was welcomed and encouraged. The result has been an award-winning “Green Building Code” and respective vision. The vision has received the overwhelming support of the Palo Alto city council, the diverse set of stakeholders who helped create it, as well as other trade organizations, cities and nonprofits that have asked us to share our results. Based on the survey results discussed in Chapter Five, most of the respondents agreed that the sectors involved in the collaboration were engaged in these four steps of the loading order, as seen in Chapter 4.2.B. The open-ended questions provided a bit more color to this analysis, as respondents reported that some sectors were more equipped to be involved in some steps than others. Specifically, some respondents felt that the citizen sector was better equipped to identify the problem than solve it. Furthermore, depending on the purpose of the collaboration, some sectors were better suited for involvement in different phases of the collaboration. For example, in collaborations involving economic development, some of the respondents reported that the private sector was better suited to provide feedback on the problem and possible solutions, but not to implement the fix. 121 Regarding the PSLO, the contribution to practice is the recognition that, when pursuing a multi-sectoral collaborative, there is value in getting stakeholders to engage in the steps of the loading order. This orderly approach to problem solving by all stakeholders ensures cooperation and buy-in from all those involved. Both research and practice describe collaborative governance as a slow and laborious endeavor that should be entered into carefully and with purpose (Ansell & Gash, 2007). 6.4 Public Sector Role in Collaborations Collaborative governance is a process that involves, but is not necessarily reliant on, a public agency to achieve its goals. A partnership between multiple sectors can accomplish collaborative goals, with the public sector occupying a seat at the table, but without having to take complete control and ownership of the problem and/or the solution. This survey was designed to assess award-winning collaborations, where a local government agency was the applicant and recipient of the award; yet, there were a surprising number of respondents that claimed the city was not driving the solution. As described in the literature review, there are a growing number of cases in which cities are not driving solutions to wicked problems, rather, they are simply playing an “advisory” role. One respondent in my survey indicated that the city’s role was not primary or significant in the efforts of the collaboration; rather, it was the school district and citizen sector taking the lead. 122 Government agencies cannot continue to drive and chair all collaborations designed to solve wicked problems. Instead, government needs to establish frameworks and structures, allowing collaborations to form and prosper with cities at the table, but not at the helm. As discussed earlier in this dissertation, technology-enabled examples of Government 2.0 offer inspiration and models to examine. Earlier, we discussed Ushahidi as an example of how solutions can be crowdsourced, helping leverage government services like public safety. Solutions like this allow public safety officials to focus on responding to incidents quickly and efficiently, thereby improving government productivity. Partnerships like this allow for the greatest chance of success against wicked problems. The contribution to the practice of public administration is to suggest that the public sector need not take the lead in resolving every wicked problem. Instead, it can attempt to bring more stakeholders from various sectors to the table, offering to contribute to the cause not lead every effort. The public sector should find creative ways to provide leadership and input from the sideline, without taking ownership of every complicated problem. This could potentially allow the public sector to extend their reach and expand their capacity in helping solve more problems. 123 6.5 Importance of Citizen Engagement The role and appetite for citizen partnerships in defining and solving complex civic problems is growing; I see this in my research, and in my professional experience. During the course of conducting and analyzing survey results, the elevated involvement of citizens in these collaborations was observed. Next to the public sector, the citizen sector was most involved and present. Furthermore, it was rare they were not involved at some level. In other words, citizen engagement is not only important for successful collaborations, but it is rare that successful collaborations exclude citizens. Another observation from the survey respondents was that citizen engagement was relatively evenly distributed across the four levels of engagement, from ‘heavily’ to ‘minimally.’ Based on the results of the written feedback, I was able to discern that respondents felt that the citizen sector was well suited to contribute in certain phases of the collaboration, more than others. For example, respondents reported that the citizen sector was very helpful in defining the problem or providing feedback, but the public sector was more equipped to implement the solution. Furthermore, as described in my frequency analysis of the collaboration categories, I describe how, depending on the category of the collaboration, the citizen sector may be more or less involved. In collaborations intended to improve civic engagement, for example, the citizen sector was very involved while, economic development was less involved. 