PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE IN A … · In this article, we develop a process model...

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01950.x

PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCEIN A DISASTER CONTEXT: THE CASE OF HAITI

ISABELLA M. NOLTE AND SILKE BOENIGK

During disasters, partnerships between public and nonprofit organizations are vital to provide fastrelief to affected communities. In this article, we develop a process model to support a performanceevaluation of such intersectoral partnerships. The model includes input factors, organizationalstructures, outputs and the long-term outcomes of public–nonprofit partnerships. These factorsderive from theory and a systematic literature review of emergency, public, nonprofit, and networkresearch. To adapt the model to a disaster context, we conducted a case study that examinespublic and nonprofit organizations that partnered during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The case studyresults show that communication, trust, and experience are the most important partnership inputs;the most prevalent governance structure of public–nonprofit partnerships is a lead organizationnetwork. Time and quality measures should be considered to assess partnership outputs, andcommunity, network, and organizational actor perspectives must be taken into account whenevaluating partnership outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

The number of disasters has increased over time: Whereas approximately 100 naturaland technological disasters were registered in 1975, in 2008, more than 600 disasterswere reported worldwide (CRED 2009). Across hundreds of countries, approximately200 million people were affected by natural disasters in 2008, which caused economicdamage estimated at up to US$180 billion (CRED 2009). On 12 January 2010, an earthquakeshook the country of Haiti and prompted responses by hundreds of organizations fromall over the world. Six weeks later, another massive earthquake (8.8 on the Richter scale)occurred in southern Chile.

In the case of such disasters, public and nonprofit organizations from different regionsand countries collaborate on strategic and operational bases to conduct disaster man-agement operations (Palomo-Gonzalez and Rahm 2008). These collaborative activitiesare particularly important during emergency planning and response phases (Simo andBies 2007). Disasters seriously disrupt a community’s functioning, which means thatlocally available resources cannot suffice to solve the problem (United Nations 2009). Tominimize personal damages and economic costs, a well-organized disaster response bynonprofit and public organizations is critical. Partnering organizations must fulfil tasksad hoc, even if the network of partners has been established only recently, without timefor preparation or learning (Lalonde 2010). Furthermore, hundreds of organizations fromdifferent regions and countries might come together during an emergency response,because no single organization can provide all the necessary services (Waugh and Streib2006).

However, such disasters highlight the problems that arise among the different organi-zations engaged in a disaster response. Action might be slowed or improperly conductedif the coordination of the involved organizations is inappropriate, the communication isunclear, or the resources are not used efficiently (Kettl 2003; Cigler 2007). Needed equip-ment may be missing, or the technologies used by different actors may be incompatible

Isabella M. Nolte is PhD Candidate, and Silke Boenigk is Professor of Management of Public, Private & NonprofitOrganizations, in the Department of Business Administration, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Public Administration Vol. 89, No. 4, 2011 (1385–1402)© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148, USA.

1386 ISABELLA M. NOLTE AND SILKE BOENIGK

(Prizzia 2008). Collaboration becomes more difficult as the size and unpredictability of adisaster increase (Comfort et al. 2004; Comfort 2007; Palomo-Gonzalez and Rahm 2008).As Riccardo Conti, head of the delegation of the International Committee of the Red Crossin Haiti, noted after the Haiti earthquake: ‘Given the scale of the needs, the task facinghumanitarian organizations is daunting’ (ICRC 2010).

To improve disaster response performance, it therefore seems relevant to assess pub-lic–nonprofit partnerships holistically. Prior research into public–nonprofit partnershipmanagement has been fragmented and modestly informed by conceptual frameworks(Lister 2000). Several authors have analysed key factors for organizations working insuch partnerships, like experience, communication, and common norms (Shaw 2003;Kapucu 2006a; Gazley 2008; Alexander and Nank 2009; Celik and Corbacioglu 2010).These input factors help improve the disaster response of collaborating public and non-profit organizations, and though they are an important dimension to consider whenforming and working in partnerships, the same attention must be given to output andoutcome factors. Yet few studies focus on the relevant results of public–nonprofit part-nerships or link partnership inputs to its outputs and outcomes (Provan and Milward1995). Further insights are needed to distinguish effective disaster response systems fromineffective ones and enable an evaluation of public–nonprofit partnership performance(Boin 2005).

Therefore, this study aims to identify the factors that require evaluation in determin-ing whether public–nonprofit partnerships have performed well during their disasterresponse operations. We develop a process model from the literature and adapt it tothe specific context of disasters by conducting a case study in the context of the Haitiearthquake. The model offers an overview of main partnership inputs and the differentstructures that public–nonprofit partnerships can take, as well as measurable outputsand long-term outcome dimensions. The partnership inputs, structures, and results areevaluated by public and nonprofit experts who partnered in the disaster response duringthe 2010 Haiti earthquake.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS

To identify the factors that influence the performance of public–nonprofit partnerships,we conducted a two-stage literature review (CRD 2009). First, the electronic databasesBusiness Source Complete and EconLit were searched by the keywords ‘public-nonprofit’,‘public-government’, and ‘intersectoral’, paired with any of the following keywords:‘partnership’, ‘network’, ‘cooperation’, or ‘collaboration’. The latter keywords were alsopaired with the terms ‘emergency management’, ‘disaster management’, and ‘crisismanagement’. Second, we scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and searched topjournals in the field of emergency and crisis management, including Disasters, InternationalJournal of Mass Emergencies, and Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, as well asspecial issues, such as the one on disaster logistics in the International Journal of ProductionEconomics. On the basis of a review of the titles and abstracts of all resulting references,we assigned potentially relevant articles to four different research areas: emergencymanagement, public management, nonprofit management, and network research. Disasterand crisis management literature appeared in the emergency management researchcategory. After finishing the screening process, we retrieved full-text copies of each articlefor review. Overall, we reviewed 21 studies in the field of emergency management, 8 inpublic management research, 5 for nonprofit research, and 11 for network research.

