364Administration & SocietyVolume 41 Number 3May 200.docx

364
Administration & Society
Volume 41 Number 3
May 2009 364-386
© 2009 SAGE Publications
10.1177/0095399709332296
http://aas.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Public–Nonprofit
Partnership
Realizing the New Public Service
Jennifer Alexander
Cleveland State University
Renée Nank
University of Texas–San Antonio
This longitudinal study tracks the generation of trust between a
public agency
and nine community-based nonprofits (CBNs) over a 10-year
period. The
evolution from active distrust to trust was demonstrated by the
generation of
ideological consensus and domain consensus achieved through
sharing infor-
mation, integrated responsibilities and authority, and
collaborative decision

making. Results indicate that public–nonprofit partnerships
create a locus for
the practice of the New Public Service. CBNs offer public
administrators a
bridge into disenfranchised communities and a point of
engagement where
partners join public agency resources and expertise with tacit
knowledge of
community through a trusted institution.
Keywords: trust; new public service; democracy
In the era of the hollow state, governance through
interorganizational partnerships presents the most compelling
challenge to public administra-
tion as we have known it. This new turn in public service has
thrown open
a veritable Pandora’s box of complexities with respect to the
meaning of
accountability and the exercise of public authority. Current
literature on
partnerships and collaborations has taken a normative cast,
presenting them
as an end point, yet it provides little guidance as to the process
by which they
are established and sustained, their overall effectiveness in
public service
delivery, or their impact on governance (Gazley & Brudney,
2007). This
study focuses on the nature of public sector partnership with
community-
based nonprofits (CBNs) and how they create the opportunity
for gover-
nance practiced as the New Public Service, a citizen inclusive,
decentralized
practice of public service through which public authority is

exercised in
accordance with the articulated values and needs of a
community (Denhardt
& Denhardt, 2007).
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on January 5,
2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://aas.sagepub.com/
Alexander, Nank / Public–Nonprofit Partnership 365
Interdependence theory (Salamon & Anheier, 1998; Steinberg &
Young,
1998), one of the more popular lenses from which to view
government–
nonprofit dynamics, holds that government and nonprofits have
been
immersed in an enduring and symbiotic partnership that dates to
the found-
ing of our nation. Nonprofit organizations initiated public works
projects
and later the first social services, often developing “the
expertise, struc-
tures, and experience that government” drew on (Salamon &
Anheier,
1998, p. 225). More nimble than government bureaucracies,
nonprofits
have a history of functioning as a sort of research and
development arm of
the public sector (Walden, 2006). CBNs are often the first
organized
response to social problems, generating solutions that reflect
their immedi-
ate connection and understanding of a community.

This brief account explains how a cooperative relationship
evolved from
a shared devotion to the public good and was fueled by
voluntary failure,1
but the theory stops short. It does not explain “the
circumstances under
which a cooperative relationship between the nonprofit sector
and the state
is most likely to emerge” and succeed (Salamon & Anheier,
1998; Steinberg
& Young, 1998, p. 258).
What remains to be articulated is that partnerships between
government
and CBNs offer a solution to governance failure, defined not in
the context
of a market model, but as a failure of government to establish a
relationship
of trust and accountability with citizens. Such accountability is
manifest as
confidence on the part of citizens that government will act in
their best
interests or the expectation that “capable and responsible
behavior is forth-
coming” (Barber, 1983). In circumstances of governance failure
with par-
ticular citizen groups, CBNs perform a powerful legitimating
function for
the administrative state. By acting as a bridge, these nonprofits
provide the
public sector with a point of access into communities where
they can begin
to generate bonds of trust with citizenry.
In addition, CBNs create a locus for the practice of the New

Public
Service. In the antifederalist tradition, proponents of the New
Public
Service have argued that strong and stable democracy emerges
as admin-
istrators place themselves at the heart of communities and work
in col-
laboration with citizens, defining social problems and
developing services
consonant with community needs and values (Denhardt &
Denhardt, 2007;
King, Stivers, & Collaborators, 1998). The following study of
public–
nonprofit collaboration highlights these two overlooked
contributions of
nonprofit organizations to the administrative state: the political
capital to
generate a trust relationship with a community and a proving
ground for
the practice of the New Public Service. The authors undertook a
10-year
366 Administration & Society
longitudinal study of organizational partnerships established
between a
county agency and nine neighborhood centers to identify how
patterns of
active distrust between the agency and the community
organizations were

resolved, how trust was developed, and how effective
partnerships were
established. The authors focused on the following: (a) Factors
most impor-
tant to effective partnership from the perspective of both the
CBNs and the
county agency leadership, with particular attention to the issues
of trust
and distrust; (b) critical points of ambiguity and difference that
occurred
in the partnership and how leadership in both sectors responded;
and (c)
whether their responses were indications that trust was
developing within
the partnership. Finally, through interviews and participant
observation,
the authors looked to identify whether the nonprofit leadership
acted stra-
tegically to maintain their autonomy and institutional role as
stewards of
their communities.
The authors selected the conceptual frameworks of trust and
distrust
as a lens to track the development of county agency–nonprofit
partner-
ships for a number of reasons. First, trust is identified as the
precursor, if
not the single most important component of stable interagency
partner-
ships (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Lewicki, McAllister, &
Bies, 1998;
Seppanen, Blomqvist, & Sundqvist, 2007; Van Slyke, 2007). In
the context
of nonprofit organizations, trust is the defining element of
organizational