124 This also confirms my professional experience with the citizen sector. Collaborations that involve a large and diverse set of citizens are well suited to provide feedback when the topics are broad and focused on the community or city scale. When topics become more granular, such as they do when we start developing implementation strategies, the citizen sector involvement thins out, and typically all that are left in the discussions are the technical experts and policy makers. My professional experience also suggests that the citizen sector engagement depends heavily on the topic. When dealing with topics that have wide public interest, such as community policing strategies, the citizen sector participation is more important than when dealing with projects that might have less direct impact on the citizen, such as attracting new commercial development downtown. The latter would attract greater participation from private sector merchants and business owners than average citizens. The contribution to practice for public officials is to consider the importance of engaging the citizen sector at the appropriate time and for the appropriate type of project when addressing a wicked problem. Although the citizen sector may not be involved in the entire process, their engagement, at some level within the process, will ensure better outcomes than the alternative. Depending on the purpose of the collaboration, citizens may play less or more of a role, but it is rare that the citizen sector is not involved at some level for any collaboration. When, how, and how much to engage the public sector is a separate question that was not completely answered in this dissertation. Needless to say, what this dissertation did stress is that engaging the citizen sector early and often seemed 125 to be a tactic used by most successful collaborations when addressing wicked problems. 6.6 Importance of Subscribing to the Principles of the Collective Impact Model Based on the results of the survey there were favorable perceptions of sector participation in the conditions of CIM. The majority of respondents agreed that there was greater than average alignment among the sectors most involved in the CIM conditions. The only exception was the measurement condition. My professional experience and literature review both support the use of the entire Collective Impact Model. In fact, one of the collaborations surveyed used a consultant to implement the entire Collective Impact Model in their efforts to build consensus and cooperation from all the stakeholders involved. In their feedback about their project, the respondents acknowledged that all of the conditions of CIM were instrumental in their efforts and their experience, with the model affirming the value of the process. The lack of involvement in the use of measurement as noted by the respondents was not surprising, since measurement and metrics has been a new and emerging tool for local government. My professional experience would suggest that these findings do not minimize the importance of measurements. As described earlier, there is a growing interest in data and analytics in local government. Had the measurement tools been around during these 126 collaborations, there may have been a stronger opinion about the use of measurements. I often use metrics to track various performance inputs, outputs, and outcomes that relate to the monitoring of collaborative projects I am engaged in. Today, with the rise of performance analytic software, such as Tableau, and vendors that implement these solutions, the ability to build and use performance dashboards 43 has become simpler. Given recent advancements in performance software, the projects studied in the survey may have not had the fortune of using these tools. The performance tools enjoyed by public officials today have just recently become available, and therefore, were not readily available during the lifetime of many surveyed projects. The contributions to the practice of public administration would be to simply implement the five conditions of CIM when using collaborative governance in addressing wicked problems. As described above the use of the CIM has proven to be of benefit to other successful collaborations as well as in my professional practice. The five conditions provide guidelines that help organize the collaboration and help ensure that all the collaborators stay engaged and productive toward accomplishing a shared definition of success. 43 “Professional Dashboards,” in this context, refers to a graphical display of data designed to provide the user at-a-glance views of key performance indicators relevant to a business process or objective. 127 6.7 Importance and Purpose of the Private Sector The value the private sector brings to a multi-sector collaboration has been discussed at various points in this dissertation. The survey also highlights that value, and, in particular, draws attention to the need for engaging the private sector when a multi-sector collaboration moves into more of an ongoing operational mode. The notion of partnering with the private sector to operationalize a multi-sector collaboration, once a solution is in place, resonated with survey respondents. It is also something that aligns with my professional practice. Once a multi-sector project is underway, it needs an ongoing funding source in order for it to sustain the collaboration’s goals. One way to do this is with the help of the private sector. If there is a way to earn a profit while maintaining the original purpose of the collaboration, then the private sector can be a great asset to the continued survival and prosperity of the program. Although not all projects are intended to be self-sufficient, those that can may find value in partnering with the private sector. One of the collaborations surveyed was focused on addressing family homelessness. The project was initiated as a multi-sectoral collaboration between public, private, citizen and nonprofit sectors. Eventually, once