Fostering Local Government Collaboration: An Empirical Analysis of Case Studies in Ohio

ABSTRACT:

While the literature on collaborative governance is voluminous and growing, empirical studies that test differing explanations for the success of local government to local government collaborations across policy sectors are not common. This kind of study is important, however, because local government-to-local government collaborations may very well have distinctive dynamics, and they are likely to expand in the future as local officials work to develop broad collaborative strategies that extend across policy areas. In this article, we investigate the development and extent of goal achievement in eight cases of this type of collaboration in northeast Ohio. Our investigations illustrate the dynamics of progress for interlocal collaborations, while yielding evidence of goal achievements within four years in six of our eight cases. We also evaluate theoretically derived variables using a Boolean algebraic comparative case study approach, and find that external incentives provided by grants and mandates are consistently associated with at least some level of goal attainment. We also find that the combination of external incentives and past interactions leading to trust consistently predicts success among the cases in our sample. While our findings are preliminary and limited to northeast Ohio, they suggest that promising inter-governmental collaborations can yield benefits within reasonable periods of time.

Notes

We use the term local government to local government collaboration, but there is a stream of literature that refers to this kind of phenomenon as characterized by interlocal agreements (ILAs). In this work, we interpret these alternative phraseologies as synonyms. However, we prefer the phrase local government to local government collaboration because not all collaborations reach the stage of development where an established agreement is developed. We thank an anonymous reviewer for calling our attention this ILA portion of the literature on intergovernmental collaboration.

With a geographically circumscribed sample of eight cases in northeast Ohio, it is important to recognize that this caveat is built right into the design of our work. Even so, by looking at a limited number of cases in systematic fashion, we can begin to refine our thinking about the maturation processes associated with collaborative governance and the factors that drive the success of local government to local government collaborations.

Like many scholars, we use the terms policy sector and policy area to denote the specific areas of public service provided, in this case, by local governments. It is worth noting, however, that local government officials may view these as service areas rather than policy sectors.

In this example, the mandated activity—as an external pressure on local government decision making—helps motivate resource exchange activities (see discussion of second theoretical perspective below) which may achieve more efficient and/or effective compliance.

Relatedly, Huxham () refers to situations of mutual advantage as ones of collaborative advantage, and grounds them not in resource exchange per se, but rather in the creative synergies that can be released when organizations work together. She suggests that collaboration is advantageous when something creative is produced “that no organization could have produced on its own and when each organization, through the collaboration, is able to achieve its own objectives better than it could alone” (Huxham, , p. 14).

Although Bryson et al. (, p. 46) recognize that boundary-spanning leadership roles can be played by organizations or individuals, the relatively small scope of the local government to local government collaborations we investigated here would seem to suggest—consistent with Huxham and Vangen’s () language—that it is likely that this kind of leadership role would be served by individuals rather than organizations in the cases investigated in this article. However, future research on the role of leadership in local government to local government collaboration would benefit from taking both individual and organizational forms of leadership into account.

The sixteen counties are Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Columbiana, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, and Wayne counties. Figure was created using a public domain image from Wikipedia that was obtained from the General Libraries, University of Texas at Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_county_map_of_Ohio.png, last accessed on October 7, 2014). The authors inserted the sixteen county names into the image.

In the Boolean algebraic framework used here, conditions that are present in every case where the observed dependent variable is present, but in no cases where the observed dependent variable is not present, exhibit a pattern that is consistent with that variable constituting a sufficient condition for realization of the presence of the dependent variable (among the cases in the sample). By contrast, conditions that present themselves in every case where the dependent variable is realized, and also cases where it is not present, exhibit a logical pattern that may be consistent with it being a necessary but not sufficient condition for realization of the dependent variable (again, among the cases in the sample).

Although the manager of this project reported that the political officials who prepared this proposal and submitted it to the EGN program for funding shared trust based on their past interactions, he also pointed out that there was a need to build trust at the “worker bee” levels as well. As this trust was established, he reported, the project gained momentum and overcame some of the obstacles it had faced in the project’s early stages.

The four jurisdictions involved in this effort were Bay Village, Westlake, Rocky River, and Fairview Park, and their Round 5 Ohio Local Government Innovation Fund (LGIF) application was subsequently funded by the State of Ohio.

Notably, in early 2014, the City of Ashland and the City of Wooster applied for, and were awarded, an Ohio Local Government Innovation Fund (LGIF) grant to explore consolidating 911 services.

However, it is worthwhile noting here that the EGN Program—which provided the foundation for the case studies summarized here—did engender more than 13,000 votes from citizens supporting one or more of these proposed collaborations. Thus, while expressed citizen demands may not be the driving force behind the success of the specific collaborations studied here, it does appear possible to mobilize citizen interest around collaborative local government projects. In this context, we cannot rule out the idea that broad-based citizen concerns give rise to general support for local government collaborations that, in turn, influence efforts in the whole region, including those of the FFEF and the EGN program.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

John Hoornbeek

John Hoornbeek teaches and conducts research on topics relating to alternative public management approaches, environmental and public health policy, and intergovernmental relations. He also serves as Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management and Director of the Center for Public Policy and Health at Kent State University. Dr. Hoornbeek has served as a policy practitioner at the local, state and federal levels of government in the United States. His experience includes assignments with the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services, the Wisconsin State Legislature, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the House Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Congress, and the National Environmental Services Center at West Virginia University. Dr. Hoornbeek’s research has appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed outlets.

Tegan Beechey

Tegan Beechey received her Masters of Public Administration from Kent State University in 2010, and is in the process of completing her doctorate in Health Policy and Management. Her research interests include interorganizational collaborative management, collaborative cost-effectiveness, health policy development, and reproductive health policy.

Thomas Pascarella

Thomas Pascarella is a Professor Emeritus at Hiram College, where he taught public sector economics and public administration. Since his retirement from Hiram College, he has served for the past 7 years as the Director of Administration for the City of Tallmadge, Ohio. He has authored a variety of articles and presented numerous papers at regional and national conferences. The topics of his research have included industrial development policies, government collaboration, and public and social costs of state-authorized casinos. He has extensive local government experience in Illinois and Ohio at the county and municipal levels, and has served on and been an advisor to numerous public boards and commissions.