The Structure of Collaboration: Differences Between Nonprofit and Government-Led Homeless Services Networks

BACKGROUND:  Collaborative governance networks, which are structured arrangements between social service providers and government, have the potential to improve services and expand the advocacy influence of nonprofit providers by increasing access to policymakers. However, little is known about how the structure these networks take affects their ability to meet goals such as meaningfully incorporating providers as stakeholders, facilitating advocacy, and improving service coordination. This research addresses the way that one particular type of structural variation—whether the network takes the form of an independent nonprofit or is housed in a government agency—affects the pursuit of these goals. Specifically, to what degree do nonprofit-led and government-led collaborative governance networks differ on 1) organizational priorities, 2) engagement in policy advocacy, and 3) inclusiveness of internal decision-making?

METHODS: This research uses a nationwide survey (N=305) of HUD-sponsored collaborative governance networks to answer these questions. HUD currently requires homeless service providers in local communities to come together in what is known as a Continuum of Care (CoC) network. All CoC directors in the U.S. (N=430) were notified of the study by postal mail and e-mail and invited to take part the survey. Ultimately 305 CoC directors responded for a response rate of 71%. The survey contained questions on leadership, membership, funding, advocacy involvement, and internal decision-making. Data was analyzed using multiple logistic regression to determine the expected value of differences between nonprofit and government-led CoCs organizations on priorities, advocacy activity, and internal decision-making, holding constant network size, geographic location, and revenue.

RESULTS: Initial findings indicate that nonprofit-led and government-led CoCs are indeed different in each of the above areas. First, nonprofit-led CoCs are more likely to mention facilitating technical assistance and doing advocacy as important priorities than are government-led CoCs, while government-led CoCs are more likely to mention promoting system coordination. Second, nonprofit-led CoCs participate in policy advocacy more frequently, are more likely to have increased advocacy involvement over the past five years, and to have a staff member whose responsibilities include policy advocacy work. There were no differences between nonprofit-led CoCs and government-led CoCs in regards to strength of relationship with local and state decision makers. Finally, nonprofit-led CoCs are more likely than government-led CoCs to incorporate their members (which are primarily nonprofit service providers) in decision-making and to have a greater percentage of their members involved in network leadership.

CONCLUSIONS: Findings have important implications for social work policy and practice. Collaborative governance networks, like those found in the CoC model, are a growing trend. This understanding of how structural variations in leadership affects organizational priorities and functioning may assist in efforts to improve collaborative governance while preserving the voice of nonprofit providers. In many cases, networks housed outside of government agencies allow for greater integration of service providers in decision-making and improve advocacy practice. This empirical evidence as to the strengths and weaknesses of different CoC structures can help social workers in practice better understand how to position themselves in their field of practice, and advocate for their agencies and clients.