PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 8 January 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 784375806]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Administration in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303969

Inter-Agency CollaborationBrenda D. Smith a; Cristina Mogro-Wilson a

a School of Social Welfare, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Online Publication Date: 25 February 2008

To cite this Article Smith, Brenda D. and Mogro-Wilson, Cristina(2008)'Inter-Agency Collaboration',Administration in Social Work,32:2,5— 24

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J147v32n02_02

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J147v32n02_02

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Inter-Agency Collaboration:Policy and Practice in Child Welfare

and Substance Abuse Treatment

Brenda D. Smith, PhDCristina Mogro-Wilson, MSW

ABSTRACT. Inter-agency collaboration may be an effective way toimprove services for those families involved with both the child welfareand substance abuse treatment service systems. This study addressesthe practice of inter-agency collaboration and assesses how collaborativepractices vary both between and within organizations. Agency adminis-trators (n = 20) and frontline staff (n = 216) in child welfare and sub-stance abuse treatment agencies were surveyed about organizationalpolicies regarding inter-agency collaboration and specific collaborativepractices. Results from multi-level models suggest that the level ofcollaborative practice varies within organizations and that staff percep-tions of policy toward collaboration are a stronger predictor of collabo-rative practice than are administrator reports of agency policy towardcollaboration. Findings have implications for the conceptualization and

Brenda D. Smith (E-mail: bsmith@albany.edu) is Associate Professor; and CristinaMogro-Wilson (E-mail: cemogro@hotmail.com) is a doctoral student; both are affiliatedwith the School of Social Welfare, University at Albany, State University of New York.

Address correspondence to: Brenda D. Smith, University at Albany, State Univer-sity of New York, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222.

The authors thank Kimberly Hoagwood, Tom D’Aunno, Jan Hagen, Jim Jaccard,Steve Banks, Phil McCallion, and Irene Manfredo for consultation and assistance.

This research was supported by pilot funding from the National Institute on DrugAbuse (NIDA) through the Child Welfare, Drug Abuse, and Intergenerational Risk(CWDAIR) Social Work Development Program at the School of Social Welfare, Uni-versity at Albany (5R01-DA-015376-02).

Administration in Social Work, Vol. 32(2) 2008Available online at http://asw.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J147v32n02_02 5

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

measurement of inter-agency collaboration and for efforts to transfer newpractices into routine settings. doi:10.1300/J147v32n02_02 [Article copiesavailable for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rightsreserved.]

KEYWORDS. Organizations, collaboration, child welfare, substanceabuse treatment, implementation, frontline practice, multi-level models

Over the past two decades, as attention has focused on the importantneeds of families involved with both the child welfare and substanceabuse service systems, commentators have typically concluded that ser-vice receipt and positive outcomes for such families will be promotedby inter-agency collaboration (McAlpine, Marshall, & Doran, 2001;Semidei, Radel, & Nolan, 2001; Tracy & Farkas, 1994; USDHHS/SAMHSA,1999; Young & Gardner, 1998). Calls for increased collabo-ration and confidence in the capacity of inter-agency collaboration topromote positive outcomes have persisted even while studies focusedspecifically on integrated service systems in related areas have not con-vincingly demonstrated positive effects (Bickman, 1996; Friedmann,Hendrickson, Gerstein, & Zhang, 2004; Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998).

Despite the persistent interest and confidence in inter-agency collab-oration, little is known about the extent to which child welfare and sub-stance abuse treatment agencies have, in fact, adopted or successfullyimplemented policies to promote collaboration. Indeed, while certain in-novative pilot programs have demonstrated success in promoting closercontact between the two agency types (e.g., Ryan & Testa, 2004), philo-sophical, legal, and logistical differences between the two service systemsseem to have hindered collaboration in everyday settings. In addition, forthese service systems, we still know little about the organizational andindividual-level characteristics that most effectively promote the adop-tion of pro-collaboration policy or the implementation of collaborativepractices. Finally, and most importantly, we still lack convincing evidenceof the capacity of inter-agency collaboration to improve services forclients. Is collaboration between child welfare and substance abuse treat-ment agencies, as commonly believed in the face of some counter evi-dence, a means toward better services and better treatment outcomes forfamilies? Or are efforts to promote inter-agency collaboration a popularand persistent distraction from efforts to advance more promising prac-tices (Weiss, 1981)?

6 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Before we can confidently address whether increased collaborationbetween child welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies willimprove services, or confidently devise mechanisms to promote inter-agency collaboration, it is necessary to carefully conceptualize andmeasure inter-agency collaboration and to study the process by whichit occurs in everyday settings. Collaboration successes and failures areoften attributed to agency-level explanations, such as the willingness toestablish pro-collaboration programs or to devote sufficient resourcesto collaboration, but it remains unknown whether current levels ofinter-agency collaboration more closely reflect the capacity of agenciesto adopt pro-collaboration policies or the capacity of frontline staff toimplement organizational expectations. Few studies have addressedinter-agency collaboration in these service sectors from both micro andmacro perspectives, assessing both the adoption and frontline imple-mentation of organizational policy toward inter-agency collaboration.To respond to this gap, the present study of child welfare and substanceabuse treatment agencies (1) precisely measures both agency policy to-ward collaboration and staff collaborative practice, and (2) uses both or-ganization-level and individual-level data to examine the relationshipbetween policy and practice.