survival. Fidelity to their declared purpose is the protection
nonprofits
offer clients who use their services and the inducement for
dedication of
resources; the value commitment is a legally binding
responsibility of
nonprofit boards (Stone & Ostrower, 2007). Hence, the linchpin
to the
viability of partnership with a nonprofit requires that the
cooperative
endeavor operationalize values in accordance with the mission
of the non-
profit organization.
In this study, a county Department of Children and Family
Services
(DCFS) office was selected to participate in a national pilot
program to
redesign child welfare from an adversarial, problem-oriented
approach with
the intention of protecting children to a community-based,
prevention-
oriented approach intended to build family and community
capacity to raise
their children (DeMuro, 1995). The Annie E. Casey Foundation
initiative
encouraged public sector agencies across the nation to take a
page from the
settlement house tradition and pursue their mission through
community
building in partnership with mediating institutions.
Neighborhood centers,
many of which were originally settlement houses, were the
logical partners
in this endeavor. However, a stumbling block to implementation
was the

high degree of antagonism and active distrust between the
public agency and
the city’s community leaders and citizens. Neighborhood center
directors
and social workers echoed these concerns in prestudy
interviews, describing
public agency staff and social workers as rigid, unwilling to
share informa-
tion, and unpredictable. One executive director of a
neighborhood settle-
ment house went so far as to ponder aloud whether the larger
purpose of the
county’s child welfare agency was to take “Black babies and
relocate them
with middle-class White people [in the suburbs].”
In light of the daunting task before the public agency, the
authors began
a study of how DCFS leadership could build effective
partnerships with the
community through mediating institutions to achieve the
mandate of child
welfare. This article begins with a brief background on the
policy to estab-
lish context for the study and then turns to the literature on trust
and dis-
trust, two factors identified in the literature as critical to

partnership
effectiveness. The authors then review their method of inquiry,
findings of
the study, and implications for future research.
Policy Background and
Foundational Logic to Partnership
With the passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act in
1980, state governments have been required to support family
preservation
in their child welfare services, nurture children within their
communities,
and provide children with permanent homes rather than leaving
them in
institutional care. Although these were laudable policy goals,
states have
struggled to make them a reality. Across the nation, the number
of children
coming into the child welfare system has continued to rise
whereas the pool
of available foster homes has plummeted due to social issues
beyond the
control of public agencies. Furthermore, a number of states
were finding it
difficult to meet the financial burden of child welfare and were
facing class
action law suits over the quality of care provided.
In 1993, the Annie E. Casey Foundation responded to the crisis
in child
welfare by funding the development of neighborhood-based
family ser-
vices and foster care in five states. The intention of the Family
to Family

Initiative (FFI) was to develop a network of services to
strengthen families
in which children were at risk of removal, and to recruit and
train foster
families within the neighborhoods so that children placed in
foster care
could remain in their own neighborhoods and maintain the
social ties that
provided stability to their lives. In the tradition of community
organizing,
the intention was to generate the capacity of communities to
raise their
children by bringing together resources and support services
where most
civil and institutional support systems had disappeared.
The focus of this research is the county agency that has
sustained the
community partnerships for the longest duration without
interruption. The
DCFS is located in an industrial, Midwestern city that ranked
among
the bottom five of 50 U.S. cities based on several indicators of
children’s
well-being (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1997). In 2004, the
U.S. Census
Bureau rated this city among the poorest “big cities” in the

United States,
with poverty rates exceeding 30%. At the inception of this study
in late
1998, the county child welfare agency was under a fire storm of
criticism
from local political figures and the media due to the number of
deaths
among children who were open cases with DCFS. Public outcry
against the
organization was intense. One county commissioner and local
religious
leaders openly denounced the public agency, its employees, and
their poli-
cies in the press. On one occasion, a county commissioner
asserted that
“children would be better off in orphanages,” and that “social
workers in the
agency were morons” (American Humane Association, 1998, p.
7).
Fortunately, DCFS leadership had already initiated a shift in
policy
from removing children from their homes to developing viable
alternatives
such as family preservation and neighborhood-based foster care.
Agency
leadership recognized that cooperative partnerships with
neighborhood
community centers were essential to the new policy; DCFS
could not
effectively fulfill the agency mission through professional
expertise and
coercive power of the state. This realization meant finding a
means to con-
nect with citizens through mediating structures, indigenous
community

institutions that function as stewards of their communities
(DeMuro,
1995). These nonprofits would be responsible for recruiting
foster fami-
lies, and developing collaboratives of service providers who
could deliver
services in the neighborhoods, thus generating a support system
for fami-
lies and children.
Since their inception as settlement houses at the turn of the 19th
century,
the CBNs scattered throughout the city have advocated for their
community
residents. They had historically taken an active role in a variety
of public
concerns, including child labor laws, working conditions, living
conditions,
civil rights, peace movements, and more recently
environmentalism.
However, what the public sector now offered created a much
closer alliance
than in the past, and it brought both opportunity and risk. If the
partnership
were successful, the CBNs would have generated a network of
support for
families where most systems of civil and institutional support
had disap-
peared. Neighborhood centers would be returning to their
communities the

capacity to nurture and protect their children. If, however, the
public–
nonprofit partnership evolved asymmetrically, in accordance
with the needs
of the county agency and at the expense of the neighborhood
center’s
autonomy, CBNs risked becoming a proxy for the public sector.
They
would lose their identity and purpose in the communities they
served.
Theoretical Background
Literature identifying factors that are central to the success of
inter-
organizational partnerships most often reference mutual
recognition of
interdependence (Kettl, 1993; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Saidel,
1994), com-
munication behaviors that enhance information exchange
(Milward &
Provan, 2003; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), leadership, the
importance of sta-
bility (Milward & Provan, 2003; Zucker, 1986), commitment to
a shared
purpose (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Porter, Steers, Mowday, &
Boulian,
1974), and mechanisms for conflict resolution that allow for
joint problem
solving (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Carnevale, 1995). However,
the factor
most often identified, and most critical, is trust (Bryson et al.,
2006;