Public Administration Vol. 89, No. 4, 2011 (1385–1402)© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE IN HAITI 1387

Results of the literature reviewWe provide the results of the literature review in table 1. Depending on their focus, thestudies were classified as focused on theory, partnership creation, partnership input,partnership structure, or partnership output/outcome.

TheoryTo explain partnerships between public and nonprofit organizations, theories of voluntaryfailure and third-party government from public management research can be regarded(Salamon 1995). Voluntary failure describes the challenges that nonprofit organizationsare facing when fulfilling human service needs. A main factor of voluntary failure isthe nonprofit organizations’ struggle to generate reliable streams of resources, whichoften are not available where problems are most severe. The nonprofit sector also maybe associated with a lack of experience coping with human problems (Salamon 1995).Several organizations use sophisticated methods for their disaster management efforts,but they might not be able to fulfil their tasks as professionally as they would like, dueto their reliance on volunteer effort (Palomo-Gonzalez and Rahm 2008). The theory ofthird-party government refers to the orientation of public organizations toward privateand nonprofit organizations to deliver public services. Public organizations can benefitfrom the nonprofit organization’s expertise, access to specific target groups, and its abilityto raise resources (for example, volunteers). This partnership is not only important forpublic organizations, but also has advantages for nonprofit actors, as they can profit fromthe public sector’s strengths, like its allocation of resources or its legislative power (Meyer1997; Gazley and Brudney 2007; FEMA 2008).

With theories of interorganizational networks (Park 1996) and network governance(Jones et al. 1997), network researchers explain that partnerships are more efficient formsof government, compared with hierarchies or market structures, when the surroundingconditions include uncertainty, complexity, information constraints, asset specificity, andfrequency. These factors have relevance for disaster management, in that the organizationsprovide services in an uncertain and complex environment, and the flow of informationamong organizations is often problematic (Prizzia 2008). Assets specific to the disasterresponse, such as laboratories or specialized machinery, are shared among public andnonprofit organizations. In this environment, partnerships should be created to preventsingle organizations from opportunistic behaviour (Park 1996).

Partnership inputMost of the studies we identified focus on the input factors that are vital to a partnership(see table 1, above), and communication emerges as the main input (Henriksen 1996;Huxam and Vangen 1996; Meyer 1997; Kapucu 2006a, b; Petrescu-Prahova and Butts2008). To enable adequate coordination in a dynamic disaster environment, organizationsmust communicate their plans and actions quickly and accurately (Kapucu 2006a; Celikand Corbacioglu 2010). Actions might be slowed or carried out incorrectly if partnerscannot communicate well due to language barriers, different communication technologies,or other barriers (Moore et al. 2003; Prizzia 2008).

Emergency management research also emphasizes that coordination is a valuablepartnership input (Comfort 2007; Bevc et al. 2009; Celik and Corbacioglu 2010; Thompson2010). Several authors have noted the inadequate coordination of organizations in recentdisasters, such as during Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans (Kettl 2003;Comfort et al. 2004; Cigler 2007).



TA

BL

E1

Pub

lic–

nonp

rofit

part

ners

hip

liter

atur

e

Em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent

Pu

bli

cm

anag

emen

tN

onp

rofi

tman

agem

ent

Net

wor

km

anag

emen

t

The

ory

Sala

mon

1995

(c)

Park

1996

(c)

Jone

set

al.1

997

(c)

Part

ners

hip

Inpu

tW

augh

2000

(a)

Hux

am/

Van

gen

1996

(a)

Hen

riks

en19

96(a

)K

apuc

u20

06b

(e)

Ket

tl20

03(a

)B

rink

erho

ff20

02(c

)M

eyer

1997

(a)

Moo

reet

al.2

003

(e)

Gaz

ley

2008

(e)

Shaw

2003

(e)

Com

fort

etal

.200

4(e

)A

lexa

nder

/N

ank

2009

(e)

Kap

ucu

2006

a(a

)G

azle

y20

10(e

)C

igle

r20

07(a

)C

omfo

rt20

07(c

)Pa

lm/

Ram

sell

2007

(e)

Kilb

y20

08(a

)Pe

tres

cu-P

raho

va/

But

ts20

08(e

)Pr

izzi

a20

08(a

)B

evc

etal

.200

9(e

)C

elik

/C

orba

ciog

lu20

10(e

)O

dlu

nd20

10(e

)T

atha

m/

Kov

acs

2010

(c)

Tho

mps

on20

10(a

)Pa

rtne

rshi

pSt

ruct

ure

Ben

ini1

999

(e)

Naj

am20

00(c

)M

ilwar

d/

Prov

an19

98(e

)St

ephe

nson

2005

(c)

You

ng20

00(c

)Pr

ovan

/K

enis

2008

(c)

Gin

ter

etal

.200

6(c

)K

enis

/Pr

ovan

2009

(c)

Part

ners

hip

Cor

baci

oglu

/K

apuc

u20

06(e

)B

ryso

net

al.2

006

(c)

Prov

an/

Milw

ard

1995

(e)

Out

put/

Out

com

eSi

mo/

Bie

s20

07(e

)G

azle

y/B

rud

ney

2007

(e)

Prov

an/

Milw

ard

2001

(c)

Man

del

l/K

east

2008

(c)

Moy

niha

n20

08(c

)B

abia

k20

09(e

)

(c):

conc

eptu

alpa

per

that

doe

sno

tinc

lud

ean

empi

rica

lstu

dy

(a):

anec

dot

alpa

per

that

doe

sno

tinc

lud

ean

empi

rica

lstu

dy

(e):

empi

rica

lpap

erth

atd

oes

incl

ude

aqu

alit

ativ

e/qu

anti

tati

vest

udy



From the field of public management research, we identify mutuality as an importantpartnership input (Brinkerhoff 2002). Partners that mutually depend on each other aremore supportive of the other’s mission, goals, and values. In a disaster context, nonprofitorganizations are not always regarded as equal actors by public disaster managers (Waugh2000), which might lead to performance problems during emergency operations. Furtherpartnership inputs identified in this field include common norms and trust (Gazley 2008;Alexander and Nank 2009). Because public–nonprofit partnerships rarely are formalizedby contracts, common norms and trust must substitute for contractual arrangements(Gazley 2008). Alexander and Nank (2009) argue that trust can be achieved over time,resulting in greater sharing of information and responsibilities, as well as collaborativedecision making. Common norms also can encourage the development of trust amongorganizations active in the disaster response (Odlund 2010). With regard to ad hocnetworks during disasters, Tatham and Kovacs (2010) indicate that antecedent conditions,such as third-party information about partnering organizations, can provide initial trust.In turn, trust can improve partnership performance and function as a foundation forfuture collaborative work (Palm and Ramsell 2007; Kilby 2008).

