With the growth in privatization and devolution, increased collaboration between nonprofit providers and government agencies has become an essential part of the way that social services are delivered in the United States. As nonprofits have become increasingly responsible for the great bulk of social service delivery, and as they have become increasingly dependent on government funds to do that work, there has been growth in a variety of formal collaborative structures that are intended to increase sharing of responsibility and incorporate nonprofit service providers as stakeholders in funding and policy decision-making. These trends are known as collaborative governance or networked governance.

Collaborative governance networks provide opportunities for nonprofit service providers in the form of access to resources, policymakers, and information. As such, they have the potential to improve services and expand the influence of ground-level providers by creating a ready-made entry point to policymakers and facilitating collaboration. Little is known, however, about how the structure these networks take affects their ability to meet goals such as meaningfully incorporating nonprofits as stakeholders, facilitating advocacy, and pursuing priorities beyond funding. This research addresses the way that one particular type of structural variation—whether the network takes the form of an independent nonprofit or is housed in a government agency—affects the pursuit of these goals. The research question addressed in this paper is: What, if any, differences are found between nonprofit-led collaborative governance networks and government-led ones? Specifically, to what degree do they differ on 1) organizational priorities, 2) engagement in policy advocacy, and 3) inclusiveness of internal decision-making.

This research uses a nationwide survey (N=305) of HUD-sponsored collaborative governance networks to answer these questions. HUD currently requires nonprofit service providers in local communities to come together in what is known as a Continuum of Care (CoC) network. While some CoCs focus narrowly on the required tasks for funding, others aggressively pursue service improvement or advocacy goals. All CoC directors in the U.S. (N=430) were notified of the study by postal mail and e-mail and invited to take part the survey. Ultimately 305 CoC directors responded for a response rate of 71%. The survey contained questions on leadership, membership, funding, advocacy involvement, and internal decision-making.

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