Models of Collaborative Governance: The City of Los Angeles’ Foreclosure Registry Program
2. Study Focus
- What patterns or phases of collective action describe the evolution of the Los Angeles response to the housing foreclosure crisis?
- Do these patterns resemble known patterns of collective action, particularly governance network patterns?
3.1. Foreclosure Data
3.1.1. Theoretical Perspective: The Role of Networks Addressing “Wicked Problems?”
Moving from Government to Governance
3.1.2. Collaborative Governance
3.2. Phases in Building Networks
- if the contingency factors are inconsistent with regards to the number of inconsistencies and the inconsistency with the governance form, the less likely that the form will be effective leading to either ineffectiveness, dissolution or change in form of governance;
- shared governance will be most effective where trust is shared among network participants, high density trust, when there are relatively few participants (6 or less), when the network level goal consensus is high, and when the need for competencies is low;
- Lead organizational network governance is most effective when trust is narrowly shared, low density, highly centralized trust, with moderate number of participants, when consensus is moderately low, and when need for competencies is moderate;
- network administrative organizations are more effective when trust is moderately shared among the members, with moderate number of participants, and the level of competencies are high (Provan and Kenis 2007, p. 241).
3.3. Research Informed Expectations on Building Networks
- Expectation Two—Central to building trust will be the role of a central leader (an integrator) to move policy and implementation forward (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004);
- Expectation Four—Stakeholder innovations within the network are important to overcome barriers found with bureaucratic structures (Sørensen and Torfing 2011).
- Expectation Five—The formation of the network will be sequential, building on the strength of each phase of network formation (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Assessing the Los Angeles Foreclosure Network Phases
4.1.1. Network Design
4.1.2. Policy Development Strategy
4.1.3. Selection of Members
4.1.4. Network Management
4.1.5. Ensuring Innovation
4.2. Assessment of Network Phases in Building the LA Governance Network
5. Summary of Findings
5.1. Expectation One: The Building of Governance Networks Calls Upon Establishing Trust within the Network to Obtain Participation
5.2. Expectation Two—Central to Building Trust Will Be the Role of a Central Leader (an Integrator) to Move Policy and Implementation Forward
5.3. Expectation Three—New and Expanding Relationships Among Stakeholders Need to Be Continually Developed and Constantly Nurtured
5.4. Expectation Four—Stakeholder Innovations Within the Network are Important to Overcome Barriers Found with Bureaucratic Structures
5.5. Expectation Five—The Formation of the Network Will Be Sequential, Building on the Strength of Each phase of Network Formation
Conflicts of Interest
- Agranoff, Robert. 2003. Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working across Organizations. Washington: IBD Endowment for the Business of Government. [Google Scholar]
- Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Blankenship, Debbie. 2014. Expert: Blight Has no Clear definition. Available online: https://www.macon.com/news/special-reports/house-next-door/article30144030.html (accessed on 17 August 2019).
- Boellstorff, Tom, Bonnie Nardi, Celia Pearce, and Tina L. Taylor. 2012. Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, Jacqueline, Kerrie Mengersen, Sarah Bennett, and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2014. Viewing Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Social Research Through Different Lenses. SpringerPlus 3: 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fixla.org. 2014. In LA, Banks Get Away with Blight and Hand Taxpayers the Bill: Holding Banks Accountable for Devastating Our Neighborhoods and Costing la Taxpayers $1 Billion. Available online: http://fixla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/In-LA-Banks-Get-Away-with-Blight-report.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2019).
- Foreclosure Registry Ordinance. 2010. Ordinance 181185 Foreclosure Registry. Available online: https://hcidla.lacity.org/foreclosure-registry-ordinance (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- Frederickson, H. George. 1999. The Repositioning of American Public Administration. PS: Political Sciences & Politics 32: 701–11. [Google Scholar]
- Galperin, Ron. 2014. Targeting Troubled Properties: LA Controller Issues ‘Action Plan’ to Track Foreclosure, Reduce Blight. Available online: http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@ctr_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_028314.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2019).
- Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network. The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington: The Brookings Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26: 91–108. [Google Scholar]
- Helco, Hugh. 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political System. Edited by King Anthony. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 87–124. [Google Scholar]
- Keast, Robyn, Myrna P. Mandell, Kerry Brown, and Geoffrey Woolcock. 2004. Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations. Public Administration Review 64: 363–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koliba, Christopher J., Jack W. Meek, Asim Zia, and Russell W. Mills. 2011. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Baca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
- Mandell, Myrna P., and Robyn Keast. 2009. A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: Process catalysts. In Public Sector Leadership: International Challenges and Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 163–78. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, Michael. 2002. Managing Networks: Propositions on What Mangers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review 62: 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meek, Jack W. 2009. Public Administration Theory and Perspectives. In International Encyclopedia of Public Policy-Governance in a Global Age. Edited by Phillip Anthony O’Hara. Perth: Political Economy, GPERU, vol. 3, pp. 586–601. Available online: http://pohara.homestead.com/Encyclopedia/Volume-3.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2018).
