Distinguishing IPSPs from Quasi-Governmental Entities

Despite their special status and their exemption from government procurement and human resources policies, quasi-governmental should not be confused with IPSPs. Quasi-governmental entities are created by an act of Congress or state legislatures; the very fact that they exist is a decision by government with a specific public purpose in mind. Their authority to act is vested in such legislation. IPSPs are not created by government (although there may be general authorizing legislation for them to exist and conduct their operations); they are arrangements that are formed voluntarily. IPSPs may, and sometimes do, collaborate with government through contracts or agreements, but not because the government created them. IPSPs “invent themselves” and can convene, change membership, or disband as the members decide.

In addition, the authority conveyed to quasi-governmental entities is specified, allowing a certain legal authority to act and limiting other kinds of actions. For example, regional airport authorities (sometimes multistate entities) have the authority to sell bonds without government approval, but the use of the funds from those bonds is restricted. The US secretary of energy cannot direct the specific research agenda or projects the National Renewable Energy Laboratory undertakes, but the laboratory is restricted to the general topics to which its research is directed.

In contrast, IPSPs choose their mission, and that mission is negotiated among its members. Of course, some IPSPs carry out missions that are consistent with government policy, but the choice to promote such policies comes from their own impetus. Therefore, IPSPs also are not subject to government oversight to the same extent as quasi-governmental organizations. In short, because IPSPs are not created by the power of the government, that same government has limited influence over them without engaging in an effective collaboration.

Distinguishing IPSPs from Other CSCs

Having defined IPSPs, it is easy to see how they could look similar to other CSCs. For example, nearly all IPSPs are formed as nonprofits. In addition, many organize as a network or join in partnership with other organizations. So what separates IPSPs from the partnerships and networks discussed earlier? IPSPs may look similar to these other organizations, but they act differently in important ways.

While IPSPs may share characteristics with other CSCs such as partnerships and networks, it is the combination of the three specific characteristics that makes them singular as a potential collaborator. First, IPSPs form with the intent to collaborate with stakeholders. The reason they form in the first place is to provide a different approach to delivering public services grounded in multisector collaboration. Some nonprofits also collaborate, but that is incidental to their mission and identity. That is, a nonprofit would still be a nonprofit whether it collaborated with others or not, but for an IPSP, collaboration is an important aspect of its core mission. Any nonprofit that embraces multisector collaboration as its primary approach to delivering public services might be considered an IPSP.

Second, IPSPs are self-directed and operate separately from government direction. In this way, they are distinguished from the networks discussed in chapter 5. Networks enhance and expand the resources and capabilities available to governments and are linked to a government organization. IPSPs create their own missions and determine their own operations for the very reason that they want to improve on the current practice. Since IPSPs act in collaboration with other organizations (including governments), their efforts may incorporate some government programs into a more integrated and comprehensive approach. In addition, IPSPs are not precluded from accepting grants from governments, but they do not let government funding or government policies guide their activities. It is the reason the IPSP was created in the first place: to be a self-directed operation that offers a new vision, a new approach to governance, and a new way to collaborate,

Third, IPSPs provide public services. Of course, all the other collaborations we discuss in the book provide public services as well. However, in the other CSCs, the services provided are those defined by government policy. Most public services have requirements for eligibility and other conditions that have to be met by those receiving the services. Government agencies have budgets and must put limits on the scope and scale of what they can do. The public services provided by IPSPs are the type they want to provide (within the law), and in this way IPSPs may offer public services that are distinctive or may be newly accessible to communities. While a great deal has been written on the role of the nonprofit (third) sector to address social problems outside government direction, we also bring to light private sector initiatives (often with a nonprofit) rooted in social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility that provide goods and services for the public.

IPSPs are distinguished not by being a nonprofit—although they usually are—or organizing their operations as a network—although they often do—but by also existing outside the purview of government direction, and often government funding, and yet still providing what would be considered public services. They are emerging as a new potential collaborator for the provision of public services, but at the same time they stretch the limits of government’s ability to control or even manage the delivery of those public services. Therefore, they are the most challenging of collaborations for public managers.

Protecting the Environment: Climate Change and Sustainability

Climate change continues to be a hotly contested issue, with potentially disastrous long-term consequences for the planet and with no comprehensive solution in sight. Despite the Obama administration’s recent Climate Action Plan (White House 2013) to reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the level of significant GHG reductions needed is so large, the sources of those emissions so diverse, and the cost of remediation so extensive that the scope of any solution that effectively addresses climate change will necessarily transcend sectors and political boundaries—domestic and international. Regulating air quality has been a priority of the federal government—in partnership with state governments—since the Clean Air Act of 1970. Yet even the authority of the federal government to regulate GHGs remains a political controversy. International agreements and protocols attempting to curb GHGs have resulted in over two decades of frustration, from Rio, Kyoto, and Copenhagen to Dubai, with governments unable to secure binding agreements on GHG reduction requirements and standards.

The diverse and serious effects of global warming stretch across sectors, regions, income classes, and states. The inability of governments to respond to concerns over climate change and sustainability has sparked action by private firms and nonprofits to begin to take action. Activities undertaken by concerned citizens, nonprofits, businesses, and community groups currently have surpassed the public sector efforts to reduce carbon footprints and develop alternative sustainability policies.

Transportation Infrastructure: Reducing Travel Congestion and Improving Safety

The transportation sector in the United States is severely hampered by the fiscal challenges facing federal, state, and local governments. Government and transportation association reports have raised an alarm over the inability of government authorities at federal, state, and local levels to address the existing demands on our nation’s transportation system. US roadways alone need a dramatic rise in investment over the next decades to address repairs and expansion needs (US General Accountability Office 2008). The failure on the part of governments to build and maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure has led to congestion in major urban areas and transit choke points for commerce across the nation. Despite the warnings, federal government spending on highways has remained largely steady during the past ten years and is projected to remain at that level for the decade ahead (Congressional Budget Office 2011).

With so much pressure on government to do more with less to address infrastructure capacity issues and with the related issues of safety and terrorism prevention, there is enormous potential for organizations from outside government to contribute to transportation financing, provision, safety, and maintenance. The private sector relies on transportation systems to move their goods; this need has sparked efforts to improve transportation infrastructure and ease congestion problems through the efforts of IPSPs.

Health Care Crises: Improving Access and Reducing Costs

As the debate in the 2012 presidential election over Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (popularly known as Obamacare), and health care costs illustrated, health care policy in the United States is at a critical juncture. While health care is state of the art in the United States, many residents lack essential health care coverage, and health care cost increases regularly exceed standard measures of inflation, placing this cost on an unsustainable path. In many other nations, especially in the less-developed world, health care is not available to a substantial portion of their population, and control of basic diseases, HIV, typhoid, and others is a primary health care need.

Public health is generally a responsibility of government, although the degree of government involvement in health care design and delivery is often controversial. Governments have used both the private and nonprofit sectors to deliver essential aspects of health care. That approach is predominant in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in other countries. Therefore, at least in the United States, it would seem logical for all sectors to be involved in developing and implementing solutions. Both private and nonprofit health care providers have an incentive to hold down costs: to be more competitive or serve larger markets or populations not yet served. Since health expenditures represent more than one-fifth of the US economy, the private sector has a strong profit motive to increase efficiency. Governments in developing nations may simply lack the resources to address some of their most critical health problems. Thus, it seems logical for the private and nonprofit sectors to develop alliances with and without government to address these issues.

IPSPs and Their Approach

The examples demonstrate the diverse set of activities in which IPSPs have become involved. Earlier in the chapter, we presented a diagram that represented the unique characteristics of IPSPs. We have placed the IPSPs we have discussed in that same diagram (see figure 6.2). The differences among IPSPs reflect their own unique approach to governance. The display of where different IPSPs fit in the diagram illustrates the variations public managers will find among different IPSPs.

Of course, not all IPSPs are exactly the same. They vary in the extent to which they reflect the three principal traits of IPSPs. Some have only a few partners but still represent multiple sectors. Some are more closely aligned with governments, although they remain self-directed. For example, the Oregon Environmental Council is self-directed and multisectored, but it might be considered limited in its direct provision of public services. Such differences are important for public managers to recognize and understand in order to make the most effective collaborations.

The placement of the IPSPs described in figure 6.2 demonstrates the variations in the characteristics and approaches IPSPs take, for example:

• The Oregon Environmental Council has members representing all three sectors, and it is strongly self-directed, but its direct public services are limited, providing information about what to do more than doing it themselves.
• First Response Team of America provides public services in the way of road clearing and acts independent of government policies, but its members are a relatively small coalition of community groups and industry partners.
• The Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases has a diverse set of members across national and international sectors and provides an obvious public service in the distribution of medicines. Its policies are consistent with government policies of the United States and international health organizations, although its approach to implementation is innovative and adaptive.

All IPSPs have their own unique profile and vary in the scope and intensity of the three defining characteristics. As we have noted, they are dynamic and evolve as organizations over time. Our presentation of IPSPs in figure 6.2 reflects a period of time, but it would not be surprising to see that IPSPs would migrate to different points in the diagram as they evolve.

Autonomy

IPSPs gain their flexibility from their autonomy from government. This does not mean they should not work with government; the whole premise of an IPSP is its freedom to engage a wide range of actors, both outside the government sphere of authority and potentially including government. From the public manager’s perspective, the autonomy of the IPSP is valuable because it enables the organization to address areas that government may be constrained to address. The self-directing nature of IPSPs implies that government will have limited means to control or manage the operations of IPSPs. The more independent the nature of IPSPs, the greater the imperative for government managers to adopt a leadership style of accommodation and cooperation with nonprofit and private sector members of an IPSP.

Although public managers may be used to managing external relationships from a position of making the final decisions due to government funding and legal authority, it is not in the public interest for the pubic manager to attempt to co-opt an IPSP. A public manager may want to influence the IPSP to address particular public concerns or modify a program to avoid conflicts with existing public policy. The public manager should ask two questions: (1) Are the goals and objectives of the IPSP in line with current public policy? (2) Are they addressing a need not currently being addressed by government? If the answer to either question is yes, the public manager’s role may simply be a facilitator or cheerleader for the actions of the IPSP. If the answer to both questions is no, or is ambiguous, the public manager will need to examine what sources of power or leverage the government has over the IPSP that may mold the IPSP more in the direction of government policy.

The Rainforest Alliance’s globally autonomous nature allows it the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and develop new approaches and solutions that fit best at the time. The ability to try an approach and then discard it for an alternative one, when participants believe change is needed, is not what characterizes most government agencies. Innovative problem solving and adaptation make the Rainforest Alliance a useful partner for public managers.

Mutuality

Just as in networks, all parties in an IPSP must have something to gain from participation in the collaboration. Collaboration takes more time and effort than acting unilaterally. Members might participate for various reasons, but they will not stay engaged very long unless they believe they will benefit from their efforts. The benefits gained may be monetary, such as increased opportunities for financial support or increased sales, but the advantages participants believe they gain from participation in an IPSP can be diverse and not always obvious. The key is achieving a level of mutuality whereby the parties to the collaboration are able to maintain their respective identities and missions while contributing to the collaboration.

Public managers must discern the potential gain for their own involvement with an IPSP. The IPSP may be performing a governmental function that saves the government from providing such services to a particular community. If so, the public manager might examine whether it is possible to provide some governmental funding, for example, through grants or contracts, that would provide additional resources to the IPSP. The Obama administration’s support of accountable care organizations, which clearly address a major theme of health care reform, is one illustration of ways government can support the actions of IPSPs.

As an example of the importance of mutuality in an IPSP, Joint Venture–SV’s broad and diverse leadership provides the backbone to support its energy-efficiency goals. Without this unified approach to collaborating and directing their approach, the complexity in implementing their sustainability initiatives makes achieving their goals unreachable.

Innovation

An IPSP’s strength is its ability to innovate. It can provide creative solutions that might otherwise never emerge from government agencies. Of course, not all ideas and innovations will work, but IPSPs, more than government, are able to take on the risk of failure and embrace innovative, systemic thinking and creative problem solving.

Successes by IPSPs can lead to new or revamped government programs to address public problems and issues. Public managers can benefit by learning what works and does not as IPSPs look for unique solutions—something that governments do not do so well. Public managers should encourage IPSP innovation through pilot project grants and other mechanisms. From an intergovernmental perspective, state governments often are referred to as “laboratories of democracy.” IPSPs might be considered “laboratories of innovation.” The North Carolina Community Care program is a good illustration of a laboratory of innovation that led the state government to incorporate the program’s approach into how it delivers health care services to a particular population in the state.

Sharing Expertise and Resources

Transparency and openness are important aspects of successful IPSP operations. Hiding information, often a problem in principal-agent relations, is counterproductive in IPSPs, where the whole objective of the organization is to combine the capabilities of the various participants. Since the success of the IPSP will be measured in terms of shared goals and outcomes, there is little reason for its members to withhold their ideas or intentions that might be necessary for success. IPSPs that are successful in convincing partners to share information save everyone time and energy, which otherwise is too often spent and wasted on protracted negotiations and circular discussions.

From the public manager’s perspective, government may have expertise and resources that would be useful to an IPSP and provide some leverage for public managers to influence the approach used by an IPSP to address particular problems. For example, government provides a certain legitimacy, so that government support might be useful for an IPSP to gain acceptance by particular constituencies. Government does have regulatory control over many areas, including health care, environmental protection, and workplace safety. The ability of public managers to help IPSPs navigate the regulatory bureaucracy or provide waivers to IPSPs may be an important power—one not to be used over the IPSP but to assist the IPSP in fulfilling its goals and objectives in line with the public interest. The Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases shows how combining resources and dispersing them in a well-informed manner can provide significant relief to disease-stricken regions around the world.

Allocating Risk

Just as in partnerships and networks, all members of an IPSP need to assume the risks they are best able to deal with. Thus, production costs might best be borne by a private sector member of an IPSP, whereas delivery systems might be better controlled by a local nonprofit that has contacts and experience dealing with a specific clientele.

From a public manager’s perspective, government has little risk with IPSPs other than a risk of the IPSP actually making a problem worse. However, there may be some risks that would make sense for government to assume in support of IPSP activities. Government might be the insurer of last resort for certain types of liability, or it may use its legislative power to restrict the ability of individuals to take legal action if they feel they have been wronged by an IPSP. The only reason government might want to assume that role is if it felt that an IPSP was performing an important public function and believed the IPSP would be greatly hindered in its operations by potential liability. Clearing Roadways in Disaster Recovery provides an example in which significant monetary and implementation risks were divided and reallocated by combining the goals of publicly oriented nonprofits and financially interested firms to efficiently rehabilitate transportation to disaster areas.

Measuring Performance

As with any other well-run organization, IPSPs should have a mechanism to measure the performance of their operations. Measurements may include output measures (such as number of children receiving medication), outcome measures (such as overall health in a community), and organizational measures (such as cost of delivery per person served). Timely benchmarks and measurements are important aspects of effective organizational performance.

The public manager will want to weigh the performance measurements of an IPSP against public policy objectives. It may be that the manager is in a better position to collect the data necessary to assess whether an IPSP is meeting the public interest in its activities. Government might be the only party that can collect certain data because of privacy issues, and the ability of government to provide measurements may assist IPSPs in meeting their objectives while providing the public manager with assurances that the IPSP is operating in the public interest.

Advantages for Public Managers

IPSPs offer public managers numerous advantages over other forms of collaborations because of the diversity of participants, their operations outside the basic realms of government, and their commitment to meaningful collaborations.

• Additional resources. IPSPs typically receive funding support from foundations, private donations, and fees for their operations. Public managers most often are constrained by their budgets. By learning how to collaborate with IPSPs, public managers can expand the resource base available to solve the problems their agency is charged with addressing.
• Political sensitivities. Trying new approaches to the delivery of public services can prove to be politically sensitive. Public officials and constituencies may object to changes in programs that have been routine, even if the intent is to bring about improvements, and especially if it involves untested approaches with uncertain results. IPSPs can serve as laboratories of innovation and advance new ideas without public managers facing the risks of being criticized.
• Long-term view. When IPSP collaborations are approaching issues of a long-term-view nature, such as adequate funding for maintenance of infrastructure or capital equipment replacement, public managers can use that perspective to consider issues beyond the typical government time frame of a one- or two-year budget cycle.
• Social entrepreneurship. Private organizations are interested in finding new business opportunities; nonprofits look to expand their member base and their impact. The drive to accomplish these goals encourages participants in IPSPs to look for innovative solutions and make something different happen. Change and urgency are the hallmarks of many IPSPs. Public managers can share in these entrepreneurial efforts, participating in the creation of new approaches that might be sustained, often without government funding support.
• Adaptation and change. Business has to change and modify approaches in real time when something is not working correctly. Markets can change rapidly, and firms have to adapt to stay competitive. When IPSPs have business partners, changing plans when the original approach is ineffective or when resources do not match requirements is viewed as a sign of strength and competence, not misunderstood as poor planning and ineptitude, as it can be in the government.
• Leadership. IPSPs often have the support and active engagement of community leaders. Typically volunteering their time, community leaders contribute their own professional experiences, harnessing their management, organization, and people skills for success. Public managers can leverage the leadership within IPSPs to build community support and help promote their own government programs.

Disadvantages for Public Managers

IPSPs present challenges to public managers that can be a disadvantage over other forms of collaboration. These disadvantages are rooted in the voluntary nature of IPSPs, which ensures a level of impermanence that permeates their actions and approach:

• Difficult communications. The decentralized organization of some IPSPs can create difficulties for public managers to communicate with and engage participants effectively. There is no mandatory requirement for IPSPs to submit reports, hold regularly scheduled meetings, request approvals, or write memos. Governments have their own administrative cycles around budgets or public hearings, and the need for information about IPSP activities may be difficult to obtain and validate in a timely fashion.
• Unpopular politics. The self-driven nature of IPSPs means that they do not have to conform to the political positions of parties or elected officials. IPSPs may provide public services in a way that is unpopular or may attract negative political attention. In such circumstances, public managers have to worry about guilt by association.
• Impermanence. There is little that holds an IPSP together besides the faith of its members and their commitment to a cause. Participants in IPSPs can disperse as easily as they come together. Funding for IPSPs can be uncertain, and if it dries up, there may be no alternative funding to support its activities. Public managers need to approach IPSPs with uncertain futures with caution and not overcommit government reliance on IPSP activities to achieve their own agency’s goals and objectives.
• Mission drift. IPSPs are free to choose their own mission and the services they will provide. That mission can change at any time the participants feel that it is needed. IPSPs might change their mission because their participants have changed their priorities or based on the priorities of funders. Public managers should not always rely on an IPSP to provide the same services or provide them in the same way.