BACKGROUND

Conceptualization and Operationalizationof Inter-Agency Collaboration

Inter-agency collaboration generally involves the exchange of re-sources or joint pursuit of mutual goals. Such activity is sometimes pro-moted through agency policy or programs. In child welfare and substanceabuse treatment, inter-agency collaborative activity might range fromsimple exchanges, such as cross-agency referrals or consultation abouttreatment plans, to more substantial integration, such as the collocationof staff. Inter-agency collaboration is often conceptualized as an organi-zation-level phenomenon and measured at the organization level. Forexample, an agency administrator or other designated informant may beasked about an agency’s contacts. An alternative conceptualization con-siders that inter-agency collaboration is an individual-level behavior, al-beit a behavior that may be influenced by organization-level factors suchas policy or climate. The latter conceptualization highlights the distinc-tion between organization-level adoption of pro-collaboration policies

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 7

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

and individual-level implementation of such policies, as well as the ca-pacity for collaborative practices to vary within organizations. Insightsabout both the antecedents and effects of inter-agency collaboration maybe enhanced through the conceptualization of collaboration as a staffpractice as well as an organizational arrangement. In addition, in childwelfare and substance abuse, inter-agency collaboration is a relativelynew form of practice. Hence, theory and research addressing the adoptionand implementation of new practices may help to explain the adoption orimplementation of inter-agency collaboration in these systems.

Organizational Adoption of Inter-Agency Collaboration

Certain organizational theories have been commonly used to explainthe formation of inter-agency collaborative relationships (see Alter &Hage, 1993; Meyers, 1993; Oliver, 1990). For example, a resource de-pendency or exchange perspective suggests that an organization willpromote inter-agency collaboration when it has something to gainthrough collaboration (Aldrich, 1976; Cook, 1977; Levine & White,1961). Hence, according to this perspective, in child welfare and sub-stance abuse treatment we would expect substance abuse treatmentagencies to promote collaboration in instances when they rely exten-sively on child welfare agencies for client referrals. By contrast, an in-stitutional perspective suggests that even if organizations have nothingtangible to gain, inter-agency collaboration will be more likely when or-ganizations face pressures to demonstrate legitimacy or to conformto commonly held norms in their environment (DiMaggio & Powell,1983; Fennell & Alexander, 1987; Scott, 2001). According to this pers-pective, we might expect child welfare organizations to promote col-laboration in contexts where the drug treatment needs of child welfareclients have received public attention, or when other prominent childwelfare agencies publicize collaborative efforts. Yet another perspec-tive suggests that inter-agency relationships reflect the influence of bothresource dependency and external systems change (Van de Ven, 1976).According to this perspective, inter-agency collaborative relationshipsare most likely to develop among organizations that need other agencyresources, become aware of the resources another agency can offer, andfeel compelled by an external entity to collaborate. Finally, a relatedperspective suggests that mutual dependencies between organizationsincrease as organizations become increasingly aware of joint problemsand make adjustments to respond (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). Giventhe increased awareness of joint challenges faced by child welfare and

8 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

substance abuse treatment agencies, we might expect the two types ofagencies to become increasingly interdependent over time.

Studies testing the utility of organization-level theories to explaininter-agency collaboration have used innovative methods such as socialnetwork analysis to illustrate and assess collaborative exchange net-works. Such studies have illustrated the relevance of network size, den-sity, and type, for example, to service delivery (e.g., Morrissey, 1992;Morrissey et al., 2002), and shown that precise mapping of inter-agencyrelationships can reveal more collaboration than informants had per-ceived (Provan & Milward, 1995). Analyses of inter-agency networkshave also revealed denser connections among frontline service referralnetworks than among administrative planning or activity coordinationnetworks (Bolland & Wilson, 1994; Heflinger, 1996), and found thatinter-organizational linkages increase over time as organizations inone service system become increasingly aware of services offered inanother system (Rivard, Johnsen, Morrissey, & Starrett, 1999).

Such studies are useful for explaining and reflecting the organiza-tion-level adoption of pro-collaboration policy and programs, but it isalso important to address potential gaps between policy adoption andimplementation and between the perceptions of agency administratorsand frontline staff. Adoption of pro-collaboration policy or programsmay be an important influence on the behavior of frontline staff, but the-ory and research focusing specifically on implementation indicate thatorganizational policy is only one of many influences on staff behavior(Lipsky, 1980; Sandfort,1999). Organization-level decisions to adoptinnovative practices are often not successfully implemented at thefrontlines (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Hoagwood, 2003; Simpson,2002), and administrator perceptions may be a poor indicator of staffexperiences. For example, an evaluation of a two-part intervention topromote inter-agency collaboration at administrative and frontline prac-tice levels among mental health and vocational services agencies foundthat administrators perceived that collaboration had increased after theintervention, but there was no change in staff perceptions of collabora-tive practice (Rogers, Anthony, & Danley, 1989). Similarly, one of thefew recent studies to specifically address both adoption and implemen-tation of substance abuse treatment services found that the receipt ofspecial funding for certain programing promoted the organizationaladoption but not the implementation of special services (Campbell &Alexander, 2005).