the program was developed and launched, it was converted into a sustaining business that could continue addressing the collaboration’s original needs. The importance of creating a revenue stream to sustain the on-going administration of 128 the program is key to the notion of ‘backbone support,’ and the private sector is often best suited to help in this area. 6.8 Opportunities for Further Research Collaborative governance is a growing area of study and practice. My research examined what seems to be common to award-winning collaborations. Missing is an evaluation criteria that could be used to analyze more of these collaborations, rather than relying on publicly-available information about award- winning collaborations. An area of discovery may also be in developing a way to insert aspects of hundreds of multi-sector collaborations into a relational database. Possibly, with the use of a larger set of data, more findings could be made about what elements are important for collaborations involving capital projects versus social programs, versus economic development collaborations. It would seem there needs to be a different mix of attributes to make some collaborations more successful than others. I would also contend that research should be done around the area of collaborations that failed to meet expectations. A study of non-successful collaborations, highlighting the pitfalls of collaborations gone wrong, should also be undertaken. These cases are rarely publicized, and it may be difficult to draw 129 findings from such research. However, if there were a way to collect this data, there may be great value in learning from the mistakes of others. 6.9 Conclusion Collaborative governance offers opportunities to help address wicked civic problems, such as those projects surveyed in this dissertation. The results of my literature review, the analysis of my survey results, and my professional experience were all used to identify contributions to the practice of public administration. The results demonstrate that there is value in the collaborative governance framework when looking at it from all three of these perspectives. Based on my aforementioned literature review, surveys, and professional experience, I suggest there are four elements, as described in my collaborative governance framework, that need to be present to promote successful multi- sector collaborations. These include: 1) an appropriate mix of involvement from the four sectors, 2) the enactment of the four roles, 3) application of the four steps of the PSLO, and 4) application of the five conditions described in the CIM. This dissertation reviews all four sectors with a concentration on how they have changed over time to support collaboration across sectors. In the course of the review, I found there is a growing number of wicked problems and interest in solving them. As discussed earlier, these are complex problems that are hard to solve without the collaborative efforts of multiple sectors. Based on the review of 130 the literature and my professional experience, I created a collaborative governance framework that captured the key aspects of how these multi-sectoral collaborations can improve their chances of tackling these types of problems. Then, to test my framework, I surveyed award-winning collaborations and analyzed the results in two ways. I first reviewed the general outputs of the data looking for obvious trends and patterns, then grouped responses to each question into frequency tables, highlighting the most popular answers. In light of my literature review, survey results, and professional experience, I crafted recommendations for the practice of public administration to support more successful approaches to collaborate across sectors. The insights can be summarized in the following. Collaborative governance is a tool that has become embraced by all four sectors to address multi-sectoral wicked problems. In an effort to address these problems, there is value in collaborating with a combination of the four sectors, although not necessarily all at once, or throughout the entire process. In some examples the research represents the possibility that results could be achieved without the public sector driving the collaboration, but rather by having a seat at the table. It is beneficial to engage the stakeholders of a collaboration in a process of solving multi-sector problems together. Not only is citizen engagement important early and often, but it is rare that collaborations will succeed without engaging citizens at some level. There is great wisdom in the attributes of CIM, and as such, these should be considered as necessary conditions in any multi-sector collaboration. Finally, the 131 private sector adds the greatest value in offering ways to operationalize collaboration, once it is underway and needs to become self-sufficient. 132 Bibliography Affairs, V. (2010). GI Bill Benefits and History. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from GI Bill: www.gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline Agrawal, A. (2007). A Greener revolution in the making? Environmental governance in the 21st century. Environment, 49:36–45. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Public Administration Review, 543-571. Behr, P. (2000, October 18). Big firms Join to Share Greenhouse-Gas Cuts. The Washington Post. Beresford, D. R. (2003). Report of Investigation [WorldCom]. New York: Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of Worldcom, Inc.. Bourgon, J. (2011). A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving in the 21st Century. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen's University Press. Boyd, L. D. (2013, January). The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Local Government - The Depth and Length of Cuts in State-Local Government Employment Is Unprecedented. New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Local Government. Brady, D. (2012). Volunteerism as a Core Competency. Bloomberg Businessweek, Issue 4304, p53, 2p. Brobeck, S. (1990). The modern consumer movement: references and resources. Boston, Mass: G.K. Hall. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court May 17, 1954). Bryson, J. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 44-55. 133 Cacities.org. (n.d.). Charter Cities: A Quick Summary for the Press and Researchers. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from www.cacities.org: http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/03/0384277b-0e15-4421- b252-052b3f5c5dcc.pdf California Building Standards Commission. (2016). California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). Retrieved August 14, 2016, from Information About the Codes: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx Callus, A. (2013, February 5). Smaller BP's profits down as oil spill trial looms. (S. Walker, Editor) Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-results-urgent-idUSBRE91409C20130205 Calmes, J. (2012, November 15). Politics. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/the-fiscal-cliff- explained.html?_r=0 Camillus, J. C. (2016). Wicked Strategies: How Companies Conquer Complexity and Confound Competitors. London: University of Toronto Press. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ciment, J. (2013). Recession of 2007--2009. In R. Chapman & J. Ciment (Eds.), Culture wars in America: An encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 156 Cong Rec S332 (Federal 2010). Code for America. (2010). http://codeforamerica.org/about/#sthash.SqPbHXI9.dpuf. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://codeforamerica.org/about/#sthash.SqPbHXI9.dpuf: Cook, B. J. (1996). Bureaucracy and self-government: reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. Baltimore: JHU Press. Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). A Leadership Framework for Cross-Sector Collaboration. Public Management Review, 177-201. 134 Czerwinski, S. J. (2010). Fiscal Pressures could have implications for future delivery of intergovernmental programs. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office. Dadayan, L., & Boyd, D. J. (2013, January). The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Local Government - The Depth and Length of Cuts in State-Local Government Employment Is Unprecedented. The Depth and Length of Cuts in State-Local Government Employment Is Unprecedented. New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Local Government. Davey, M., & Walsh, M. W. (2013, July 18). Billions in Debt, Detroit Tumbles Into Insolvency. Billions in Debt, Detroit Tumbles Into Insolvency. New York, New York: The New York Times. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review, Volume 60, Issue 6, pages 549–559. Dodd, J. E. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, pp. 1145–1163. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65- 91. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Frameword for Collaborative Governance. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1-29. Environmental Deffence Fund. (2013, September 30). Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. Form 990 / IRS (2012 Filing), p. 1/63. Fahey, J., & Kahn, C. (2012, March 3). BP begins to put spill behind it with settlement. (The Associated Press) Retrieved March 3, 2013, from Boston.com: http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/03/bp_begins_to_put_spil l_behind_it_with_settlement/ 135 Fry, B. (1989). Mastering Public Administration; from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers. Gaebler, T., & Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Group Ltd. Gardner, R. R. (2012, November 28). U.S. bans BP from new government contracts after oil spill deal. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-contracts-idUSBRE8AR0M120121128: Getha-Taylor. (2009). Where's (Dwight) Waldo? Public Performance & Management Review No. 4, 32: 574-578. Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and Administration, 10-11. Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and administration, A Study in Government. Politics and Administration, 10-11. GovDelivery. (2013). Top 2013 Trends for State and Local Government. Cincinattii: GovDelivery. Greenpeace. (August 2012). Guide to Greener Electronics. AZ Amsterdam: Greenpeace. Haley, U. C. (1991). Corporate Contributions As Managerial Masques: Reframing Corporate Contributions As Strategies to Influence Society. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 485-510. Henry, N. (1975). Paradigms of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 378-386. Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the Theory and Practice of Transformational Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice. In Creating Collaborative Advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 136 Contractcities.org. (2014, January 21). http://contractcities.org/. California Contract Cities Association, Web Content http://contractcities.org/ in cooperation with Frank Zerunyan, 49th President of the CCCA. Arcadia, CA, Los Angeles: contractcitieis.org. IBM. (2015). The business value of weather data. Armonk, North Castle, NY: IBM. John M. Bryson, B. C. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 44-55. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Chapter 9, 36-41. Kanigel, R. (1997). The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York: Viking. Kearney, R. C. (2000). Reinventing Government: City Manager Attitudes and Actions. Public Administration Review, 60: 535–548. Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi and Stephen Balogh. (2011). An Integrative Frameword for Collaborative Governance. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1-29. Kania, John & Kramer, Mark (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 36-41. Lakewood, C. o. (n.d.). City of Lakewood. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from News: www.lakewoodcity.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=427&TargetID=61 Leung, L. B. (2009, December 22). Cities lose employees' expertise, talent in workforce downsizing. The Arizona Republic. Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 137 Luo, M. (2008, December 4). Politics. Retrieved August 16, 2016, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/politics/05donate.html Maciag, M. (2013). How Rare Are Municipal Bankruptcies? Washington, D.C.: Governing State and Localities. Martin, L., Levey, R., & Cawley, J. (2012). The "New Normal" for Local Government. State & Local Government Review, 44, 17S-28S. McNichol, E. (2012). Some Basic Facts on State and Local Government. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Miriam King, S. R. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. Minnesota: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at any speed: The designed-in dangers of the American automobile. New York: Grossman. National Observer. (2016, February 2). International Timber Customers Catalyzed Change Great Bear Rainforest. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from Nationalobserver.com: http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/02/international-timber-customers- catalyzed-change-great-bear-rainforest Nye Jr., J. S., Zelikow, P. D., & King, D. C. (1998). Why People Don't Trust Government. Political Science Quarterly, 113: 141–142. Open Knowledge International. (2012). Open Data Handbook. Cambridge: Open Knowledge Foundation. Opsahl, A. (2010, November 3). http://www.govtech.com/education/Code-for- America-Programmers-City-Governments.html. Retrieved 20 2014, January, from http://www.govtech.com/: http://www.govtech.com/education/Code-for- America-Programmers-City-Governments.html O'Reilly, T. (2010, June 15). DC Law. Gov 6.1 - Tim O'Reilly. (C. f. Progress, Interviewer) 138 O'Reilly, T. (2010, May 12). What is Gov 2.0? (A webcast presented by Tim O'Reilly). CA. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evTtxTrzP8U Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change, Pew Research Center. 2010: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Pirnejad, Peter. (2016) Rainforce Alliance. (2012). Protecting our Planet, Redesigning Land Use and Business Practices. New York: Rainforce Alliance . Rittel, H. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp 155-69. Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 27, Issue 2; pages 209-227. Schudson, M. (2015). The rise of the right to know: Politics and the culture of transparency, 1945-1975. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Schulman, B. J. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Greenwood Village, CO: Houghton Mifflin Company. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York: Penguin Press. Short, K. (2014). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Southern California Association of Governments. (2014). POverty In Focus - Southern California’s Growing Crisis. Los Angeles: SCAG. 139 Spiotto, J. E. (2012). Municipalities in Distress? How States and Investors Deal with Local Government Financial Emergencies. Chicago: Chapman & Cutler Llp. Stand By Task Force. (2010). www.standbytaskforce.com. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from www.standbytaskforce.com: http://blog.standbytaskforce.com/ Suh, Y. J. (2016). The Role of Relational Social Capital and Communication in the Relationship Between CSR and Employee Attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 23 no. 4 410-423. Taylor, P., & Keeter, S. (2010). Millennials: A Portrate of Generation next - Confident, Connected, Open To Change. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. The White House Office of Predent George W. Bush. (2002). President’s Ten- Point Plan. Washington D.C.: The White House. Thompson, V. A. (1972). Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Marini Frank, ed. American Political Science Review, 66(02), 620- 622. Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (1998). Can AmeriCorps Build Communities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarter, 27(4): 399-420. Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration Process: Inside the Black. The Public Administration Review, 20-32. Tysiac, K. (2012). BASB vote places unfunded pension liability on government balance sheets. Journal of Accounting. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard. (2011). On Scene Coordinator Report on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. National Response Team (U.S.). U.S. Travel Association. (2010). Potential Impacts of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism. New York: Oxford. 140 Useem, M., & Kutner, S. I. (1986). Corporate contributions to culture and the arts: The organization of giving and the influence of the chief executive officer and of other firms on company contributions in massachusetts. New York: Oxford University Press. Vigoda, E. (2002). rom Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540. Vishwanath, V., & Harding, D. (2000). The Starbucks Effect. Harvard Business Review. Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 197- 222. Zelizer, J. E. (2010). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Greenwood Village, CO: Houghton Mifflin Company. Zerunyan, F. V., & Pirnejad, P. (2014). From contract cities to mass collaborative governance. The American City & County, 129(4), 12. 136 Exhibit A – Results of Survey Standardized into Excel 137 138 139 140