Lewicki et al., 1998; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Seppanen et al.,
2007; Van
Slyke, 2007).
Trust is the warp and woof of social relations, an essential
component of
all enduring partnerships. Trust is positively regarded in
interorganizational
partnerships because it is associated with granting discretion
and autonomy,
delegation of authority, increasing productivity or outcomes
(Golembiewski
& McConkie, 1975; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), lowering
transaction costs
(Van Slyke, 2007; Williamson, 1993), improving
communication, sharing
information, conflict resolution (Zald & McCarthy, 1997),
enhanced prob-
lem solving, reducing stress, decreasing the extent of reliance
on formal
contracts, and increasing contractual flexibility (Carnevale,
1995; Lewicki
et al., 1998).
Definitions of trust range widely and reflect the theoretical
assumptions
of the researchers. Rational choice theorists regard trust as an
element of
strategic decision making, a calculation of risk (Boon &
Holmes, 1991;
Coleman, 1990; Ruscio, 1997). Scholars in sociology or
institutional rela-
tions emphasize shared values and ideals (Hardin, 2002;
Putnam, 1995;
Warren, 1999). It is the latter that aligns most logically with the
purposes

and motivations of nonprofit and public organizations.
Behaviors believed to engender trust include opportunities to
build
relationship, including participation in dialogue, joint decision
making,
common experiences, repeated patterns of interactions and the
predictabil-
ity that ensues (Carnevale, 1995), preservation of equity and
fairness
(Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995), proactive
information exchange
(Macneil, 1980), and a willingness to adapt or accommodate the
needs of
the partner (Das & Teng, 1998). Carnevale (1995) noted that
trust is a nec-
essary element for feedback, self-disclosure, and the dialogue
that fosters
learning. Das and Teng (1998) noted that trust in
interorganizational part-
nerships is generated gradually and lost quickly.
Based on these indicators, the authors theorized that indications
of trust
would be reflected in greater risk-taking behaviors, the
delegation of dis-
cretionary authority, development of cross-sector decisions and

tasks, and
a willingness on the part of the more powerful partner, the
county, to
accommodate the needs of the nonprofit agencies. Trust on the
part of
CBNs, as value-driven organizations, would most probably be
manifest as
active engagement in the shared endeavor of family preservation
and child
welfare in a manner that reflects mutually defined values as
well as a
change in perspective regarding the intentions and capabilities
of the public
agency.
Distrust, a concept less explored in the literature on
partnerships, is taken
by some to be the opposite of trust (Deutsch, 1960; Rotter,
1971) though oth-
ers regard them as “separate but linked dimensions” rather than
dichotomous
(Lewicki et al., 1998; Luhmann, 1979). A definition offered by
Barber (1983)
and preferred by the authors regards distrust as a failure of
organizational
accountability applied in the context of public or nonprofit
organizations—
the expectation that others will not act in one’s best interest or
the “expecta-
tions that capable and responsible behavior . . . . will not be
forthcoming”
(Barber, 1983, cited in Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 438).
Expressions of distrust in the partnership were taken to reflect a
concern
regarding the (a) commitment or competence of the other

organizational
participant, and (b) the need to protect and maintain
organizational domain
while engaging in the partnership. The transition from distrust
to trust
would require that the organizations engage in behaviors that
replace nega-
tive expectations of their partners with the achievement of
ideological
consensus—agreement regarding the problem definition and
how to address
it—and domain consensus—agreement among members of an
organization
and others with whom they interact regarding their respective
roles and
responsibilities (Weisbrod, 1978). In addition, the authors
looked to iden-
tify whether the ability of leaders to strategically manage trust
and distrust
was a critical competency as argued by Lewicki et al. (1998)
that enabled
leaders to protect the autonomy of their organization.
Method
This case study was constructed from document reviews,
participant
observation, and a series of interviews conducted in three

concentrated
phases between October 1998 and November 2007. During
1998, a series
of interviews were conducted with the county agency and staff
members of
the first two neighborhood centers that piloted the partnership.
The authors
maintained intermittent contact between 1998 and 2003 and
began a repeti-
tion of the interviews in the spring of 2004 to discern how the
organiza-
tional relationships had evolved, including in the second round
the additional
seven neighborhood centers that had joined the county’s
program. In the
fall of 2007, the authors returned to conduct interviews with the
county and
four neighborhood centers, revisiting the questions of what had
fostered
collaboration, the benefits and risks of partnership, critical
points of ambi-
guity, difference or institutional pressure, and how they were
addressed by
each organizational entity.
Semistructured interviews were conducted during each of the
three
phases of contact with public agency executive directors, chief
administra-
tive staff, and social workers. Among the CBNs, interviews
were conducted
with executive directors, site coordinators, social workers, and
staff in the
social service organizations that had joined the collaboratives,
providing
services for families in the CBNs. During the two points of

contact, 1998
and 2004, the study included interviews with neighborhood site
coordina-
tors (n = 9), neighborhood center executive directors (9),
program instruc-
tors (4), the executive director of the Neighborhood Centers
Association
representing all neighborhood centers (1), staff in foster care
placement
social service agencies who belong to CBN and deliver services
for DCFS
(4), as well, the county ombudsman (1), and clients who are
foster parents
with the neighborhood center programs (2). In 2007, interviews
were con-
ducted with the public agency leadership and program staff (7)
as well as
site coordinators and executive directors of four CBNs (7).
Interview questions for the CBN executive directors, site
directors, and
staff included the following topics: discussion and elaboration
of risks and
benefits associated with the partnership, identification of points
of ambiguity
or difference that had emerged in their interactions with the
county, institu-
tional pressures, and how actors in each organization had
responded. Interviews
with county agency leadership and staff focused on the same
issues: risks and
benefits to the partnership, how it changed their work, points of
difference and
ambiguities that had emerged, and how they were resolved.

Participant observation included attendance at community
meetings
held to elaborate the initiative. These included the collaborative
meetings
called by neighborhood centers that brought together the cohort
of nonprof-
its and businesses organized by the neighborhood centers to
provide sup-
port services through the neighborhood center. Other meetings
were
community forums called by the child welfare agency after the
agency had
passed through a series of highly publicized crises and a
transition to a new
director. Finally, we studied reports and documents from the
CBNs, the
county DCFS, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
The stories and data that emerged were used to create a
complete picture
that was prepared by the authors as a written document and
distributed to
interviewees to discern whether the authors’ findings accurately
captured
their experience of the partnership. In the following section, we
review how
the partnership evolved from the perspective of the public
sector and sub-
sequently the CBNs.