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 9

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Intra-Organizational Implementationof Inter-Agency Collaboration

Theory and research addressing policy and program implementationacknowledge and attempt to explain gaps between adopted policies orprograms and frontline practices (see Klein & Sorra, 1996). In humanservice organizations, staff at the front lines, or “street level” (Lipsky,1980), often face numerous pressures, such as high caseloads, challeng-ing time deadlines, and competing program goals, that can hinder thecapacity to practice in accord with agency policy. Faced with such pres-sures and incompatible goals, staff may exercise discretion to establishpersonal practice priorities (Brodkin, 1997). Moreover, evidence sug-gests that frontline staff tend to adopt regular routines and procedures foraccomplishing their tasks, establishing an obstacle to the implementationof any new program or policy (O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984).

Focusing on the implementation of inter-agency collaboration, Sandfort(1999) illustrated how staff practices reflect routines learned and rein-forced through interaction with other staff, and how daily interactionsprovide a framework for staff to use when interpreting new policies andprograms. A framework of shared beliefs can also influence how staffinterpret interactions with staff from other agencies and thereby influ-ence incentives for future collaborative efforts (Sandfort, 1999). Childwelfare and substance abuse treatment staff may have similarly devel-oped expectations about staff from the other agency type, and such ex-pectations may hinder collaborative practice.

Underscoring the role of staff attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions, im-plementation studies have also found that frontline workers reject pol-icy mandates that conflict with their values (Klein & Sorra, 1996) ortheir understanding of an organization’s most important core activities(Meyers et al., 1998; Lin, 2000). Addressing child welfare needs maybe considered an agency core activity in the opinion of some substanceabuse treatment counselors, but not for others. The former may be morelikely to engage in inter-agency collaboration.

In sum, studies addressing inter-agency collaboration at the organizationlevel tend to focus on organizational adoption of programs or aggregatemeasures of staff behavior, often minimizing the potential importanceof practice differences within organizations. Studies addressing the im-plementation of collaborative practices in human service organizationshave highlighted the importance of assessing how policy or new pro-grams are perceived by staff, but such studies have often emphasizedthe role of “collective” beliefs among staff, thereby also minimizing the

10 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

potential role of within-organization variation. The existing studies laya foundation and establish a rationale for new studies to (1) assess inter-agency collaboration at both macro (between organizations) and mirco(within organizations) levels, (2) address both policy or program adop-tion and implementation, and (3) specifically assess the relationshipsamong administrator reports, staff perceptions, and practice.

METHOD

Sample

This study focuses on public and non-profit child welfare and sub-stance abuse treatment agencies in one state. Organizations were identi-fied from lists of child welfare agencies and substance abuse agencieswith programs for women. Administrators of the agencies were con-tacted by electronic mail and telephone to introduce the study and estab-lish agency participation. Of 24 such contacts, 21 organizations agreedto participate in the study. Informed that the study sought full represen-tation of any appropriate service unit, each administrator estimated thenumber of likely staff participants in his or her agency. Packets contain-ing the designated number of surveys, instructions, consent forms, and a$10 gift card for each participant were sent to a designated contact per-son in each agency. Of 284 staff surveys mailed, 218 were returned (re-sponse rate 77%); of 21 administrator surveys mailed, 20 were returned(response rate 90%). The number of staff member respondents peragency ranged from 3 to 24. Two of the staff surveys were removed fromthe study because there was no accompanying administrator survey.

Measures

Existing measures of inter-agency collaboration generally considerthe organization as the unit of analysis and address either organizationalpolicy or staff practices in the aggregate. Because this study addressesinter-agency collaboration as an organizational arrangement as well as apractice of individual staff members, and because it focuses specificallyon child welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies, specific mea-sures of inter-agency collaboration were developed for the study. Theprocess of survey item development involved conducting focus groupsof staff from child welfare and substance abuse agencies (four groupsinvolving 32 individuals who did not participate in the survey portion

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 11

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

of the study); reviewing a draft instrument with key informants inone-on-one interviews to obtain informants’ reactions to individual sur-vey items; and pilot testing the instrument in two agencies (one of eachtype). Because the instrument was not modified following the pilotstudy, pilot study data are included with the other survey data.

Collaborative practices were measured in two ways: a 7-item scale(Cronbach’s alpha = .92) including questions addressing general col-laborative practices (e.g., I attend joint staff meetings with staff fromsubstance abuse agencies), and a 4-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .86)including questions addressing only specific collaborative practices (e.g.,I telephoned a substance abuse treatment provider about one of my cli-ents in the last month; In the last month I involved a substance abusetreatment provider in service planning). The questions had a 5-point re-sponse scale: (1) = never, (2) = almost never, (3) = sometimes, (4) = of-ten, and (5) = very often. The 4-item measure of specific collaboration isthe dependent variable used for this study.

Agency adoption of pro-collaboration policy and staff perceptions ofpro-collaboration policy were measured by items in which respondentsindicated their level of certainty about whether their agencies hadadopted any of 13 possible policies to promote inter-agency collabora-tion. For example, items included: Our agency has staff from a sub-stance abuse agency stationed on site, and Our agency has protocols tofacilitate sharing information with child welfare agencies. The 5-pointresponse options were: (1) = Certainly not, (2) = Likely not, (3) = Don’tknow or uncertain, (4) = Likely yes, and (5) = Certainly yes. The mea-sure was modeled on measures of services integration used in otherstudies (e.g., Cocozza et al., 2000; Hurlburt et al., 2004). To count andcompare the number of pro-collaboration policies per agency, responses of4 (likely yes) or 5 (certainly yes) were coded as having a policy. The 13pro-collaboration policies and the percentage of respondents reportingthat their agencies have each policy are shown in Table 1. To generallyindicate the level of agency adoption of pro-collaboration policy, ad-ministrator reports of having each policy were summed across the 13possible policies; to generally indicate staff member perception of theadoption of agency policy, staff member reports of having each policywere summed across the 13 possible policies. Finally, to measureagency adoption of performance measures related to collaborative prac-tice, staff questionnaires included the item: My supervisor asks for doc-umentation of my collaboration with substance abuse treatment [childwelfare] staff with the same 5 response categories. Missing values forall variables were imputed using the regression method.

12 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Analytic Methods

Descriptive statistics were conducted to assess the presence of par-ticular agency policies toward collaboration and the general extent ofcollaborative practice. Bivariate statistics were conducted to assess theassociation between staff and administrator reports of pro-collaborationpolicies, and to assess associations between policy adoption and frontlinecollaborative practice. Multi-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)regression models were conducted to appropriately address organizationand individual-level influences on collaborative practice. Because staffwork (i.e., “nest”) within 20 agency offices, organization-level character-istics are likely to affect work experiences, including the likelihood ofcollaboration. If organization-level characteristics were simply attributedto each staff member in an organization, the regression assumption of inde-pendence among cases could be violated. Multi-level models provide ameans to estimate the effects of variables measured at different levels (inthis case, individual (Level 1) and organizational (Level 2)) on individualoutcomes (in this case, collaborative practice) while appropriately

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 13

TABLE 1. Administrator Reports and Staff Perceptions of Pro-CollaborationPolicies

Percentage ofadministrators reportingthat agency has policy

(n = 20)

Percentage of allstaff perceiving thatagency has policy

(n = 216)

Collocation of staff 16 17Formal policy regarding collaboration 58 49Formal service agreements 79 41Multi-agency treatment teams 74 60Information sharing protocols 79 87Requirement to engage other agencystaff in treatment planning

74 78

Special training to work with other system 53 45Designated funding for clients from othersystem

42 56

History of seeking joint funding 63 20Formal agreements with the courtsregarding clients from other system

37 45

Special programming for clientsfrom other system

68 51

Formal policy requiring communicationwith staff from other system

74 67

Participation in a family drug court program 68 62

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

adjusting for nested cases (see Raudenbush & Bryk, 1992). In addition,simple, unconditional, multi-level models containing no predictor vari-ables provide an estimate of the proportion of variance in collaborativepractice that can be attributed to each level (individual and organizational).

FINDINGS

Descriptive information about the study sample is presented in Table 2.A higher percentage of respondents are from child welfare agenciesamong staff (72%) than among administrators (53%) because, on aver-age, child welfare agencies were larger and had more staff per adminis-trator than substance abuse treatment agencies. Fewer than half of therespondents worked in public agencies. Notably, 42% of the staff and79% of the administrators had master’s degrees. About a third of thestaff and about half of the administrators had degrees in social work. Onaverage, staff and administrators report having a similar number of pro-collaboration policies at their agencies. Both report about seven of suchpolicies on average.

Staff see themselves as collaborators, but not frequent collaborators.Eighty-seven percent report that they sometimes contact staff from theother agency or involve them in treatment planning. Just over half (58%)report having at least sometimes done so in the last month. However, only16% report collaborating often or very often.

Table 1 includes staff and administrator reports about the adoption orperceived adoption of particular pro-collaboration policies. Most staffmembers and administrators report that their agencies have informa-tion-sharing protocols with the other agency type (87% of staff; 79% ofadministrators). A high percentage also report that staff are required toinvolve staff from the other agency type in treatment planning (78% ofstaff; 74% of administrators). The smallest percentage report having col-location of staff at the agency site (17% of staff; 16% of administrators).

At a bivariate level, administrator reports of the number of pro-collabration policies in an agency are weakly associated with staff per-ceptions of the number of pro-collaboration policies (r = .15, p = .03, n =216). Administrator reports of agency policy are not associated with staffcollaborative practice (r = .05, p = .49, n = 216). However, collaborativepractice is associated with staff perceptions of agency policy (r = .48,p < .01, n = 216). Collaborative practice is not associated with agencytype–child welfare and substance abuse staff report similar levels ofcollaboration. However, as might be predicted by institutional theory,

14 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 15

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics

Staff(n = 216)

Admin(n = 20)

Child welfare agency 72 53Substance abuse agency 28 47Public agency 42 26Private/ non-profit agency 58 74Female 87 68Race/ethnicity

White 81 90Black or African American 12 0Latino 4 0Other 3 5

Have a Bachelor’s degree 92 95Have or working toward Master’sdegree

42 79

Have or working toward a SocialWork degree (BSW or MSW)

30 53

SalaryLess than $25,000/year 11$25,001-35,000/year 44$35,001-45,000/year 34$45,001 or more/year 12

Collaborate with other agency staffin last month:

Never or almost never 42Sometimes 42Always or almost always 16

M SD Min Max

Staff : (n = 216)Number of years at agency 6.9 6.9 1 mos. 34 yrsNumber of years in position 3.7 4.3 1 mos. 24 yrsNumber of pro-collaboration policiesat agency (of 13 possible)

7.5 2.8 0 13

Likelihood of collaborative practicegenerally (7-item scale)

3.1 .90 1 5

Likelihood of collaborative practicein last month (4-item scale)

2.6 1.7 1 5

Administrators: (n = 20)Number of years at agency 12.5 8.2 1.4 yrs 28 yrsNumber of years in position 6.9 6.4 2 mos. 19 yrsNumber of pro-collaboration policiesat agency (of 13 possible)

7.8 2.5 2 10

Note: mos = months.

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

staff in public agencies report higher levels of collaborative practicethan do staff in private, non-profit agencies (t = 4.63, df = 214, p < .01).Finally, while a requirement to document collaboration performancedoes not assure inter-agency collaboration, staff who report this expec-tation are more likely than staff without this expectation to collaborateat least sometimes with staff from the other agency type. Of staff whoreported that it is at least likely that their supervisor asks for documenta-tion of inter-agency collaboration, 67% collaborate at least sometimes,compared to 45% of staff not perceiving this expectation (�2 = 9.66, df =1, p < .01, n = 216).

Broad measures, such as the overall correlation between organizationalpolicy and collaborative practice are limited when a primary question isthe extent to which practice within an organization reflects the particu-lar policies of the organization. Within-organization measures of varia-tion among staff, and the relationship between an administrator and hisor her staff seem more relevant. Because there is only one administratorrespondent per agency, the within-agency values of administrator reportsare constants, not variables that might be simply correlated with staffreports. The relationship between administrator reports of the numberof pro-collaboration policies in an agency and staff perceptions of thenumber of pro-collaboration policies is illustrated in Figure 1 whereeach administrator report is plotted against the mean staff report in hisor her agency. Figure 1 illustrates high levels of administrator-staff agree-ment in some agencies, and low levels of agreement in others.

Table 3 presents findings from the multi-level (HLM) models to as-sess the influence of individual-level perceptions and administrator-level

16 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

FIGURE 1. Number of Pro-Collaboration Policies per Agency: Plot of EachAgency’s Administrator Report with the Agency Mean Staff Perception

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

TA

BLE

3.M

ulti-

Leve

lMod

elof

Org

aniz

atio

nalP

olic

yIn

fluen

ces

onS

taff

Inte

r-A

genc

yC

olla

bora

tive

Pra

ctic

e

Mod

el1

Unc

ondi

tiona

lM

odel

Mod

el2

Leve

l2O

nly

Mod

el3

Leve

l1O

nly

Mod

el4

Leve

ls1

and

3

Coe

ff.S

.E.

TR

atio

Coe

ff.S

.E.

TR

atio

Coe

ff.S

.E.

TR

atio

Coe

ff.S

.E.

TR

atio

Fix

edef

fect

sIn

terc

ept

2.59

**.1

616

.32.

59**

.16

15.8

2.56

**.1

220

.85

2.56

**.1

320

.35

Leve

l1(s

taff-

leve

l)pr

edic

tors

Per

ceiv

edpo

licy

num

ber

.156

**.0

26.

35.1

55**

.02

6.30

Leve

l2(o

rg-le

vel)

pred

icto

rsA

dmin

repo

rted

polic

ynu

mbe

r.0

14.0

70.

19�

.018

.06

�0.

32

Ran

dom

effe

cts

Var

ianc

eco

mpo

nent

Indi

vidu

alle

vel(

Sig

ma2 )

.96

.96

.84

.84

Org

aniz

atio

nle

vel(

Tao

).3

9.4

1.2

0.2

1d.

f.19

1819

18�

210

1.8*

*10

1.4*

*66

.21*

*66

.08*

*

Var

ianc

epa

rtiti

onIn

divi

dual

leve

l.7

1O

rgan

izat

ion

leve

l.2

9P

ropo

rtio

nof

indi

vidu

al-

leve

lvar

ianc

eex

plai

ned

byea

chm

odel

013

%13

%

Pro

port

ion

ofor

gani

zatio

n-le

vel

varia

nce

expl

aine

dby

each

mod

el

049

%46

%

p�

.01;

Leve

l1n

=21

6;Le

vel2

n=

20.

17

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

reports on collaborative practice. The dependent variable in these modelsis the specific measure of collaborative practice. Model 1 is an uncondi-tional model containing no predictors (analogous to a one-way ANOVAwith random effects). The intercept parameter indicates the average col-laboration score for all study respondents. The variance component(an indicator of residual between-organizationvariance) and chi-squarestatistic indicate that the likelihood of collaboration varies significantlyby organization. The first column of the table also includes the inter-classcorrelation coefficient which shows how the proportion of variance incollaborative practice partitions within (71%) and between (29%) orga-nizations.

Model 2 includes only the organization-level variable indicating ad-ministrator reports of the number of pro-collaboration policies in place.The variable has no significant relationship to collaborative practice,nor does it account for any of the residual variance in collaboration atthe individual or organizational levels. Model 3 includes only the indi-vidual-level variable indicating staff member perception of pro-collab-oration policy. The coefficient indicates that perceptions are positivelyassociated with collaborative practice–staff who perceive a higher num-ber of pro-collaboration policies are more likely to collaborate. Staffpolicy perceptions also account for 13% of the residual individual-levelvariance and 49% of the organization-level variance in collaborativepractice. That individual-level policy perceptions account for organiza-tion-level variance indicates that, to some extent, staff policy perceptionsare shared within organizations and that collective perceptions help toexplain collaborative practice. Finally, when both individual-levelpolicy perceptions and organization-level policy reports are included inModel 4, the effects are similar to those of the previous models. Collab-orative practice is associated with staff perceptions of policy, but notwith administrator reports of the pro-collaboration policies in place.

DISCUSSION

Summary

This study conceptualized inter-agency collaboration as a practiceof individual staff members and addressed the relationship between orga-nizational policy toward collaboration and staff collaborative practice.The study found, first, that both staff and administrators report that their

18 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

agencies have adopted a range of pro-inter-agency-collaboration policies.However, staff perceptions of agency policy toward collaboration differfrom administrator reports of policy toward collaboration. Staff policyperceptions are only weakly associated with administrator reports. Withinthe same agencies, and under the same policy, staff policy perceptionsvary. Second, consistent with earlier illustrations of potential discrepanciesbetween-organization policy and staff practice (Campbell & Alexander,2005; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002), or between administrator andstaff perceptions (Rogers, Anthony, & Danley, 1989), the study foundthat staff collaborative practice is associated with staff perceptions of pol-icy, but not with administrator reports of agency policy. As with percep-tions of policy, the level of staff collaborative practice varies withinorganizations. Staff who perceive more pro-collaboration policies in theiragencies are more likely to collaborate, but the organizational adoptionof pro-collaboration policy is not significantly related to collaborativepractice. Finally, staff perceptions of policy vary not only within orga-nizations, but perceptions also appear to vary systematically betweenorganizations, perhaps reflecting collective organizational perceptionsas previously illustrated by Sandfort (1999).

Implications

The study findings have implications for the conceptualization andmeasurement of inter-agency collaboration. If the study had measuredinter-agency collaboration only at the organization level, using onlyadministrator reports of agency policy, for example, a different, morepositive, picture of the extent of inter-agency collaboration would haveemerged. Seventy-four percent of administrators reported that their agen-cies require staff to engage other agency staff in treatment planning, forexample. Yet, 58% of staff reported doing so in the last month and only16% reported doing so always or almost always. The variation withinorganizations in staff collaborative practice illustrates a benefit of mea-suring inter-agency collaboration between these two agency types at theindividual staff level. Whereas collective beliefs about agency policyand practice may develop to some extent within agencies, there remainsubstantial individual-level differences in collaborative practice. Suchindividual differences and organization-level similarities warrant futurestudy to more precisely explain factors that promote and hinder collabo-rative practice.

Another implication of the findings relates to efforts to promote collabo-ration between child welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies.

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 19

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Findings suggest that such efforts should extend beyond only encourag-ing agencies to adopt programs or policies that require information shar-ing, involvement in treatment planning, or other forms of inter-agencycollaboration. Clearly, the adoption of such policies is just one step. Stafffail to implement such policy requirements in some cases and engage insuch practices in the absence of such requirements in other cases. Effortsto promote inter-agency collaboration must address the perceptions andbehavior of individual staff as well as organizational policy adoption.Importantly, consistent with the findings of Sandfort (1999), performancemeasures that include inter-agency collaboration promote but are notsufficient to ensure staff collaborative practice. In addition to such poli-cies, staff practices may be affected by collective beliefs and experi-ences generated through interaction with others in an organization, aswell as by individual-level characteristics that are less susceptible tocollective influence.

Finally, the findings have implications for the transfer of innova-tive practices into everyday community settings (see Rogers, 1995;Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001; Simpson, 2002). The findings sug-gest that organization-level data on the transfer or adoption of newpractices such as inter-agency collaboration may be obscuring possiblyimportant practice variation within organizations. The findings suggestthat efforts to understand and ultimately promote the transfer of promis-ing or evidence-based practices into routine settings ought to addressorganizational characteristics associated with the organizational adop-tion of new practices (e.g., Roman & Johnson, 2002), organizational in-fluences on staff practices (see Glisson, 2002; Smith & Donovan,2003), and staff or provider characteristics that may influence practiceimplementation (e.g., Stiffman, Pescosolido, & Cabassa, 2004; Glasgow,Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003). While not addressed in this study, suchcharacteristics might include specific knowledge or beliefs about a newpractice, including expectations for its success or perceptions of its fitwith organizational goals (Rogers, 1995; Rosenheck, 2001). The findingsunderscore the wisdom of approaches explicitly taking a multi-level andinteractive approach to the implementation of new practices (e.g., Liddleet al., 2002).

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional designprohibits conclusions about the causal direction of relationships such asthe positive association between policy perceptions and collaborative

20 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

practice. Perceptions of pro-collaboration policy may promote collabo-rative practice, or engaging in collaborative practice may influence per-ceptions of agency policy. Second, the study was conducted in one statewith a non-random sample of organizations. In addition, because the fi-nal step of the instrument distribution relied on agency contact persons,we cannot guarantee that distribution of the study packets within agen-cies was complete and unbiased. Generalizability of the findings cannotbe assumed. Third, the study measures are based on self report and,while having high reliability, have unknown validity. Given the impor-tance placed on inter-agency collaboration by state administrators andothers, there is reason to suspect some degree of social desirability biasin staff member reports of collaborative practice. Finally, with only 20organizations having matched administrator and staff reports, the studyhas very limited power at the organization level. The organization-leveleffects could be better explored in a study involving more organizations.

CONCLUSION

Families involved with both child welfare and substance abuse treat-ment agencies often need effective services if the parents are to overcomeaddiction and retain custody of their children. Child welfare agencies andsubstance abuse treatment agencies are encouraged to collaborate to pro-mote effective services for parents. To help practitioners and policy mak-ers assess whether increased collaboration between agencies in thesetwo service systems will promote better services and better outcomes,such as the placement of fewer children in substitute care, researchers mustappropriately conceptualize and measure inter-agency collaboration.

While organizational theories can be useful for predicting which orga-nizations will adopt policies or programs to promote inter-agency collab-oration, such theories are less useful for explaining practice variationwithin agencies. An approach addressing both agency-level adoption ofcollaboration policy and staff-level implementation of collaborative prac-tice can illustrate more clearly the components of successful inter-agencycollaboration. For even when pro-collaboration policies are adopted bychild welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies, such policies maynot be sufficient to promote inter-agency collaboration. Successful inter-agency collaboration may ultimately depend on particular staff practices,such as making a telephone call or attending a meeting. This study sug-gests that the tendency to engage in such specific practices varies amongstaff in the same organizations. Future research should address further

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 21

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

both the organizational and individual-level characteristics associatedwith the practice of inter-agency collaboration. When we can more pre-cisely identify the child welfare and substance abuse treatment staffmembers who are successful collaborators and more precisely define theorganizational characteristics that promote collaborative practice, we canthen address with precision the relationship between inter-agency col-laborative practice and client outcomes.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. (1976). Resource dependence and interorganizational relations. Adminis-tration and Society, 7(4), 419-454.

Alter, A., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bickman, L. (1996). A continuum of care: More is not always better. American Psy-

chologist, 51(7), 689-701.Bolland, J.M., & Wilson, J.V. (1994). Three faces of coordination: A model of

interorganizational relations in community-based health and human services. HealthServices Research, 29(3), 341-366.

Brodkin, E.Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability instate welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1-33.

Campbell, C.I., & Alexander, J.A. (2005). Health services for women in outpatientsubstance abuse treatment. Health Services Research 40(3), 781-810.

Cocozza, J.J., Steadman, H.J., Dennis, D.L., Blasinsky, M., Randolph, F.L., Johnsen,M., & Goldman, H. (2000). Successful systems integration strategies: The ACCESSprogram for persons who are homeless and mentally ill. Administration and Policyin Mental Health, 27 (6), 395-407.

Cook, K.S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations.Sociological Quarterly, 18, 62-82.

DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutionalisomorphisim and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Socio-logical Review, 48, 147-160.

Fennell, M.L., & Alexander, J.A. (1987). Organizational boundary spanning in institu-tionalized environments. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 456-476.

Frambach, R.T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: Amulti-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Jour-nal of Business Research, 55, 163-176.

Friedmann, P., Hendrickson, J., Gerstein, D., & Zhang, Z. (2004). Designated case man-agers as facilitators of medical and psychosocial service delivery in addiction treat-ment programs. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 31(1), 86-97.

Glasgow, R.E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A.C. (2003). Why don’t we see moretranslation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-ef-fectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261-1267.

Glisson, C. (2002). The organizational context of children’s mental health services.Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5 (4), 233-253.

22 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate andinterorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s servicesystems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401-421.

Heflinger, C.A. (1996). Measuring service system coordination in managed mentalhealth care for children and youth. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(2), 155-163.

Hoagwood, K. (2003). The policy context for child and adolescent mental health ser-vices: Implications for systems reform and basic science development. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences, 1008, 140-148.

Hurlburt, M.S., Leslie, L., Landsverk, J., Barth, R.P., Burns, B.J., Gibbons, R.D.,Slymen, D.J., & Zhang, J. (2004). Contextual predictors of mental health serviceuse among children open to child welfare. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61,1217-1224.

Klein, K.J., & Sorra, J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad-emy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.

Levine, S., & White, P.E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study ofinterorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 583-601.

Liddle, H.A., Rowe, C.L., Quille, T.J., Dakof, G.A., Mills, D.S., Sakran, E., & Biaggi,H. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 231-243.

Lin, A.C. 2000. Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public ser-vices. New York: Russell Sage.

McAlpine, C., Marshall, C.C., & Doran, N.H. (2001). Combining child welfare andsubstance abuse services: A blended model of intervention. Child Welfare, 80(2),129-149.

Meyers, M.K. (1993). Organizational factors in the integration of services for children.Social Service Review, 66(4), 547-575.

Meyers, M.K., Glaser, B., & MacDonald, K. (1998). On the front lines of welfare deliv-ery: Are workers implementing policy reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, 17(1), 1-22.

Morrissey, J.P. (1992). An interorganizational network approach to evaluating chil-dren’s mental health service systems. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 54,85-98.

Morrissey, J.P., Calloway, M.O., Thakur, N., Cocozza, J., Steadman, H.J., & Dennis,D. (2002). Integration of service systems for homeless persons with serious mentalillness through the ACCESS program. Psychiatric Services, 53(8), 949-957.

O’Toole, L.J., & Montjoy, R.S. (1984). Interorganizational policy implementation: Atheoretical perspective. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 491-503.

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships integration andfuture directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241-265.

Provan, K., & Milward, H. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational net-work effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.

Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applicationsand data analysis methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brenda D. Smith and Cristina Mogro-Wilson 23

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009

Rivard, J., Johnsen, M., Morrissey, J., & Starrett, B. (1999). The dynamics of inter-agency collaboration: How linkages develop for child welfare and juvenile justicesectors in a system of care demonstration. Journal of Social Service Research,25(3), 61-82.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.Rogers, S.E., Anthony, W.A., & Danley, K.S. (1989). The impact of interagency col-

laboration on system and client outcomes. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,33(2), 100-109.

Roman, P.M., & Johnson, J. (2002). Adoption and implementation of new technologiesin substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 211-218.

Rosenheck, R.A. (2001). Organizational process: A missing link between research andpractice. Psychiatric Services, 52(12), 1607-1612.

Ryan, J., & Testa, M. (2004). Intensive case management as a strategy for servingsubstance abusing families in the child welfare system: Lessons from the AODAWaiver Demonstration Project in Illinois. Paper presented at the Society for SocialWork and Research Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, January 15-18.

Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Exam-ining welfare reform at the front lines. Social Service Review, 73(3), 314-339.

Schoenwald, S.K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemi-nation of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52(9), 1190-1197.

Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Semidei, J., Radel, L.F., & Nolan, C. (2001). Substance abuse and child welfare: Clear

linkages and promising responses. Child Welfare, 80 (2), 109-128.Simpson, D.D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice.

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 171-182.Smith, B.D., & Donovan, S.E.F. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and

institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541-563.Stiffman, A.R., Pescosolido, B., & Cabassa, L.J. (2004). Building a model to under-

stand youth service access: The Gateway Provider Model. Mental Health ServicesResearch, 6(4), 189-198.

Tracy, E. M., & Farkas, K.J. (1994). Preparing practitioners for child welfare practicewith substance-abusing families. Child Welfare, 73(1), 57-68.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse Mental HealthServices Administration (USDHHS/SAMHSA). (1999). Blending perspectives andbuilding common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and childprotection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relationsamong organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 24-36.

Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D. (1980). Measuring and Assessing Organizations. NewYork: Wiley.

Weiss, J.A. (1981). Substance vs. symbol in administrative reform: The case of humanservices coordination. Policy Analysis, 7, 21-45.

Young, N.K., & Gardner, S.L. (1998). Children at the crossroads. Public Welfare,56(1), 3-10.

doi:10.1300/J147v32n02_02

24 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Downloaded By: [University of Connecticut] At: 20:13 8 January 2009