Further partnership inputs derived from public and nonprofit management researchare experience and sympathy (Shaw 2003; Gazley 2010). If they have worked togetherbefore, partners develop an understanding of their different business cultures and arefamiliar with each other. Experience working together and common norms, among otherfactors, also influence the general level of sympathy that partners develop for each other(Shaw 2003). If partners dislike each other, service provision within a partnership suffers,because these partners likely hesitate about contacting the other.

Partnership structurePublic management researchers emphasize that public and nonprofit organizations adapta complementary structure during their disaster response (Najam 2000; Young 2000).Three articles inform on possible structures for public–nonprofit partnerships. Milwardand Provan (1998) and Kenis and Provan (2009) suggest these partnerships need aspecific structure to achieve a certain performance level and outline three main networkorganizations that might be adapted to public–nonprofit partnerships: lead organizationnetwork, network administrative organization network, and shared governance network(see also Provan and Kenis 2008). In a lead organization network, a single organization hasthe resources and legitimacy to guide and coordinate all key decisions and activities. Thenetwork administrative organization network instead consists of the active organizations,as well as another agency that coordinates their actions and key decisions withoutparticipating in those actions. In a shared governance context, no formal administrativeentity coordinates the actions of the network, but each partner works collectively withthe other partners. For disaster management, the UN has developed the Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), which plays a role similar to a leadagency during a disaster, though it does not have the authority to command the differentorganizations engaged in the disaster response (Benini 1999; Stephenson 2005). Ginter et al.(2006) suggest the creation of high-reliability preparedness networks – highly organized,trained, reliable networks of organizations engaged in disaster response.

Partnership output/outcomeMuch research has been conducted on partnership inputs, but less is known about the out-puts and outcomes of public–nonprofit partnerships. Network management researchers



have highlighted the need for an assessment of the outputs and outcomes of interorgani-zational networks, especially in the context of public and nonprofit organizations (Provanand Milward 1995; Mandell and Keast 2008; Babiak 2009). Mandell and Keast (2008), tothe best of our knowledge, provide one of the few frameworks available to assess networkperformance. They find that traditional output measures, such as unit costs or volume ofservices, focus on end products and individual performance, with only limited impactson the assessments of organizations working in partnerships. Moreover, different groupsof actors are involved in intersectoral partnerships, and their different perspectives mustbe accounted for when evaluating performance (Provan and Milward 2001).

In a disaster context, partnership outcomes are the long-term results of collaborativeemergency management, which can be estimated during the disaster recovery phase.Possible outcomes of public–nonprofit partnerships include cost savings, learning, orenhanced partnerships (Bryson et al. 2006; Corbacioglu and Kapucu 2006; Gazley andBrudney 2007; Simo and Bies 2007; Moynihan 2008).

In summary, existing research in different areas offers diverse information aboutdifferent topics related to partnership management, but it does not provide well-structuredinformation about managing the performance of public–nonprofit partnerships in adisaster context. A lot of these studies also are conceptual or anecdotal; empirical worksanalyse the impact of one or a few factors on the overall performance and serviceprovision of partnerships. Despite a wealth of research on relevant partnership inputs,there is little information about which outputs or outcomes should be measured toevaluate public–nonprofit partnerships. We attempt to fill this research gap by providinga comprehensive model of public–nonprofit partnerships that clarifies the dimensionsthat influence their performance.

A PROCESS MODEL FOR PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS

On the basis of the literature review, we develop a conceptual process model to identifyrelevant factors for evaluating public–nonprofit partnerships, especially in the case of adisaster. We present an overview of our framework in figure 1.

We label the different process steps partnership input, partnership structure, partner-ship output, and partnership outcome. With partnership inputs, we address resourcesprovided by the organizations working together in partnerships that influence the collab-orative relationship and its results. Partnership structure refers to the organizational formof the network created by the public and nonprofit organizations. Both partnership inputsand partnership structure are enabling features that determine what an organization doesto achieve its results. The partnership results consist of partnership outputs and outcome.Whereas partnership outputs are the direct results of public and nonprofit organizations’collaborations, partnership outcomes are the long-term effects of partnership actions thatcan be identified among the partnering organizations and the affected community.

Partnership inputFrom our literature review, we derive seven factors as the main input dimensions forpublic–nonprofit partnerships: communication, coordination, mutuality, common norms,trust, experience, and sympathy. Some factors have higher relevance for the field ofpublic–nonprofit partnerships in a disaster context than others, though communicationappears critical in all four research areas (Henriksen 1996; Huxam and Vangen 1996;Meyer 1997; Kapucu 2006a, b; Petrescu-Prahova and Butts 2008). Coordination represents



Partnership Input

Communication

Coordination

Mutuality

Common Norms

Trust

Experience

Partnership Output

Time

Quality

Community Outcome

Partnership Outcome

Organization ActorOutcome

Network Outcome

Partnership Structure

Shared GovernanceNetwork

LeadOrganization/Nation

Network

Network AdministrativeOrganization

PARTNERSHIP ENABLERS PARTNERSHIP RESULTS

Sympathy

FIGURE 1 A process model for evaluating public–nonprofit partnerships

a relevant input factor mainly in emergency management research (Kapucu 2006a; Celikand Corbacioglu 2010); mutuality, common norms, and trust also appear in public man-agement research (Brinkerhoff 2002; Gazley 2008; Alexander and Nank 2009). Experienceand sympathy are subject to discussion in public and nonprofit management research(Shaw 2003; Gazley 2010). However, no empirical findings compare the different inputfactors and measure the importance of each.