- Mosley, Jennifer E., and Meghan Jarpe. 2019. How Structural Variations in Collaborative Governance Networks Influence Advocacy Involvement and Outcomes. Public Administration Review 79: 629–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, William H., and Jack W. Meek. 2005. Complex Systems and the Conjunctive State. Paper presented at ANZYS Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 5–7. [Google Scholar]
- Paquet, Gilles. 2005. The New Geo-Governance A Baraque Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. [Google Scholar]
- Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2007. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 229–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabatier, Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. 2014. Theories of the Policy Process. Bounder: Westview Press. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfing. 2011. Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. Administration & Society 43: 842–68. [Google Scholar]
- Weible, Christopher M. 2006. An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19: 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Network Phases||Implications in Application||Comments|
|Create a mission statement tied to goals focused on outcomes based on public value. Select appropriate network mode: participant governed; lead organization; or network administrative organization.||Establishes trust & ensures high level of goal consensus.|
|Policy learning utilizing conflict to create learning||Creates effective policy|
|Culturally compatible-shared values.||Creates trust, social capital & democratic anchorage.|
|Framing, facilitating agreements, mobilizing & synthesizing.||Creates productive environments.|
|Utilize elected official’s capacity to convene, makes work easier for PA.||Makes it easier to get the “buy in” and creates user satisfaction.|
|Network Phase||LA Case||Comments|
|Each of the stakeholder departments were legally autonomous organizations that worked together to achieve both their own goals and collective goals. HCDLA worked as the Lead Organization within a goal directed network to remedy blighted and abandoned residential property in the wake of the 2008 foreclosure crisis. The FRN trust was low density as HCDLA held a highly centralized governance and other Stakeholder’s performance was not tied to the FRN.||HCIDLA was required to establish trust within the network to obtain participation within the network. Some City Departments expressed reluctance due to their experience in working with other City departments that proved to be ineffective and often times non-responsive. This required continual reminders of incentives for collaboration as well as establishing trust by creating working relationships with street level bureaucrats that produced results.|
|HCIDLA implemented a learning policy strategy in order to establish cross coalition learning due to the established Los Angeles City bureaucratic structure that limited collaboration among and across City Departments.||Conflict helped to create learning opportunities in a bureaucratic structure that limits interaction among City Departments. However, without the integrator with political backing, the relationship among the two departments with the most bureaucratic structures, due to the deep core beliefs, could not be penetrated.|
|The FRN was established by a political mandate, City Ordinance and later by the Controller Audit and established by a Councilmember integrator. The FRN was composed of culturally compatible City Departments with shared values related to dealing with blighted properties. The City ensured democratic anchorage by ensuring that all affected City Departments as well as the constituency was included in the process. HCIDLA utilized an established advocacy coalition group consisting of housing rights advocates to represent the constituency.||Trust was created within the network as a result of the shared values of each department to address blighted properties. The integrator assisted in moving the FRN forward by ensuring that the members came to the table to listen and participate.|
|FRN was activated by the identification of all City Departments affected by blighted and abandoned properties. The FRN was framed by the Chair of the Housing Committee, a City Councilmember Deputy, both in getting the stakeholders to the table and when the FRN was breaking down and mobilizing stakeholders. Synthesizing behaviors were established with Code Inspectors, Senior LAPD lead officers, and LAFD personnel. HCIDLA became a representative; took on all administrative burden; operate by both agenda and individual communication; recognized shared expertise; ensured the FRN stayed within decision bounds; continued to accommodate and adjust; ensure creativity; establish patience; continued to recruit new members; and emphasize incentives.||Productive environments were created at the street level bureaucrat level establishing working relationships that were non-existent prior to the creation of the FRN that produced results thereby incentivizing participation.|
|The FRN capitalized on the fact that it had funds to establish a GeoRegistry system as a mechanism to address blight. The establishment of the FRN was created as a means to establish the GeoRegistry, however the collaboration and success of dealing with blighted and abandoned properties occurred within the FRN. The opportunities to establish trust and create networks of street level bureaucrats to effectively reduce the effects of blighted and abandoned foreclosed properties were established through the exchange of shared values. Opportunities where established through operational daily tasks that seized on relationships already established by HCIDLA with lenders, beneficiaries, trustees and their representatives.||Innovations were established that broke down the bureaucratic structures and allowed for cross collaboration through the FRN.|
The GeoRegistry that was the focus of the FRN, however has not proven as useful as the relationships that were created.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Morales, H.; Meek, J. Models of Collaborative Governance: The City of Los Angeles’ Foreclosure Registry Program. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040083
Morales H, Meek J. Models of Collaborative Governance: The City of Los Angeles’ Foreclosure Registry Program. Administrative Sciences. 2019; 9(4):83. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040083Chicago/Turabian Style
Morales, Helen, and Jack Meek. 2019. "Models of Collaborative Governance: The City of Los Angeles’ Foreclosure Registry Program" Administrative Sciences 9, no. 4: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040083