Fits and Starts: The Public Agency
The FFI presented a dramatic change to an organization that was
under
duress, so the first identified point of ambiguity and difference
for the public
agency was internal resistance to the new policy, which was
manifest at the
inception of the partnership. Midlevel leadership and social
workers we
spoke with were less than sanguine about sharing responsibility
for child
welfare with CBNs. Typical of the child protection system, the
agency had
a rigid and hierarchical organizational structure, staff members
were in a
defensive posture due to public attacks by political leaders, and
the approach
to families in crisis was described both internally and by hired
consultants
as “problem focused” and “deficiency based” (American
Humane Associa-
tion, 1998). Midlevel and lower-level staff questioned whether
leadership
was committed to the new initiative and its viability.
During these early years, the turnover rate among social
workers
exceeded 25%, and chronic vacancy rates over the previous 5
years had
made it difficult for the organization to function with stability
or continuity.
A subsequent series of changes in leadership further
compounded the tur-
moil as the agency passed through four directors between 1998

and 2002.2
Two of the directors were hired without input from community
leaders
whose involvement may have assuaged the frustration of county
commis-
sioners and citizens. Even so, each DCFS director continued to
support the
community-based policy of FFI, creating new agency-CBN
partnerships
and deploying social workers to the neighborhoods.
By 2003, implementation had taken on momentum as seven
additional
CBNs had joined the partnership, and the majority of social
workers had
been assigned geographically to neighborhoods throughout the
county. The
second round of interviews begun in 2004 revealed that a
number of factors
had turned the tide within DCFS and resulted in compliance, if
not com-
plete support for FFI among social workers. Specifically, staff
cited the
sustained commitment of agency leadership to FFI through
executive direc-
tor transitions, the high turnover rate that had weeded out more
resistant

staff, and annual evaluations that now documented contact with
the neigh-
borhood centers. One social worker said, “We were ‘shoe
horned’ in [to
working with the neighborhood centers] and over time we came
to realize
how much the partnership helped in our work.” As case loads
were con-
fined to specific neighborhoods, the repeated contacts with CBN
staff,
foster families, and support services also generated familiarity,
if not stron-
ger working relationships among the partners.
Although the literature on trust documents that familiarity in
close work-
ing relationships can generate a form of trust as calculated risk
or predict-
ability, it was through the integration of work and open
exchange of
information that ideological consensus was generated in the
partnerships.
Public administrators articulated their resulting loss of control
as their most
difficult challenge.
At the start we saw a lot of risk because we were revealing what
DCFS had
not been particularly adept at and we were afraid we would lose
control over
the cases. We later realized that it was largely a perceived risk
because most
of what we were sharing [with CBN social workers] was already
known.
(participants interview, italics in original)

In marked contrast with past procedure, FFI required that public
sector
social workers openly share information in support of children’s
needs.3 In
addition, decisions regarding the best course of action for
families were now
made through team decision meetings (TDMs), in which
families under
review were free to invite anyone to attend and speak on their
behalf.
Although DCFS held authority for final decisions in all cases,
the introduc-
tion and review of information was subject to interpretation by
family mem-
bers, their representatives as well as CBN and public sector
social workers in
attendance. Moreover, in the case of appeal, all participants
from the original
hearing were to be included in the subsequent review hearing.
DCFS leaders noted that when they first implemented the open
hearings,
or TDMs, county social workers felt exposed and under pressure
to explain
the basis of their decisions as they were in the process of
forming them. Thus
began the practice among DCFS social workers of leaving the
room to caucus

and resolve the agency position while the family and CBN
social workers
awaited their return. CBN social workers objected, pointing out
that although
the final decision remained with the public sector, the original
agreement of
the partnership was that discussions and interpretation of facts
in TDMs
would occur as an open dialogue. With this objection, the
executive director
of DCFS informed social workers that they “would have to find
the way to
stay in their chairs” and come to a decision they could support
in discussions
with CBN social workers and family members instead of leaving
the room.
On returning to the study in 2007, we found that DCFS social
workers
and midlevel chiefs noted that the ongoing practice of reasoning
together in
TDMs had changed their work. Discussion in TDMs had shaped
the DCFS
social workers’ understanding of how to best respond, it had
generated
solutions consonant with family needs, and it had also generated
trust in
social workers located in the CBNs. A DCFS chief noted, “We
came to
realize that by partnering with the neighborhood centers we
have a lot more
critical information on which to base a decision.” Neighborhood
social
workers and staff are on the ground in their communities; they
experience
a greater degree of contact with the families and this interaction

gives them
more context and opportunity for assessments.
We used to say, “when in doubt, kids come out.” Now we’ve
learned that if
CBN social workers say you can trust us, we can believe them.
We had to
break down preconceptions of each other and learn that they
also are able to
recognize the signs of trouble. (Division Chief, DCFS)
With time, DCFS social workers began to realize the tangible
gains of
partnering, and they relied more on CBN counterparts.
Moreover, DCFS
social workers indicate that they are under less pressure than in
the past
because the burden of determining what is in a child’s best
interest is
shared. A DCFS social worker stated,
When I was 23 years old with a graduate degree and not much
life experience
beyond my Catholic suburban upbringing, I could stand in a
family’s door
and tell them I was taking their kids and that was that. By the
same token, if
I decided the situation was not that dire and a child died, I lived
with that
decision alone. Today, it’s a whole lot different.

On revisiting the partners in 2007, there were indications of
trust as ideo-
logical consensus in the partnerships; the integration of
responsibility had
generated a shared picture of how to best protect children.
DCFS social work-
ers who described their partnerships as “strong” spoke of
delegating the
authority to resolve cases to CBN social workers when the
family challenges
were routine, freeing their time for the more critical cases.
DCFS staff pro-
vided examples of how they had integrated their work with CBN
counterparts
in ways that were not required by either organization, such as
jointly identify-
ing new programs to meet community needs (meals offered
through a nearby
church in the summer). DCFS social workers were accompanied
by CBN
staff when they visited a home for the first time, which eased
the difficulty of
the interaction between public administrators and citizens. Most
significant is
the extent to which the public agency has institutionalized
shared authority in
policy planning and human resources. Specifically, CBN
directors are now
appointed to DCSF committees for the planning and hiring
phase of new
initiatives and grants, CBN executive directors have
membership on DCFS
hiring committees, and they hold veto power on public sector

staff promo-
tions from mid- to upper-level management positions.
For all of the identifiable efforts by DCFS to institutionalize the
partner-
ships through integrated responsibilities, they continue to be
relationship
driven. DCFS social workers indicated that their confidence in
the judgment
and capabilities of CBN staff varies according to the strength of
the partner-
ship and work relationships they have established. A change in
staff or dis-
agreement regarding how to handle a case can quickly derail
participation,
resulting in DCFS social workers excluding CBN counterparts
from decisions
until a resolution is reached. DCFS chiefs and the executive
director empha-
size that sustaining the partnerships requires accessibility and
commitment to
resolving differences at several organizational levels. A pivotal
factor in sus-
taining the partnerships—and an indication of their fragility—is
the leadership
exercised by the most recent DCFS executive director, who
holds a keen sense
of CBNs and maintains steady contact with their executive
directors.
In summary, the points of ambiguity and difference identified
by public
sector leadership and staff concerned the conflict of sharing
responsibility
and maintaining accountability, shifting from experts in control
of the inter-

action with a family to the role of leader, and a central point of
reference for
community informed decisions. Agency leadership indicated
that sustaining
partnerships has required substantial administrative attention,
although the
time commitment has abated with their establishment. Trust in
the other
partners was fostered through an integration of responsibilities
and sharing
authority, through ongoing dedication to maintaining
communication at
several organizational levels, and the commitment of
organizational leader-
ship. Indicators of ideological consensus in the partnership
provided by
DCFS included the delegation of responsibility to CBN
counterparts by the
public sector, the voluntary integration of tasks not required by
the partner-
ship, and the progressive inclusion of CBNs in the public
agency’s policy,
planning, and human resource decisions.
The Functionality of Distrust: The CBNs
As we sat in community meetings during the early years of the

FFI, we
quickly ascertained the extent to which community leaders,
nonprofit ser-
vice providers, and the African American community, in
particular, were
deeply alienated from the county agency. They believed that
racism was a
serious issue in addition to arbitrary behaviors and poor
decision making.
Nobody, including social service institutions that partnered with
the county
agency in foster care, seemed to fully comprehend how public
agency
social workers made risk assessments or the basis of decisions
regarding
child custody. With several highly publicized deaths of children
who were
open cases in 1998, there was a lack of confidence that the
public agency
could act capably and responsibly in the interest of the
community.
In a moment of political foresight, the executive director of
DCFS
launched the county’s new FFI policy with the hiring of a local
community
advocate and social worker as internal coordinator of the FFI.
Theresa had
directed family-related programs in the county for 20 years and
had an
established reputation of commitment to the African American
community,
in particular. In her capacity as internal coordinator, Theresa
generated a
community sense of having an insider in the county agency and
an indica-

tion that DCFS was serious in their commitment to a new
direction. Theresa
began by promoting the new FFI policy through widely
publicized meet-
ings held in churches and community centers where she, in the
company of
local ministers and social workers, told an empowering story:
This initiative is a means for us to build our community’s
strength to care for
our children. Family to Family will help us build the strength of
our com-
munity to nurture our children so that with time, the county’s
role will pro-
gressively shrink away.
Theresa’s message conveyed her unbroken affiliation with the
commu-
nity and an affirmation of her commitment to help them
accomplish this
goal. In the face of what appeared as public agency failure,
Theresa did not
ask citizens to trust the agency but to mobilize and take control
of the fate
of their children.
As seven more CBNs joined the partnership between 1998 and

2003,
Theresa educated neighborhood center staff and community
leaders about
how to fulfill the program objectives4 and how to hold DCFS
accountable
to their own rules by learning the established procedures of the
agency. Her
message was implicitly adversarial in that success involved not
only build-
ing the community’s resources for supporting families but also
education in
how to serve as a check on overweening public authority. CBN
social
workers were to take the role of advocates, educating families
by explain-
ing DCFS procedures, acting as witnesses to DCFS interactions
with fami-
lies, and interceding on behalf of families in the now open
review process
of TDMs.
At the initiation of partnership, the two most significant points
of differ-
ence that CBN directors and staff struggled with were that (a)
DCFS could
be arbitrary, autocratic, and fail to act in the best interest of
families and
children in their community, and (b) DCFS could compromise
the CBNs
autonomy and mission, by acting as a sort of a Trojan horse.
Neighborhood
directors and staff expressed concern that they would come to
rely on pub-
lic sector resources, or reach a point where they were unable to
bound the
overreaching power of their county partner, resulting in a

violation of their
central value premise: their mission to maintain a safe haven
where neigh-
borhood members could come for assistance or to resolve
community
problems outside of government.
Ideological Consensus
The first point of difference, distrust of how the public sector
interacts
with families in the community, indicated a lack of a shared
perception of
the problem and how to resolve it. It reflected differences in
organizational
accountability and mission: DCFS is accountable to the
citizenry at large
for achieving the mission of child protection, and in that
capacity, had exer-
cised the regulatory power of the state to protect children in
opposition to
families; CBNs are more narrowly accountable to the people of
a commu-
nity across an array of concerns that pertain to improving their
lives and
resolving community problems through education, social
services, and
advocacy.
CBN concerns that the administrative state would not respond in
the
best interest of families began to noticeably dissipate by 2004
with the

integration of tasks and shared information. DCFS social
workers shared
demographic and agency case data with CBN counterparts,
revealing the
particulars of the cases and involving them in the resolutions. In
turn, social
workers in CBNs oriented DCFS workers to communities,
bringing them
into contact with the families and social services providers in
the neighbor-
hood. In the process of engaging around their shared
commitment to better
the circumstances of children and families, organizational
partners cocre-
ated a perspective that reflected the knowledge of both worlds.
By the third and final contact with the organizational partners in
2007,
the authors noted that concerns regarding the intentions and
capabilities of
DCFS had abated. Accusations of DCFS social workers being
baby snatch-
ers were no longer routine. Although CBN staff continued to
describe their
role in the partnership as advocates for families, they
interpreted actions by
the public sector as “capable” and “in the best interests of
families.” The
authors observed that the reasons given for greater trust in the
intentions

and capabilities of the public sector are interrelated. Both CBN
and DCFS
social workers assert that DCFS social workers resolve cases
differently
than in the past. Howeover, CBNs now play an integral role in
generating
trust through their participation in TDMs. The shift from
adversary to part-
ner was reflected in the response of a CBN site coordinator
when asked,
“How far can you go in advocating for families here?” She
responded,
“When we’re working with DCFS on an open case, our intention
is to keep
that child safe. If you don’t feel like you can guarantee that
child’s safety,
you don’t advocate.”
CBN social workers who described their partnerships as strong
indicated
that TDMs had developed their own routines and rules and are
resolved
with more ease than at the inception of the partnership, most
particularly
among social workers with working relationships. They believe
a creative
collaboration has emerged among partners in identifying how to
best get a
family and children on track. CBN executive directors feel
supported
because they have ready access to the chief for their geographic
area and
the DCFS director. Speaking of the DCFS executive director, an
executive
director noted, “If David were to go this [partnership] would
definitely fall

apart.” “When something happens with one of our families that
isn’t right
I call him.”
Domain Consensus
The second point of difference in the partnership that concerned
CBNs pertains to the distinction between accountability “for
what” and
accountability “to whom” (Bardach & Lesser, 1996). While
CBNs resolved
for what through a mutually defined collaboration that fit within
the bound-
aries of the nonprofit’s mission, the more thorny issue
concerned account-
ability to whom. CBNs could not afford for partnership related
activities to
override or violate their value contract with the community.
Hence, the
process of establishing public–nonprofit partnerships required
that CBNs
find a manner to articulate their boundaries within the
partnership in accor-
dance with their value contract with the community.
Identification and
protection of domain required that CBN leadership strategically
limit par-

ticular public sector activities in the neighborhood centers.
Four issues of difference around domain emerged in the course
of the
study. They concerned the need for the community-based
organizations to
(a) advocate for families and check agency power consistent
with their
traditional role, (b) limit activities within the neighborhood
centers that
conveyed police power, (c) refusal to openly align with DCFS
in opposition
to families, even when in agreement regarding the problem, and
(d) devel-
opment of a nonprofit executive council to express their
concerns to DCFS
in one voice.
From the inception of the partnership, CBN social workers limit
public
sector influence by functioning as an external check on DCFS
during hear-
ings, or TDMs. In interviews, CBN staff members assert that
their advo-
cacy and intervention altered the interactions between families
and DCFS
social workers, who were accustomed to clients of limited
resources and
unaware of how to effectively respond. CBN site coordinators,
by their
presence and their knowledge of agency rules and procedures,
were able to
provide information to families5 and change the tenor of
exchanges in a
number of cases. They believe that through their coaching,
exchanges

between families and DCFS social workers became less
contentious and
more productive.
CBN executive directors indicated that they refused to allow a
number
of DCFS routine activities to be held in the neighborhood
centers as origi-
nally intended in the partnerships. Specifically, CBN directors
did not sup-
port visitations in the neighborhood centers, where children in
county
custody were brought to the CBNs to see their parents. They
refused to
allow DCFS to take custody of a child on the premises. In one
case, an
executive director refused to allow a social worker to conduct a
routine
check on a child in day care “because every child in that room
knows who
the social worker is and it stigmatizes that child.” Similarly, an
executive
director explained that social workers in her CBN support
families by not
participating in TDMs if the family is not also there.
Sometimes these social workers will try to hold TDMs during
the day and

they don’t recognize that some of these people can’t get off
work and come
to these meetings without some risk to their employment. Under
these cir-
cumstances we support holding the meetings at a time when the
family can
attend. If the family is not at the table, we’re not at the table,
either.
Perhaps, most evident of the need to maintain CBN alignment
with the
community are examples of CBN social workers who actively
sought the
intervention of DCFS on behalf of children in their community
but refused
to go on record against the parents.
One of the most strategic examples of behavior intended to
support CBN
accountability to the community and limit public sector
influence was exer-
cised by an executive director whose CBN was among the first
to partner
with DCFS. The executive director delegated control over the
partnership-
related decisions and the site coordinator (paid by DCFS) to the
collabora-
tive, the set of social service agencies that provided services
through the
neighborhood center. All FFI-program-related decisions and
proposals
were first to be reviewed and voted on by the collaborative. By
developing
a collaborative of powerful and similarly minded social service
agencies
that supported the CBNs’ perspective, the executive director

buffered her
nonprofit with political support that was difficult for DCFS to
challenge.
FFI-related decisions are not made by the (neighborhood center)
board, or by
me, they are not made by (the site coordinator), they are made
by the col-
laborative. Our collaborative protects us from becoming a
branch of the
county, we have struggled with the county on this … the fact
that we have a
collaborative that (our site coordinator) has to go back to …
they will ask her
‘why did you let that happen,’ or whatever, but … we struggled
with the
county and I think we got to the other side of that. (Executive
director)
The final example of how CBNs protected their organizations in
the partner-
ship was through the establishment of an executive council, a
formalized struc-
ture that includes the executive directors of all CBNs who
partner with DCFS
in the FFI program. The executive council was formed by CBNs
when the
original county liaison, Theresa, left DCFS after 5 years and the
CBN executive
directors were concerned about how they would make their
concerns known to
DCFS leadership. They formed the executive council to
represent the interests
of all CBNs to the executive director of DCFS, inviting the
DCFS executive
director to their meetings. In summary, the establishment of

trust in the partner-
ships was conditional. It related to the specifics of the task and
did not override
the need to protect domain, or the role of CBNs in the
community.
Future of the Partnership
From the perspective of DCFS, the partnership with CBNs has
been a
success. A review of agency statistics indicates that between
2000 and
2007, the number of children involved with DCFS actually
increased from
roughly 13,000 to 14,000. However, the number of children
placed in
county custody decreased from 6,400 to 2,300; the number of
children in
permanent custody and available for adoption decreased during
that period
by 70%, from more than 2,000 to 800. Perhaps, most indicative
of success-
ful interventions is the decrease in recidivism, the percentage of
children
who reenter substitute parental care after exiting. The greatest
decrease in
recidivism was identified in the category of children aged 6 to
11 at initial

entry; the percentage that reentered substitute care decreased
from 7% to
2% between 2000 and 2005.
When asked to assess the success of the partnership, CBN
executive
directors report a mixed prognosis. Although they expressed
confidence in
the results generated by the FFI partnership for the community,
the impact
on organizational autonomy continues to be a challenge, fed
largely by
CBN dependence on public sector resources.
The county funds us through an RFP and yet they exercise
considerable con-
trol because they define staffing structure, job descriptions, and
the number of
positions. So the question is whether they are our staff or
theirs? Moreover,
are these new employees addressing community problems
according to our
ideas of what the community needs or the public agency’s
mission?
When executive directors were asked to identify a point over
the past 10
years when the partnership with the county was really down for
the count
and what precipitated it, they could not identify such an
occurrence. When
they were asked what benefits they have gained from the
partnership, they
point to the discretionary funding that allows them to fund
programs and
services for the community and greater access to upper level

local govern-
ment. Perhaps the most pressing issue expressed by executive
directors
concerned the change in direction of CBNs and their belief that
CBNs had
a responsibility to use resources to build their communities and
empower
people to speak for themselves. They insisted that if the
partnership were
going to remain viable, CBNs would need to sustain the ability
to resolve
problems in accordance with their understanding of them, and
CBNs would
need to be able to respond to the needs of families that were not
in the
county system.
A recent turn in the nature of DCFS partnerships may provide
more evi-
dence about the distinctive attributes of organizational entities
that partner
with the public sector. As DCFS has sought partnerships in the
inner ring
suburbs, there have been no settlement houses or community
centers to
function as lead agencies. Four communities have selected local
public sec-
tor entities as their lead agencies, including a school district,

the human
services division of the city government, and in one case the
local police
department. These new partners bring a different internal
structure, different
relationship with their citizens as well as a different
relationship with the
county child welfare agency than CBNs. An examination of how
these part-
nerships evolve in comparison to the CBNs may provide fruitful
information
for public sector partnerships and the contributions of particular
sectors.
Conclusion
This article began by articulating a daunting challenge: there
has been
an impelling push to generate public sector partnerships with
little direction
offered in the literature as to how cross-sector partnerships are
established
or sustained. The results of a 10-year study of human service
partnerships
revealed three key findings. First, public sector partnerships
with CBNs
brought the expected opportunities to expand the range of
services, but far
most significant, public–CBN partnerships extended the
governance capa-
bilities of public agencies by establishing democratic
accountability with a
marginalized population and finally, the partnerships functioned
as labora-
tories for the practice of the New Public Service.

CBNs enabled a heavily rule-based public agency to expand its
zone of
discretion (Ruscio, 1997) and generate services and outcomes
that were
more congruent with community needs. The public sector set
general rules
to guide discretion, and over the course of developing the
partnership, the
CBN staff developed an array of services suited to the needs of
families in
their particular communities, thereby transcending the closed
system gov-
erned by uniformity, procedure, and administrative code.
Most significant was the finding that CBN partners functioned
as a
much needed bridge into communities where there was a clear
perception
that the public agency lacked the capacity to act in the best
interests of
citizens. It is widely understood that CBNs bring to public
partnership the
intimate knowledge of a community, a track record of how to
most effec-
tively serve a particular population, and a capacity to function
in accor-
dance with the value framework of the community. This study
revealed that

the political capital of CBNs allowed the public sector to move
beyond
service delivery to governance—an interactive process of shared
decision
making that led to more informed decisions and generated
democratic
accountability to marginalized citizens.
A paradox that drew researchers to the study was that active
distrust of
the public agency fueled the generation of successful
partnerships. CBN
leaders were motivated to generate strong support systems, or
collabora-
tives, to check the power of a public agency and offset the role
of the pub-
lic agency in their communities. In contrast to literature that
regards distrust
as dysfunctional to partnership, the strategic responses to
perceptions of
trust and distrust were efforts to manage ambiguity in the
interorganiza-
tional environment. Accordingly, the CBN leaders’ distrust of
the public
agency engendered action intended to protect organizational
mission and
community and ultimately fostered a stronger commitment to
the common
goal of child welfare.
Organizational actors in the partnership generated trust through
the pro-
cess of working collaboratively and generating reliable patterns
of interac-
tion over the years. Although the initial contracts between the

public
agency and the partners defined the task, its purpose, and
partnership roles,
the details were elaborated over time to reflect an emergent
ideological
consensus—a mutually constructed conception of the problem
and a means
to address it—and domain consensus—agreement regarding
organizational
roles. This coelaboration of the partnership was particularly
important for
the CBNs that needed to sustain their primary accountability to
their com-
munity members.
The authors note that the practice of public administration by
front line
public administrators fit the model described as the New Public
Service.
Administrators shifted in role from professionals, who
determined out-
comes with little input from citizens, to leaders and facilitators
who worked
collaboratively with community members to identify problems
and solu-
tions. This was particularly apparent in TDMs where public
agency deci-
sions were the result of open dialogue with clients and
community
members.
Findings suggest the need to explore in greater depth the
attributes and
challenges of public partnerships by organizational sector to
learn how sec-
tor type can shape partnership characteristics, and most

specifically, to
discern how partnerships shape the capacity of the public sector
to govern.
Future exploration of public–CBN partnerships also offers the
opportunity
to elaborate how New Public Service takes shape and evolves in
established
partnerships and its impact on state-citizen relationships.
Notes
According to Salamon (1987), voluntary failure results from the
limitations of the sec-1.
tor as a mechanism to meet public needs, the most important of
which is philanthropic insuf-
ficiency, or the inability of the sector to consistently and
reliably fund the human services costs
of an advanced industrial society. Other causes of voluntary
failure include philanthropic
particularism, paternalism, and amateurism.
According to the American Human Association the average
tenure for executive direc-2.
tors of child welfare agencies is 3 years.
The change in agency policy to Family to Family Initiative
(FFI) required that social 3.
workers share information between foster and biological

families and among social workers,
families, and neighborhood site coordinators.
Program objectives required that community-based nonprofits
(CBNs) build collabora-4.
tives, groups of social service providers who could offer
services for families through the
neighborhood center, and generate new foster parents in the
neighborhood.
CBN site coordinators functioned as trusted intermediaries,
explaining the process of 5.
administrative review and what a family needed to do to regain
their children, keep their
children, or be certified as a foster family. Families felt more
assured that what was to transpire
was not arbitrary or unusual to them, and if it was, the site
coordinator would recognize it and
provide them with options.
References
American Humane Association. (1998, June 16). A
Comprehensive Review of the XXXX County
Department of Children and Family Services. Englewood, CO:
Author.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor
firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1997). City kids count: Data on
the well-being of children in
large cities. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human
service collaboratives: For what
and to whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 6, 197-224.
Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. (1991). The dynamics of
interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty
in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.),
Cooperation and prosocial behav-
ior (pp. 190-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. (2006). The design
and implementation of cross-
sector collaboration: Propositions from the literature. Public
Administration Review,
66(1), 44-55.
Carnevale, D. G. (1995). Trustworthy government: Leadership
and management strategies for
building trust and high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University
Press.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control:
Developing confidence in partner
cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 29,
491-512.
DeMuro, P. (1995). Family to family tools for rebuilding foster
care: Building partnerships
with neighborhoods and local communities. Baltimore: Annie E.

Casey Foundation.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2007). The new public
service: Serving, not steering.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon
trust and suspicion. Human
Relations, 13, 123-139.
Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. (2007). The purposes (and perils) of
government nonprofit partner-
ship. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 389-415.
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of
interpersonal trust in group pro-
cesses. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp.
131-185). New York: Wiley.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness (The Russel Sage
Foundation Series on Trust,
Vol. 4). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power, public governance and private
markets. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
King, C., Stivers, C., Simrell King, C., Stivers, C., Nank, R.,

Hummel, R., et al. (1998). Government
is us: Public administration in an anti-government era.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995).
Building commitment, attach-
ment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of
procedural justice.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and
distrust: New relationships
and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Macneil, I. R. (1980). The new social contract. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow
state. Public Management
Review, 5(1), 1-18.
Mohr, J. J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of
partnership success: Partnership attri-
butes, communication behavior and conflict resolution
techniques. Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 135-152.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V.
(1974). Organizational commit-
ment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Putnam, R. D. (1995, Spring). Bowling alone revisited. The
Responsive Community,18-33.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal
trust. American Psychologist,
35, 1-7.
Ruscio, K. (1997). Trust in the administrative state. Public
Administration Review, 57,
454-458.
Saidel, J. (1994). The dynamics of interdependence between
public agencies and nonprofit
organizations. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public
administration (pp. 201-229).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and
third party government.
Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1), 29-49.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil
society: Explaining the non-
profit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9, 213-248.
Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007).
Measuring inter-organizational trust—A
critical review of the empirical research in 1990-2003.
Industrial Marketing Management,
36, 249-265.
Steinberg, R., & Young, D. (1998). A comment on Salamon and
Anheier’s “Social origins of
civil society.” Voluntas, 9, 249-260.
Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest?
Another look at research on
nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 36, 416-438.
Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to
understand the government–
nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of
Public Administration
Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.
Walden, G. I. (2006). Who’s watching us now? The nonprofit
sector and the new government
by surveillance. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 715-
720.
Warren, Mark E. 1999. (Ed.). Democracy and trust. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Weisbrod, M. R. (1978). Organizational diagnosis: A workbook
of theory and practice. New
York: Perseus.
Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic
organization. Journal of Law
and Economics, 36, 453-486.
Zald, M., & McCarthy, J. D. (1997). Social movements in an
organizational society: Collected
essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional

sources of economic structure,
1840-1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior
(pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jennifer Alexander, PhD, is an associate professor in the master
of public administration
program in the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban
Affairs at Cleveland State
University and codirector of the Center for Nonprofit Policy and
Practice. Her research
includes civil society, administrative responsibility, and public–
nonprofit partnerships.
Renée Nank, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of
Texas–San Antonio. Her
research interests include governance, network management,
and public–nonprofit sector rela-
tionships particularly in the provision of social services and
disaster planning and recovery.

364Administration & SocietyVolume 41 Number 3May 200.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 364Administration & SocietyVolume 41 Number 3May 200.docx

Similar to 364Administration & SocietyVolume 41 Number 3May 200.docx (20)

More from gilbertkpeters11344

More from gilbertkpeters11344 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

364Administration & SocietyVolume 41 Number 3May 200.docx