Partnership structureAs we have noted, the literature review cited lead organization/nation, administrativeorganization, and shared governance network structures (Provan and Kenis 2008; Kenisand Provan 2009). The lead organization within a disaster might be the government entityresponsible for disaster management in the affected country or a superior organization,such as the United Nations. In some cases, a whole nation takes the lead. A networkadministrative organization in the case of a disaster is a single organization with theexclusive purpose of governing the network of public and nonprofit aid organizations.The least hierarchical form of governance is the shared governance network (Kenisand Provan 2009), in which all organizations work together without reporting to a



superior organization. These different structural forms each have different advantagesand disadvantages for public–nonprofit partnerships. In a shared governance network,all partners have equal status, and it might be difficult to coordinate tasks in a complexenvironment. The other two forms of network structure might be more efficient, becausetasks can be better coordinated, though they also imply a higher degree of bureaucracyand less flexibility.

Partnership outputResearchers have suggested that conventional indicators for assessments of a singleorganization are unlikely to provide successful measures of the outputs of a partner-ship (Mandell and Keast 2008). We argue instead that the outputs of public–nonprofitpartnerships during disasters should be evaluated by two dimensions: time and quality.Time is crucial for disaster management, especially in the first-response phase (Comfortet al. 2004; Stallings 2006; Cigler 2007). Response actions have to be carried out quickly,because people’s lives and goods are at stake. With regard to the quality concept, theacting partners in disaster management mainly supply services such as health care orinfrastructural services, which require skilled personnel, because mistakes might haveserious consequences. There are trade-offs between time and quality, and improvementsin one output dimension might worsen the other.

Partnership outcomeWhen identifying long-term partnership outcomes, the different perspectives of theinvolved organizations and people should be considered, because the evaluation ofoutcomes depends on the perspective adapted (Provan and Milward 1995, 2001; Mandelland Keast 2008). Outcomes might reflect three main perspectives: community, network,and organizational actor (Provan and Milward 1995; Mandell and Keast 2008). Thecommunity perspective reflects the outcome of public–nonprofit partnership actionson disaster survivors and communities, which receive the help of public and nonprofitorganizations. The network perspective refers to outcomes that affect the public–nonprofitpartnership. There is little empirical information about what kinds of outcomes exist forpublic–nonprofit partnerships though (Babiak 2009). Possible network outcomes mightinclude a better coordination of services and the absence of service duplication, as well asimprovements in the strength of the partnership (Simo and Bies 2007; Babiak 2009). Thethird perspective for evaluating outputs is the organizational actor perspective; it reflectsthe outcomes assigned to the individual organization involved in disaster management.Possible outcomes attributable to these single organizational actors are enhanced know-how, organizational learning, and agency survival (Gazley and Brudney 2007; Babiak2009).

PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS DURING THE HAITIAN EARTHQUAKERESPONSE

Description of the public–nonprofit partnershipOur case refers to partnering organizations active in Leogane, a city about 20 miles westof the capital Port-au-Prince and located at the epicentre of the earthquake on January12, 2010. The starting point for our case is the partnership of the German Federal Agencyfor Technical Relief (THW) with other public and nonprofit organizations. The THWis predominantly engaged in the drinking water purification in Leogane; it provides



THW(Public)

GTZ(Public)

NAVIS(NPO)

UN-OCHA(Public)

Johanniter(NPO)

WHH(NPO)

‘hundreds‘

public organization

nonprofit organization

partnering organizations

common partners

German Embassy(Public)

‘25 German NPOs’

FIGURE 2 Network of partnering organizations in Haiti

mobile drinking water purification plants and a mobile laboratory for water analysis.In Haiti, the THW partners with several German, international, and national publicand nonprofit organizations. For example, it works with three public organizations, theGerman Embassy, the Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), and the UN Office forthe Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), as well as with three nonprofitpartners: Welthungerhilfe, a German organization active in the prevention of hunger,and Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe and NAVIS, two German organizations that provide medicalservices. Each organization was involved in a larger network of public and nonprofitpartners during the disaster response in Haiti, as figure 2 shows.

Data collection and analysisTo explore the developed framework in a disaster context, we analysed this networkof organizations during the Haitian disaster response, focusing on the main network infigure 2 and excluding the other affiliated partners. We adapted a single case design andthereby study one public–nonprofit partnership in depth (Yin 2009).

First, we developed interview guidelines and questions based on our research model.Second, we gathered data through seven semi-structured telephone interviews with



representatives of four public (Public1, Public2, Public3, Public4) and three nonprofitorganizations (NPO1, NPO2, NPO3). The interviews took place between June and August2010, in either English or German. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and wasrecorded and fully transcribed. In addition to the interviews, we gathered reports aboutthe partners’ collaborative activities from the organizations and other sources, such asthe web site http://www.reliefweb.int. Third, we content analysed the interviews usingMAX Qualitative Data Analysis, a tool for computer-assisted analysis of qualitative data(Corbin and Strauss 2007). The codes for the interviews reflected a predefined code listthat we developed on the basis of our research model. This list was extended during theanalysis to include codes that had not been considered in advance.

Case study resultsThe case study offers insights into partnership inputs, structure, outputs, and outcomes,as we summarize in table 2.

Partnership inputs resultsFrom the literature, we derived that communication, coordination, mutuality, commonnorms, trust, and sympathy influence the results of public–nonprofit partnerships. Thewidespread evidence in prior literature regarding the importance of communication wasalso supported by all of our interviewees. They perceived communication as a necessaryinput factor for partnering organizations during a disaster response:

For me, the most important thing is communication, no matter at what level. Thesharing of information is the most important thing, no matter if it affects security,logistics, shelter, or something else. If communication works well, everything else iseasy, everything else can be found. . . . Especially here, it is important that you supporteach other. (Public1)

All interviewees also agreed that experience is critical for public–nonprofit partnerships,especially in a dynamic disaster environment: ‘Having the right person with the rightexperience is of course key. Particularly if things have to go quickly’ (Public3). Experienceoften was mentioned in connection with trust, also rated as important for partnershipperformance by all interviewed persons:

[Trust] goes in line with networking. By knowing people, knowing what they do andhow they work, we trust those people and we will be more likely to believe them andwe will go there again, in contrast to having somebody new in front of you. (NPO2)

The mutuality and common norms factors seemed important, though not as significant asthe most important ones: ‘Yes, [common norms] is important, but I don’t think at the firststage of the emergency, I don’t think we had too much problems about that’ (Public3).Several organizations experienced mutuality by exchanging resources and information:

It was an incredibly positive experience to see how the organizations supportedeach other. They did not only share information, but also supported each otherand exchanged medical supplies. It was extremely unbureaucratic and extremelycooperative. (Public4)

Different forms of partnership coordination identified in Haiti included the ClusterMeetings held by the UN-OCHA, coordination meetings by the German organizationsheld by the German Embassy, and the administration of smaller dyadic partnerships.



TA

BL

E2

Cas

est

udy

resu

lts

Par

tner

ship

inp

ut

Nu

mb

erof

affi

rmat

ive

stat

emen

ts

Par

tner

ship

outp

ut

Nu

mb

erof

affi

rmat

ive

stat

emen

ts

Par

tner

ship

outc

ome

Nu

mb

erof

affi

rmat

ive

stat

emen

ts

-com

mun

icat

ion

7-t

ime

7-c

omm

unit

you

tcom

e4

-coo

rdin

atio

n5

-rea

chth

ere

gion

-str

engt

hene

dco

mm

unit

y-m

utua

lity

6-p

rovi

depr

oduc

ts&

serv

ices

-pro

mot

edhe

alth

yde

velo

pmen

t-c

omm

onno

rms

5-f

aste

rth

roug

hco

llabo

rati

on-p

rote

ctio

nfr

omth

reat

s-t

rust

7-q

ualit

y7

-pro

mot

edso

cial

stab

ility

-exp

erie

nce

7-a

ppro

pria

tene

ss-p

rote

ctio

nfr

omdi

sast

er-s

ympa

thy

5-d

esir

edef

fect

-pro

mot

edle

arni

ng-a

ccep

tanc

e-n

etw

ork

outc

ome

7-e

qual

qual

ity

-gro

wn

netw

ork

-effi

cien

cy-g

row

nra

nge

ofse

rvic

e-a

bsen

ceof

dupl

icat

ion

Ad

dit

iona

lInp

uts:

-str

onge

rre

lati

onsh

ip-o

penn

ess

toco

llabo

rate

3A

dd

itio

nalO

utpu

t:-c

omm

itm

entt

one

twor

kgo

als

-per

sona

lnet

wor

ks3

-cos

t4

-bet

ter

coor

dina

tion

&in

tegr

atio

n-s

unk

cost

s-o

rgan

izat

ion

acto

rou

tcom

e6

-new

know

ledg

e-d

iffus

ion

ofri

sk-s

urvi

val

-enh

ance

dle

giti

mac

y-a

cqui

rem

ento

fbig

ger

reso

urce

s-s

unk

cost

s

Par

tner

ship

Str

uct

ure

Nu

mb

erof

Affi

rmat

ive

Sta

tem

ents

-lea

dor

gani

zati

on/n

atio

nne

twor

k6

-net

wor

kad

min

istr

ativ

eor

gani

zati

on0

-sha

red

gove

rnan

cene

twor

k1

Not

e:A

llva

lues

are

equi

vale

ntto

the

num

ber

ofco

mpa

nies

(N=

7)in

this

stud

y,ev

enif

som

ein

terv

iew

ees

prov

ided

mul

tipl

eaf

firm

ativ

est

atem

ents

.



These coordination forms were considered less important by some interviewees: ‘Thereis a lot of coordination and it is important as a federal agency, but it is not the milestonethat is needed I think’ (Public1).

Sympathy, as the last identified partnership input from our model, was consideredhelpful but not necessary by most of the interviewed partners:

Of course, [sympathy] is important, but the foremost focus is on the task. . . . It is nice ifyour counterpart is likeable, but if not, you still have to work together with him or her.It is about the task, not about something like the exchange of sympathy. But of coursethe work is easier if we have good chemistry. (Public1)

Another input factor mentioned in the interviews but that we had not considered inour research model was the general openness of an organization to partner with others:

You can fulfil your tasks differently, either more or less single minded. I mean singleminded toward what the other partners do. You can do it differently by being opentoward what is going on next to you, what the others do, in similar areas, in a similarway. This openness . . . seems relatively important to me. (Public2)

Three interviewees also highlighted personal networks as relevant partnership inputs:

When I arrived at the scene, I found it very helpful that I already knew some people,from exercises, from training, from other operations. . . . These people can help you,because they know somebody I don’t know, this famous networking. (NPO2)

Partnership structure resultsWe analysed the network structure of the public–nonprofit partnership by asking ques-tions about possible lead or administrative organizations and reviewing documentsthat described the organizational structure during the Haitian earthquake response.The UN-OCHA took a lead role in organizing Cluster Meetings and coordinating aidoperations. Although UN-OCHA did not have command authority over the other orga-nizations, four organizations in our sample attended the Cluster Meetings and acceptedthis lead organization structure. The German Embassy, and with it the THW, also playedlead roles in coordinating the disaster response operations among German organizations.Therefore, we can conclude that the Haitian earthquake response was governed by alead organization network, with sub-networks governed by different authorities, such asindividual countries’ embassies. Whether this structure led to the best results remainsquestionable. However, coordination by UN-OCHA was perceived negatively by at leastone interviewee:

A lot of hot air was produced [at the Cluster Meetings]. Everybody showed what hecould and what he does, but we never could achieve anything, we never got anything,neither transport costs nor anything else. (NPO3)

Partnership output resultsWe argued that time and quality would be the main dimensions for evaluating partnershipoutputs, and these factors received support from all of the interviewees. Regarding time,for example, ‘I think the timeliness of the response is essential, again. You got to work onsaving lives and therefore the quicker the response is organized, the better it is’ (Public3),and ‘We were on time; we arrived on time after the appointment to operate [in Haiti].Time plays a very big role, especially in such cases as earthquakes or tsunamis’ (Public1).



During the interviews, we offered a possible three-item conceptualization of time:(1) our organization could reach the disaster region within a planned timeframe or earlier;(2) our organization could provide products and services for the disaster response within aplanned timeframe or earlier; and (3) our collaboration with other organizations helped usprovide products and services faster than if we had been working alone. Six respondentsconsidered this conceptualization adequate.

The interviewees also agreed that they needed to provide a certain degree of quality intheir products and services to ensure an efficient disaster response:

If you distribute tents or tarpaulins it has to be available fast. . . , but it should also be ofa certain quality. If we order tents or tarpaulins, we pay attention to how much metersof water column are guaranteed, how heavy it is. There are norms for relief items.(NPO1)

The scale we proposed to assess quality, adapted from Kemshall and Ross (2000),featured appropriateness, effectiveness, acceptance, and efficiency as adequate indicatorsto measure quality in a disaster context.

An interesting output we did not conceptualize in table 2 but that four respondentsmentioned was cost, though they noted its limited importance:

In this situation, money was available, it was about how fast you can provide aid andthat the right aid arrived. In my opinion, cost does not play a big role in this context.(Public4)

Partnership outcome resultsBecause less than a year had passed since the earthquake when we conducted our research,long-term outcomes could not be evaluated. Nevertheless, we asked for the interviewees’opinions about possible outcomes and assessments of a suggested conceptualizationfor this measure (we adapted the indicators from Gazley and Brudney 2007; Mandelland Keast 2008; Babiak 2009; Whitman 2009). With regard to community outcomes, allrespondents mentioned new projects, such as building shelters, and partnership projectswith the local population, established after the immediate disaster response to strengthenthe community. Most interviewees thought that their organizations promoted healthydevelopment, social stability, and the protection of the community from disaster andlearning.

All respondents also identified network outcomes, and most of the intervieweesreported growth in their networks:

The contacts that were established will be maintained in the future, to a strongeror lesser degree. . . . There were dialogues about a further cooperation. During theoperation, you met people that you got along with well, you included them in yournetwork and you will include them in your network in the future. (NPO2)

Other indicators considered important network outcomes included the commitment ofall partnering organizations to common goals, a better coordination and integration ofservices, and a stronger relationship among partners. Several respondents also cited agreater service range and the absence of service duplication as important partnershipoutcomes. Surprisingly, the cost of the partnership response did not decline as a resultof partnering; instead, five interviewees reported that their costs had risen with thecollaboration.



The disaster response by the public–nonprofit partnership also created outcomes thatcould be attributed to a single organization. For example, organizations generate newknowledge:

Organizations will follow different strategies; maybe they also follow different pro-cesses to address the disaster. You can see how the others do it. There are positivethings everywhere and you can think about adapting it for your own organization.(NPO3)

In addition, organizational actors gain enhanced legitimacy in the eyes of the public,the community, and potential sources of funding. However, the majority of intervie-wees considered factors such as diffusion of risk, the survival of the organization, anddecreased costs inappropriate descriptors of organizational actor outcomes. Acquiringmore resources was considered important by two organizations; the other organiza-tions were neutral regarding this indicator. We summarize the indicators that ourrespondents considered adequate to measure partnership outputs and outcomes intable 3.

DISCUSSION

Several authors have highlighted the need for a means to evaluate partnerships createdduring disasters response efforts (Kettl 2003; Kapucu 2006b; Waugh and Streib 2006; Simoand Bies 2007; Celik and Corbacioglu 2010). In this article, we have developed a processmodel to gain further insights into partnering by public and nonprofit organizationsduring disasters. To refine the generic model derived from the literature review, weinvestigated a public–nonprofit partnership established during the response to the 2010earthquake in Haiti. The case study revealed that communication and trust betweenpartnering organizations, as well as experience working together, are the most importantinputs. The partnership structure most likely to be employed in a large-scale disaster isthe lead organization or nation network. When evaluating partnership outputs, time andquality should be assessed. Long-term partnership outcomes can affect the community,the network, or a single organization active in the partnership response. The maincommunity outcome identified by our case study is a strengthening of the community.Several network outcomes, such as the growth of the network, commitment to networkgoals, and better coordination and integration of services, also emerge. From the singleorganizational perspective, enhanced learning is the most important outcome.

Some aspects remain unaddressed by our article though. First, our case study inher-ently involves a limited number of organizations, active during one disaster, the Haitiearthquake. If extended to a larger group of organizations or different types of disasters,the results might differ, and some factors relevant for other types of disasters mightnot have been included in our model. Second, the earthquake in Haiti occurred lessthan a year ago (at the time of writing). Thus, the long-term outcomes of the disastercannot be evaluated. The interviewees’ opinions represent estimations that might differsignificantly from the actual partnership outcomes. In addition, we had no means tocontact the affected population to estimate community outcomes. Third, the suggestedconceptualizations for partnership results were derived from other fields of research. Todraw statistical inferences for the model, we would need to test them in a larger empiricalstudy. Scales to evaluate partnership inputs during the disaster response also remain tobe developed.



TABLE 3 Conceptualization of partnership results

Construct Measurement Scale; Adapted from

Time 1. Our organization could reach the disaster regionwithin a planned timeframe or earlier.

No accepted scale given, ownscale development

2. Our organization could provide products andservices within a planned timeframe or earlier.

3. Our partnership with other organizations helped usto provide products and services faster than if wehad been working alone.

Quality 1. Our provided products and services wereappropriate for the disaster response.

2. Our provided products and services did have thedesired effect.

3. Our provided products and services were accepted.4. Our products and services were provided in equal

quality.5. Our products and services were provided

efficiently.

No accepted scale given: newscale development, Basedon: Kemshall and Ross(2000)

CommunityOutcome

1. Our products and services strengthened theaffected community.

2. We promoted a healthy development, diseaseprevention, and cure.

3. We helped protecting the homeland from threats.4. We promoted social stability.5. We promoted the protection of the community from

disaster.6. We promoted learning.

No accepted scale given, newscale development basedon: Whitman (2009)

Network Outcome 1. Our network of partnering organizations grewthrough the disaster response.

2. The range of services provided grew through thepartnership with other organizations.

3. The duplication of services was absent due to thepartnership with other organizations.

4. The relationship to the organizations we partneredwith became stronger.

5. All organizations were committed to the goals ofthe whole network.

6. Services could be better coordinated and integratedthrough the collaboration.

No accepted scale given, newscale development basedon: Babiak (2009)

Organization ActorOutcome

Through the collaboration with other organizations. . .1. we could generate new knowledge.2. we could address shared problems more effectively.3. we had an enhanced legitimacy in the eyes of the

public, community, and funders.4. we could acquire bigger resources.

No accepted scale given, newscale development basedon: Babiak (2009); Gazleyand Brudney (2007);Mandell and Keast (2008)

For the future, we suggest two areas for research: First, our model should be testedin a quantitative study to derive management implications that appear generally valid.The suggested operational indicators from this case study should be assessed acrossorganizations engaged in different tasks during distinct types of disasters. The outputs ofdifferent types of public–nonprofit partnerships during a specific disaster could be anal-ysed and compared with partnership outcomes. To investigate community outcomes, not



only the organizations but also the affected people should be considered. By empiricallytesting the model across organizations and disaster settings, we can make comparisons ofpartnership performance and identify best practices.

Second, further research should attempt to assess partnership structures during dis-asters. The actions of public and nonprofit organizations during a disaster differ greatlydepending on the affected region. Many developed countries, such as the United Statesor Germany, invest vast resources in disaster management, with federal agencies for thesole purpose of disaster management, steady training, and a strong base of nonprofitaid organizations. In contrast, most developing countries lack the means to establish afunctioning disaster management system. Consequently, different forms of partnershipstructures might be suitable in various regions and for different types of disasters. Anexperimental study might measure the effect of different partnership structures on part-nership outputs and outcomes and thereby help identify the form of partnership structurethat is most suitable for those different regions and types of disasters.

This article therefore offers a first step in analysing partnership performance and astarting point for further research into diverse aspects. We have attempted to demonstratethe importance of an integrated evaluation of public–nonprofit partnerships, especiallyin a time of rising disasters. We hope our findings contribute to a structured assessmentof such partnerships and that the developed model offers information that improves theperformance of partnering organizations during disaster responses in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank the journal’s editor and three anonymous reviewers for theirinsightful and constructive advice on this study.

REFERENCESAlexander, J. and R. Nank. 2009. ‘Public-Nonprofit Partnership: Realizing the New Public Service’, Administration and Society,

41, 3, 364–86.Babiak, K.M. 2009. ‘Criteria of Effectiveness in Multiple Cross-Sectoral Interorganizational Relationships’, Evaluation and Program

Planning, 32, 1, 1–12.Benini, A.A. 1999. ‘Network without Centre? A Case Study of an Organizational Network Responding to an Earthquake’, Journal

of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7, 1, 38–47.Bevc, C.A., A.N. Barlau and N.A. Passanante. 2009. ‘Mapping Convergence Points in the Initial Emergency Response to 9/11’,

Disasters, 33, 4, 786–808.Boin, A. 2005. ‘Disaster Research and Future Crises: Broadening the Research Agenda’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies

and Disasters, 23, 3, 199–214.Brinkerhoff, J.M. 2002. ‘Government-Nonprofit Partnership: A Defining Framework’, Public Administration and Development, 22,

1, 19–30.Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby and M. Middleton Stone. 2006. ‘The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations:

Propositions from the Literature’, Public Administration Review, 66, s1, 44–55.Celik, S. and S. Corbacioglu. 2010. ‘Role of Information in Collective Action in Dynamic Disaster Environments’, Disasters, 34, 1,

137–54.Cigler, B.A. 2007. ‘The ‘‘Big Questions’’ of Katrina and the 2005 Great Flood of New Orleans’, Public Administration Review, 67,

s1, 64–76.Comfort, L.K. 2007. ‘Crisis Management in Hindsight: Cognition, Communication, Coordination, and Control’, Public Adminis-

tration Review, 67, s1, 189–97.Comfort, L.K., K. Ko and A. Zagorecki. 2004. ‘Coordination in Rapidly Evolving Disaster Response Systems: The Role of

Information’, American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 3, 295–313.Corbacioglu, S. and N. Kapucu. 2006. ‘Organisational Learning and Self-Adaptation in Dynamic Disaster Environments’,

Disasters, 30, 2, 212–33.



Corbin, J. and A. Strauss. 2007. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). 2009. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care.York: University of York.

CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters). 2009. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database. Brussels:Universite Catholique de Louvain.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. National Response Framework. Washington, DC: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

Gazley, B. 2008. ‘Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal Government-Nonprofit Partnerships’, Public Adminis-tration Review, 68, 1, 141–54.

Gazley, B. 2010. ‘Why Not Partner With Local Government? Nonprofit Managerial Perceptions of Collaborative Disadvantage’,Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 1, 51–76.

Gazley, B. and J.L. Brudney. 2007. ‘The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit Partnership’, Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 36, 3, 389–415.

Ginter, P.M., W.J. Duncan, L.C. McCormick, et al. 2006. ‘Effective Response to Large-Scale Disasters: The Need for High-reliabilityPreparedness Networks’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24, 3, 331–49.

Henriksen, L.S. 1996. ‘Voluntary Organisations and Local Government: Lessons from a Danish Case Study’, Voluntas: InternationalJournal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7, 2, 177–94.

Huxam, C. and S. Vangen. 1996. ‘Working Together: Key Themes in the Management of Relationships between Public andNon-Profit Organizations’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9, 7, 5–17.

ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross). 2010. Haiti Earthquake: Situation Is now Catastrophic (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/haiti-earthquake-update-180110), accessed 12 August 2010.

Jones, C., W.S. Hesterly and S.P. Borgatti. 1997. ‘A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and SocialMechanisms’, Academy of Management Review, 22, 4, 911–45.

Kapucu, N. 2006a. ‘Interagency Communication Networks During Emergencies: Boundary Spanners in Multiagency Coordina-tion’, American Review of Public Administration, 36, 2, 207–25.

Kapucu, N. 2006b. ‘Public-Nonprofit Partnerships for Collective Action in Dynamic Contexts of Emergencies’, Public Adminis-tration, 84, 1, 205–20.

Kemshall, H. and L. Ross. 2000. ‘Partners in Evaluation: Modelling Quality in Partnership Projects’, Social Policy & Administration,34, 5, 551–66.

Kenis, P. and K.G. Provan. 2009. ‘Towards an Exogenous Theory of Public Network Performance’, Public Administration, 87, 3,440–56.

Kettl, D.F. 2003. ‘Contingent Coordination: Practical and Theoretical Puzzles for Homeland Security’, American Review of PublicAdministration, 33, 3, 253–77.

Kilby, P. 2008. ‘The Strength of Networks: The Local NGO Response to the Tsunami in India’, Disasters, 32, 1, 120–30.Lalonde, C. 2010. ‘Organisational Socialisation in a Crisis Context’, Disasters, 34, 2, 360–79.Lister, S. 2000. ‘Power in Partnership? An Analysis of an NGO’s Relationships with its Partners’, Journal of International

Development, 12, 2, 227–39.Mandell, M.P. and R. Keast. 2008. ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Interorganizational Relations through Networks’, Public

Management Review, 10, 6, 715–31.Meyer, C.A. 1997. ‘Public-Nonprofit Partnerships and North-South Green Finance’, Journal of Environment and Development, 6, 2,

123–46.Milward, H.B. and K.G. Provan. 1998. ‘Measuring Network Structure’, Public Administration, 76, 2, 387–407.Moore, S., E. Eng and M. Daniel. 2003. ‘International NGOs and the Role of Network Centrality in Humanitarian Aid Operations:

A Case Study of Coordination during the 2000 Mozambique Floods’, Disasters, 27, 4, 305–18.Moynihan, D.P. 2008. ‘Learning under Uncertainty: Networks in Crisis Management’, Public Administration Review, 68, 2, 350–65.Najam, A. 2000. ‘The Four-C’s of Third Sector-Government Relations: Cooperation, Confrontation, Complementarity, and

Co-optation’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 4, 375–96.Odlund, A. 2010. ‘Pulling the Same Way? A Multi-Perspectivist Study of Crisis Cooperation in Government’, Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18, 2, 96–107.Palm, J. and E. Ramsell. 2007. ‘Developing Local Emergency Management by Co-Ordination between Municipalities in Policy

Networks: Experiences from Sweden’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15, 4, 173–82.Palomo-Gonzalez, S.A. and D. Rahm. 2008. ‘Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: The Critical Role of the Nonprofit Community in the

San Antonio Disaster Response’, in J. Pinkowski (ed.), Disaster Management Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 123–56.Park, S.H. 1996. ‘Managing an Interorganizational Network: A Framework of the Institutional Mechanism for Network Control’,

Organization Studies, 17, 5, 795–824.



Petrescu-Prahova, M. and C.T. Butts. 2008. ‘Emergent Coordination in the World Trade Center Disaster’, International Journal ofMass Emergencies and Disasters, 26, 3, 133–68.

Prizzia, R. 2008. ‘The Role of Coordination in Disaster Management’, in J. Pinkowski (ed.), Disaster Management Handbook. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 75–98.

Provan, K.G. and P. Kenis. 2008. ‘Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness’, Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 18, 2, 229–52.

Provan, K.G. and H.B. Milward. 1995. ‘A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A ComparativeStudy of Four Community Mental Health Systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1, 1–33.

Provan, K.G. and H.B. Milward. 2001. ‘Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector OrganizationalNetworks’, Public Administration Review, 61, 4, 414–23.

Salamon, L.M. 1995. Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Shaw, M.M. 2003. ‘Successful Collaboration between the Nonprofit and Public Sectors’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14,1, 107–20.

Simo, G. and A.L. Bies. 2007. ‘The Role of Nonprofits in Disaster Response: An Expanded Model of Cross-Sector Collaboration’,Public Administration Review, 67, s1, 125–42.

Stallings, R.A. 2006. ‘Methodological Issues’, in H. Rodrıguez, E.L. Quarantelli and R.R. Dynes (eds), Handbook of DisasterResearch. New York: Springer, pp. 55–82.

Stephenson, M. 2005. ‘Making Humanitarian Relief Networks More Effective: Operational Coordination, Trust and SenseMaking’, Disasters, 29, 4, 337–50.

Tatham, P. and G. Kovacs. 2010. ‘The Application of ‘‘Swift Trust’’ to Humanitarian Logistics’, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, 126, 1, 35–45.

Thompson, W.C. 2010. ‘Success in Kashmir: A Positive Trend in Civil-Military Integration during Humanitarian AssistanceOperations’, Disasters, 34, 1, 1–15.

United Nations. 2009. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.Waugh, W.L. 2000. Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management. Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe.Waugh, W.L. and G. Streib. 2006. ‘Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management’, Public Administration

Review, 66, s1, 131–40.Whitman, J.R. 2009. ‘Measuring Social Values in Philanthropic Foundations’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19, 3, 305–25.Yin, R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Young, D.R. 2000. ‘Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives’,

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 1, 149–72.

Date received 26 January 2010. Date accepted 3 October 2010.


PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE IN A … · In this article, we develop a process model...

Documents

Transcript of PUBLIC–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE IN A … · In this article, we develop a process model...