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation is an exploration of collaborative governance in municipal public administration, and the elements that successful collaborations have in common. For this dissertation, the term “successful” means objectives sought after were achieved. As a foundational underpinning of this dissertation, I define collaborative governance as, “a form of multi-sectoral problem solving that brings together multiple stakeholders from different sectors to do what one sector cannot do on its own” (Pirnejad, 2016). This type of governance is a careful and deliberate process of collaborative problem solving and implementation, attempting to co-create meaningful and sustainable solutions too complex, and considered “wicked” civic problems (Rittel, 1973). Wicked problems, in short, are complex problems that go beyond the capacity of any one organization to define or solve

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Information sharing, deliberation, and collective decision-making: A computational model of collaborative governance

PDF

Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

Examining the federal credit union model in the 21st century

PDF

The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs

PDF

Does collaborative R&D policy work? The effect of collaborative R&D policy on innovative activities of firms in Korea

PDF

Improving post-secondary success for first generation college students through community partnerships: programming practices for charter high schools

PDF

Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

PDF

Shortcomings of institutional reform in public sector governance: the case of Kyrgyzstan

PDF

Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector

PDF

County governance reform in California: introduction of the council‐executive model and the elected county‐executive

PDF

A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)

PDF

Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

Water security, national security and MCIWest: a grounded theory for operationalizing risk management

PDF

Making it: a strategies primer for African-American entrepreneurs seeking capital in Los Angeles

PDF

Green healthcare, an environmentally sustainable methodology: an investigation of the ecological impacts of the healthcare industry and the role of green initiatives in sustainable medical services

Asset Metadata

Creator Pirnejad, Peter (author)

Core Title Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 02/10/2017

Defense Date 08/23/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag citizen,collaborative,Collective Impact Model,governance,Local government,multi-sectoral,non-profit,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnerships,private,public,Public Administration,sectors,wicked

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Zerunyan, Frank (committee chair), Denhardt, Robert (committee member), Keene, James (committee member), Robertson, Peter (committee member)

Creator Email Peter.pirnejad@cityofpaloalto.org,Pirnejad@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-333745

Unique identifier UC11258103

Identifier etd-PirnejadPe-5030.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-333745 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PirnejadPe-5030.pdf

Dmrecord 333745

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pirnejad, Peter

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA