Improving interorganizational collaborations: An application in a violence reduction context

Abstract

Interorganizational collaboration (IC) is a widely used and valued approach to tackling societal challenges. Effective communication and coordination are difficult to achieve within ICs, yet critical to the attainment of shared goals. Relational coordination is a conceptual framework with analytical tools that can assist in overcoming collaboration shortcomings. This study introduces relational coordination to ICs aimed at reducing gang and youth violence. Through a quasi-experimental design in which two sites received relational coordination interventions and two did not, sites were assessed on the degree to which IC coordination and communication was improved in four rounds of surveys over a two year period. Significant, positive changes were seen in one intervention site from baseline to end. In the other intervention site, initial positive changes were eroded by the end of the second year. No significant positive effects were demonstrated in comparison sites. Qualitative analysis shed light on why differences occurred, which were due in large part to structural changes that included codification of practices and the effective use of boundary spanners. A discussion of relational coordination utilization for strengthening ICs in diverse, collaborative contexts is presented.

Full text

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
The
Social
Science
Journal
journa
l
h
om
epa
ge:
www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context
Erika
Geboa,∗,
Brenda
J.
Bondb
aDepartment
of
Sociology,
Suffolk
University,
8
Ashburton
Place,
Boston,
MA
02108,
USA
bInstitute
for
Public
Service,
Suffolk
University,
120
Tremont
Street,
Boston,
MA
02108,
USA
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
2
April
2019
Received
in
revised
form
19
September
2019
Accepted
20
September
2019
Available
online
xxx
Keywords:
Interorganizational
collaboration
Relational
coordination
Comprehensive
gang
model
Violence
reduction
Cross-agency
partnerships
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Interorganizational
collaboration
(IC)
is
a
widely
used
and
valued
approach
to
tackling
soci-
etal
challenges.
Effective
communication
and
coordination
are
difficult
to
achieve
within
ICs,
yet
critical
to
the
attainment
of
shared
goals.
Relational
coordination
is
a
conceptual
framework
with
analytical
tools
that
can
assist
in
overcoming
collaboration
shortcomings.
This
study
introduces
relational
coordination
to
ICs
aimed
at
reducing
gang
and
youth
violence.
Through
a
quasiexperimental
design
in
which
two
sites
received
relational
coor-
dination
interventions
and
two
did
not,
sites
were
assessed
on
the
degree
to
which
IC
coordination
and
communication
was
improved
in
four
rounds
of
surveys
over
a
two
year
period.
Significant,
positive
changes
were
seen
in
one
intervention
site
from
baseline
to
end.
In
the
other
intervention
site,
initial
positive
changes
were
eroded
by
the
end
of
the
second
year.
No
significant
positive
effects
were
demonstrated
in
comparison
sites.
Qual-
itative
analysis
shed
light
on
why
differences
occurred,
which
were
due
in
large
part
to
structural
changes
that
included
codification
of
practices
and
the
effective
use
of
boundary
spanners.
A
discussion
of
relational
coordination
utilization
for
strengthening
ICs
in
diverse,
collaborative
contexts
is
presented.
©
2019
Western
Social
Science
Association.
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
All
rights
reserved.
1.
Introduction
Interorganizational
collaboration
(IC)
is
increasingly
common
in
the
public
sphere
with
a
growing
recogni-
tion
that
such
collaborations
are
essential
to
addressing
problems
that
cut
across
different
arenas
(Koschmann,
2013).
Collaboration
involves
individuals
and/or
agencies
working
together
toward
a
common
goal,
yet
a
host
of
col-
laboration
issues
arise
in
ICs
beyond
the
immediate
focal
concern.
ICs
are
complex
because
of
the
mashing
of
differ-
ent
organizational
structures,
missions,
goals,
and
agendas
(Keyton,
Ford,
&
Smith,
2008).
Given
the
interdependence
∗Corresponding
author.
E-mail
addresses:
egebo@suffolk.edu
(E.
Gebo),
bbond@suffolk.edu
(B.J.
Bond).
that
comes
with
collaboration,
it
is
important
to
study
the
relationship
between
organizations
in
ICs
rather
than
studying
the
perspective
of
one
organization
alone
(Gray,
1985).
Poor
relationships
among
collaboration
partners
inhibit
cross-organizational
work
and
negatively
impact
success
(Lewis,
Isbell,
&
Koschmann,
2010;
Wandersman
&
Florin,
2003),
while
better
interorganizational
collabo-
ration
results
in
achieving
shared
goals
(Bryson,
Crosby,
&
Stone,
2015;
Ford,
Ford,
&
D’Amelio,
2008;
Kanter,
Stein,
&
Jick,
1992).
More
information
on
what
works
to
improve
ICs
is
needed
given
that
ICs
in
the
public
sector
are
likely
here
to
stay
(Bryson
et
al.,
2015;
Rosenbaum
&
Schuck,
2012).
Successful
public
sector
ICs
that
target
social
problems
involve
diverse
entities
who
typically
do
not
work
together,
and
who
typically
do
not
trust
each
other
(e.g.
police
and
social
services).
This
requires
that
entities
change
current
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
0362-3319/©
2019
Western
Social
Science
Association.
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
All
rights
reserved.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
2
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
policies
or
practices
to
include
sharing
information
and
resources
(Mizrahi,
Rosenthal,
&
Ivery,
2013).
In
essence,
these
changes
require
entities
to
engage
in
organizational
change
(Van
Eyk
&
Baum,
2002).
To
further
knowledge
on
how
collaboration
can
be
improved
in
public
sector
ICs,
relational
coordination,
a
promising
practice
from
orga-
nizational
studies,
is
used
in
gang
and
youth
violence
reduction
ICs.
This
represents
the
first
time
relational
coor-
dination
has
been
used
to
address
community
violence
problems
in
an
IC
context.
Comparative
data
from
sites
are
examined
to
understand
if
and
how
communication
and
collaboration
was
improved.
Results
have
implications
for
how
organizations
can
work
better
together
in
ICs.
Relational
coordination
is
first
discussed
as
a
model
for
facilitating
collaborative
change.
The
Comprehensive
Gang
Model,
an
initiative
to
reduce
gang
and
youth
violence,
is
then
described.
Details
about
the
study
sites,
imple-
mentation
processes,
and
findings
are
provided.
Finally,
implications
for
using
relational
coordination
to
improve
ICs
are
presented.
2.
Collaboration
and
relational
coordination
A
systematic
review
of
collaboration
effectiveness
reveals
that
structural
(e.g.
composition,
accountability,
formalization),
functional
(e.g.
collaboration
management,
steering
and
leadership),
and
relational
(e.g.
building
relationships)
factors
can
impact
the
effectiveness
of
collaboration
(Turrini,
Cristofoli,
Frosini,
&
Nasi,
2010).
Unfortunately,
struggles
abound
with
communication
and
coordination
among
diverse
collaboration
entities.
Challenges
include
tension,
poor
leadership,
informal
coor-
dination,
unskilled
mangers,
and
a
lack
of
trust
and
engagement
(Kramer,
Day,
Nguyen,
Hoelscher,
&
Cooper,
2019;
Maccio
&
Christofoli,
2017;
Seaton
et
al.,
2018;
Silvia,
2018).
Collaborative
challenges
in
ICs
could
be
addressed
through
the
application
of
techniques
from
the
organizational
studies
field.
One
strategy
is
rela-
tional
coordination
(RC),
an
innovative
theory
and
practice
grounded
in
research
on
organizations
and
organizational
processes.
RC
has
been
used
as
a
best
practice
model
in
the
US
and
abroad
for
increasing
and
strengthening
communication
and
coordination
between
groups
toward
achievement
of
outcomes
of
interest
(Cramm
&
Nieboer,
2012;
Noël,
Lanham,
Palmer,
Leykum,
&
Parchman,
2013).
RC
theory
posits
conceptual
linkages
between
com-
munication,
coordinated
actions,
and
outcomes.
It
also
offers
a
set
of
intervention
tools
to
assist
partners
in
improving
communication
and
coordination
in
support
of
organizational
change.
Such
practical
tools
to
improve
collective
work
are
necessary
as
collaborations
tend
to
focus
on
their
key
purpose
for
partnering
rather
than
on
how
the
partnership
itself
functions
(Mizrahi
et
al.,
2013).
The
theoretical
foundations
of
RC
focus
on
relational
elements
of
personnel
and
performance
research
in
which
better
relationships
lead
to
improvement
in
communi-
cation
and
coordination
among
entities
working
toward
shared
goals.
In
RC
theory,
effective
collaboration
occurs
when
individuals
share
goals,
when
they
have
shared
knowledge,
and
when
they
respect
each
other.
These
characteristics
can
be
facilitated
by
certain
types
of
communication
–
timely,
frequent,
accurate,
and
problem-
solving
(Gittell,
2000).
Outcomes
of
RC
include
increased
efficiency,
improved
quality
of
work,
and
enhanced
perfor-
mance
at
individual
and
group
levels
(Cramm
&
Nieboer,
2012).
It
can
be
extrapolated
that
using
RC
in
a
collabo-
rative,
public
sector
context
will
lead
to
better
working
relationships
and
improved
information
and
resource
shar-
ing.
Practical
intervention
tools
stemming
from
RC
theory
are
designed
to
strengthen
communication
and
coordi-
nation
in
support
of
collaborative
change
(Gittell,
2016).
RC
intervention
tools
emphasize
structural,
relational,
and
work
process
aspects
of
collaborative
work,
which
are
very
much
aligned
with
the
noted
challenges
of
ICs.
Collectively,
these
tools
are
identified
as
a
relational
model
of
change
(Gittell,
2016).
All
of
these
aspects
need
attention
if
orga-
nizations
are
to
change
to
achieve
collective
goals.
Structural
intervention
tools
include
supporting
a
prac-
tice
of
teamwork
in
staff
hiring
and/or
training,
as
well
as
mutually
agreeable
accountability
and
reward
systems
that
recognize
collaborator
successes
and
hold
partners
accountable
for
their
contributions.
This
includes
regular
meetings
and
formal
agreements
that
detail
each
partner’s
contributions.
A
boundary
spanner(s),
who
works
across
partner
organizations
to
ensure
communication
and
coor-
dination
and
facilitates
project
work
in
pursuit
of
common
goals
is
also
a
structural
intervention.
Boundary
spanners
are
called
different
names
across
fields
of
study,
includ-
ing
organizers,
conveners,
and
collaborative
managers;
they
also
may
take
on
different
formal
and
informal
roles
depending
on
the
structure
and
nature
of
the
problem
(Williams,
2013).
The
term
“boundary
spanner”
is
used
here
to
be
consistent
with
RC
terminology.
Shared
infor-
mation
systems
and
protocols
are
additional
examples
of
structures
that
support
effective
communication
and
coor-
dination.
Relational
intervention
tools
emphasize
the
relational
dimensions
of
collaborative
work.
Partners
are
more
effec-
tive
when
they
come
together
in
safe
spaces
to
learn
more
about
each
other
and
their
work
(Fu,
2015).
This
provides
opportunities
to
build
respect,
share
knowledge,
and
increase
commitment
to
shared
goals.
The
nature
and
strength
of
relationships
are
important
to
reaching
shared
goals.
RC
surveys
are
a
critical
relational
intervention
that
evaluates
collaboration
communication
and
coordination
and
provides
a
mechanism
to
offer
feedback
on
the
strength
of
relationships
among
different
collaborating
groups.
Finally,
work
process
intervention
tools
focus
on
chang-
ing
individual
and
collaborative
work
processes
to
support
the
IC.
These
include
an
assessment
of
the
current
state
of
work,
an
imagination
of
an
ideal
state
of
work,
and
creation
of
new
ways
to
work
to
achieve
the
ideal.
One
set
of
inter-
ventions
alone
–
structural,
interventional,
work
process
–
will
not
ensure
goal
attainment;
interventions
must
be
implemented
in
parallel
to
support
change
(Gittell,
2016).
The
combined
use
of
these
tools
should
improve
communi-
cation
and
coordination
leading
to
desired
results.
For
these
reasons,
RC
is
well
suited
to
address
the
interorganizational
challenges
confronting
ICs.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
3
3.
The
Comprehensive
Gang
Model
This
study
applies
RC
to
the
Comprehensive
Gang
Model
(CGM),
a
criminal
justice
initiative
that
requires
an
interorganizational
collaboration
and
a
deliberate
focus
on
organizational
change
as
a
strategy
for
success.
As
in
other
contexts,
large
gaps
exist
in
how
to
work
effectively
together
on
violence
reduction.
This
study
is
an
opportu-
nity
to
contribute
to
the
IC
literature
as
well
as
the
CGM
literature.
While
organizational
change
has
never
been
clearly
defined
in
the
CGM,
collaboration
among
diverse
entities
is
at
the
core
of
this
strategy.
Under
the
CGM
structure,
diverse
entities
come
together
to
create
a
more
comprehensive
and
holistic
gang
and
youth
violence
reduc-
tion
strategy,
which
necessitates
change
in
individual
and
collective
work
(Howell
&
Griffiths,
2016).
Collectively,
criminal
justice
entities,
other
government
units,
social
services,
faith-based,
and
grassroots
organizations
address
the
social,
physical,
and
psychological
needs
of
at-risk
and
gang-involved
individuals
that
are
touted
as
critical
to
gang
and
youth
violence
reduction.
Where
needed,
arrest
and
prosecution
is
used.
Traditional
methods
of
collective
vio-
lence
prevention
do
not
rely
on
sharing
of
information
or
coordinating
action,
so
organizations
must
change.
For
example,
police
and
outreach
organizations
(agencies
that
connect
with
gang
members
and
those
at-risk
for
gang
involvement)
must
share
information
and,
at
times
coor-
dinate
efforts,
but
outreach
workers
are
often
former
gang
members
themselves
and
working
together
requires
those
respective
organizations
to
change.
There
are
two
stated
goals
of
the
CGM:
(a)
increase
community
capacity
to
work
together
on
gang
and
youth
violence
problems;
and
(b)
reduce
gang
and
youth
vio-
lence.
These
goals
are
reached
through
a
coordinated
five
strategy
effort.
Those
strategies
are
suppression,
including
arrest
and
prosecution;
provision
of
prosocial
opportuni-
ties,
including
employment,
training,
and
education
for
gang-involved
individuals;
and
prevention
services,
such
as
after-school
programming,
to
those
most
at-risk
for
gang
membership.
Organizational
change
and
community
mobi-
lization
are
the
final
two
strategies.
Organizational
change
means
IC
coordination
and
communication
through
new
or
improved
policies
and
practices,
while
community
mobi-
lization
entails
involving
the
community
in
the
initiative.
Combined,
these
strategies
should
lead
to
less
gang
affil-
iation
and
fewer
gang
formations,
which
should
reduce
violence,
particularly
among
young
people
most
likely
to
engage
in
violence.
The
CGM
was
a
result
of
a
decade
of
research
on
how
to
reduce
gangs
and
youth
violence
in
American
commu-
nities,
spearheaded
by
Irvin
Spergel
from
the
University
of
Chicago.
Evaluations
of
the
CGM
have
not
been
overwhelm-
ingly
positive.
Implementation
problems
often
associated
with
organizational
change
have
been
cited
as
a
major
bar-
rier
to
success
(Gebo,
Bond,
&
Campos,
2015).
For
example,
an
evaluation
of
the
Little
Village
Project
in
Chicago,
IL,
the
pilot
CGM
initiative,
as
well
as
five
subsequent
US
federally
funded
replications,
found
that
coordinating
and
commu-
nicating
across
diverse
entities
and
sharing
information
was
problematic.
Some
violence
was
reduced
in
the
Little
Village,
but
institutionalizing
project
practices
were
never
realized.
Results
were
more
mixed
in
the
CGM
replication
sites
(Spergel,
Wa,
&
Sosa,
2006).
Researchers
concluded
that
organizational
change
was
the
most
difficult
strategy
of
the
five
to
employ,
yet
was
critical
to
overall
success.
Insufficient
work
was
done
to
address
organizational
shortcomings
in
later
CGM
initiatives,
many
of
which
also
were
funded
by
the
US
government
(Gebo
et
al.,
2015).
Scholars
noted
that
CGM
initiatives
were
not
subjected
to
rigorous
evaluation
and
feedback
to
genuinely
overcome
any
such
challenges
(Klein
&
Maxson,
2006).
Consistent
with
early
findings,
these
federally-funded
CGM
iteration
evaluations
also
pointed
to
problems
stemming
from
lack
of
organizational
change.
Noted
failures
were
most
often
due
to
a
lack
of
boundary
spanning
activities
and
lead-
ership
to
ensure
coordinated,
prioritization
of
collective
work;
a
lack
of
community
collaboration
to
sustain
and
spread
the
initiative,
especially
within
communities
most
affected
by
gangs;
and
a
lack
of
data
analytic
capacities
to
make
data-informed
decisions
(Gebo
et
al.,
2015;
McGarrell
et
al.,
2013).
Effective
collaboration
as
an
element
of
orga-
nizational
change
is
critical
for
CGM
success.
This
study
is
the
first
of
its
kind
to
use
RC
in
the
CGM
context.
Col-
laborative
challenges
noted
in
the
CGM
setting
have
also
been
identified
in
other
ICs
(Kramer
et
al.,
2019;
Maccio
&
Christofoli,
2017;
Seaton
et
al.,
2018),
pointing
to
the
notion
that
lessons
learned
from
this
project
may
be
transferrable
to
ICs
in
other
contexts.
4.
Methods
A
quasi-experimental
design
with
four
cities
in
a
northeast
state
was
employed
in
this
study:
two
sites
received
RC
interventions
and
two
sites
served
as
compar-
isons.
All
cities
utilize
the
Comprehensive
Gang
Model
to
address
gang
and
youth
violence.
An
18-month
RC
inter-
vention
from
March
2016
through
August
2017
utilizing
the
RC
tools
was
introduced
to
boost
IC
organizational
change
in
the
areas
of
communication
and
collabora-
tion.
Study
authors
employed
an
action
research
approach.
Researchers
collaborated
with
the
intervention
cities
to
provide
the
RC
action
research
intervention
that
began
with
a
two-day
relational
coordination
training
by
RC
experts.
This
study
is
a
mixed
method
examination
of
inter-
vention
implementation
and
outcome
data
over
a
two
year
period.
Quantitative
RC
surveys
showed
change
in
commu-
nication
and
coordination
over
time
in
intervention
sites
relative
to
comparison
sites,
while
qualitative
detailed
doc-
umentation
of
the
RC
intervention
was
used
to
identify
failures
and
successes
at
a
process
level.
Two
RC
intervention
sites
were
purposefully
chosen
as
they
represented
cities
of
different
sizes,
had
data
capacities
to
assess
change,
and
agreed
to
participate
in
the
project.1Two
comparison
sites
were
matched
with
intervention
sites
on
the
demographic
characteristics
of
population,
families
in
poverty,
ethnicity,
and
income.
Gen-
erally,
sites
were
well-matched.
U.S.
Census
(2010)
data
1Funding
constraints
limited
the
number
of
study
sites.
Researchers
sought
out
cities
in
which
they
had
no
previous
working
relationship
in
order
to
guard
against
any
potential
biases
from
pre-existing
projects.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
4
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
show
that
the
Intervention
Site
A
and
Comparison
Site
A
are
medium-sized
cities
of
approximately
180,000
and
110,000
residents,
respectively.
There
is
a
significant
differ-
ence
in
city
size
(p
<
.05).
In
both
cities
approximately
53%
are
white,
with
17%
and
19%
of
families
below
the
poverty
line.
Both
Intervention
Site
B
and
Comparison
Site
B
are
small
cities
of
approximately
89,000
and
95,000
residents,
respectively,
with
approximately
19%
below
the
poverty
line
in
both
cities.
There
is
a
significant
difference
in
eth-
nicity
with
83%
white
in
Intervention
Site
B
and
70%
white
in
Comparison
Site
B.
All
sites
were
deemed
to
have
a
gang
violence
problem
in
order
to
receive
state
funding.
All
study
sites
received
the
same
state
funding
and
structure
mandates
imposed
that
required
adoption
of
the
CGM
and
implementation
of
the
five
CGM
strategies.
Sites
were
required
to
have
a
steering
committee
to
oversee
the
initiative,
a
lead
agency
to
coordinate
the
work,
and
a
local
research
partner
to
assist
in
employing
best
prac-
tices
and
providing
analysis
support.
IC
partners
in
each
site
typically
included
law
enforcement,
prosecution,
pro-
bation,
outreach,
social
services,
faith-based
services,
and
education.
4.1.
RC
survey
Using
the
Tailored
Design
Method
(Dillman,
Smyth,
&
Christian,
2014),
the
validated
RC
survey
(Gittell,
2000)
was
administered
four
times
over
the
course
of
the
study
—
at
inception,
six
months
into
the
intervention,
at
18-months
when
intervention
ceased,
and
one
year
post-intervention.
The
survey
assessed
the
strength
of
communication
and
coordination
on
seven
dimensions:
frequent
communication,
timely
communication,
accurate
communication,
problem-solving
communication,
shared
goals,
shared
knowledge,
and
mutual
respect.
Sample
ques-
tions
were:
“How
frequently
do
people
in
each
of
these
groups
communicate
with
you
about
gang
and
youth
vio-
lence?”;
“Do
people
in
each
of
these
groups
share
your
goals
regarding
gang
and
youth
violence?”;
“Do
people
in
each
of
these
groups
respect
the
work
you
do
with
regard
to
gang
and
youth
violence?”
The
survey
was
administered
to
individuals
in
each
city
who
were
in
key
work
groups
deemed
to
be
essential
to
implementation
of
the
CGM
through
the
web-based
soft-
ware
Qualtrics
(National
Gang
Center,
2010).
These
work
groups
included
law
enforcement,
prosecution,
probation,
outreach,
social
services,
faith-based
services,
education,
research,
and
each
site’s
CGM
coordinators.
The
role,
not
the
individual,
is
significant
in
RC
as
RC
emphasizes
coor-
dination
and
communication
among
organizational
roles
which
reflect
institutional
and
sustainable
collaboration.
Those
in
the
role
most
connected
to
gang
and
youth
vio-
lence
reduction
in
organizations
within
these
work
groups
were
selected
to
answer
the
survey.
Prior
to
each
survey,
researchers
rechecked
contacts
for
each
role
with
site
coor-
dinators
to
ensure
accuracy
of
contact
information.
4.2.
Intervention
implementation
The
RC
intervention
consisted
of
the
authors
as
action
researchers
utilizing
relational
and
work
process
interven-
tions
and
encouraging
the
use
of
structural
interventions
to
support
increased
IC
capacity
to
work
together
on
their
violence
reduction
goals.
Action
research
is
aimed
at
assist-
ing
stakeholders
in
improving
outcomes
through
tailored
and
contextualized
interventions,
as
well
as
consistent
monitoring,
feedback,
and
action
steps.
This
technique
has
increasingly
been
applied
in
criminal
justice
contexts
(Mock,
2010).
During
the
RC
intervention,
researchers
met
with
the
ICs
in
the
two
intervention
sites
approximately
monthly,
held
site
coaching
and
facilitation
calls
approx-
imately
monthly,
and
provided
the
ICs
with
RC
survey
feedback
as
well
as
evidence-based
and
best
practice
infor-
mation
on
other
ICs
and
RC.
Researchers
employed
relational
intervention
tools
that
included
humble
inquiry
(e.g.
“What
barriers
exist
to
facilitate
more
information
sharing?”);
coaching
(e.g.
emphasizing
productive
meeting
tips
that
lead
to
action-
able
items
with
accountability);
as
well
as
work
process
interventions
(e.g.
facilitating
conversations
to
create
the
ideal
violence
prevention
system
in
the
city).
These
tech-
niques
were
used
during
partner
meetings
and
on
calls
with
site
coordinators
who
had
formal
roles
as
bound-
ary
spanners
as
well
as
those
boundary
spanners
that
arose
informally
to
assist
the
site
coordinators.
The
use
of
relational
and
work
process
tools
were
consis-
tently
employed
across
all
interactions
with
intervention
sites.
Action
researcher
support
provided
to
sites
also
encouraged
creating
and/or
strengthening
structural
inter-
ventions
(e.g.
shared
protocol),
which
varied
based
on
site
requests,
researchers’
feedback
during
calls,
and
RC
survey
results.
To
document
intervention
site
implementation,
researchers
analyzed
notes
from
face-to-face
meetings
and
coaching
calls
and
examined
youth
violence
pre-
vention
plan
documents
created
by
each
IC.
A
deductive
qualitative
approach
used
the
RC
framework
as
a
starting
point.
Two
researchers
line
coded
meeting
notes
and
coaching
calls
as
well
as
plan
documents
for
content
evidence
and
descriptions
of
how
long,
how
intense,
and
how
frequently
RC
tools
were
used.
Themes
that
surfaced
during
the
analysis
were
further
explored
and
refined
throughout
the
analysis
process.
Researchers
discussed
any
discrepancies,
and
consensus
was
developed
in
accordance
with
qualitative
data
analysis
strategies
of
inter-rater
reliability
(Armstrong,
Gosling,
Weinman,
&
Martaeu,
1997;
Patton,
2015).
Existing
youth
violence
prevention
plans
from
each
site
were
the
foundation
for
infusing
the
RC
intervention
in
ways
consistent
with
those
plans.
Intervention
City
A
pro-
vided
three
versions
of
their
prevention
plan
documents,
once
at
the
beginning
and
two
revisions
during
the
inter-
vention.
Intervention
City
B
provided
a
draft
version
early
in
the
intervention;
their
plan
was
not
revised
during
the
intervention.
During
the
intervention
period,
there
were
23
separate
in-person
meetings
and
site
coaching
calls
in
Intervention
City
A,
and
17
separate
meetings
and
calls
in
Intervention
City
B.
Researchers
held
18
monthly
debrief-
ing
and
planning
meetings
separate
from
site
meetings
and
calls
to
ensure
that
work
was
aligned
with
RC
and
with
the
CGM.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
5
Table
1
Global
RC
results.a
Global
RC
index
Round
1
Round
2
Round
3
Round
4
Intervention
City
A
3.12
3.38
3.77***
4.00**
Comparison
City
A
3.75
3.66
3.64
3.58
Intervention
City
B
3.39
3.83***
3.69
3.40
Comparison
City
B 3.44
3.33
3.31
3.37
aResults
compared
to
baseline
(Round
1);
two-tailed.
** p
<
.01.
*** p
<
.001..
5.
Findings
While
the
seven
dimensions
of
RC
have
been
shown
to
have
a
high
factor
loading
on
one
dimension
in
previ-
ous
research
in
the
private
sector
(Gittell,
2000),
a
factor
analysis
was
run
to
confirm
that
this
was
the
case
in
this
study.
Across
sites
and
surveys,
these
measures
loaded
consistently
on
one
factor
with
a
minimum
Cronbach’s
alpha
of
.87.2Response
rates
varied
slightly
across
sur-
vey
rounds,
but
averaged
55.4%
in
Intervention
City
A
(between
9–14
respondents),
52.0%
in
Comparison
City
A
(between
10–22
respondents),
58.9%
in
Intervention
City
B
(between
14–17
respondents),
and
57.5%
in
Comparison
City
B
(between
9–12
respondents).
These
response
rates
are
considered
good
for
web-based
surveys
(Kaplowitz,
Hadlock,
&
Levine,
2004).
An
examination
of
respondents
versus
non-respondents
revealed
no
discernable
differ-
ences
with
regard
to
gender
or
role
in
their
city’s
CGM
initiative.
Global
RC
results
offer
a
snapshot
of
how
well
these
ICs
are
communicating
and
coordinating
over
time
(Table
1).
Scores
are
normed
on
RC
research,
where
“1”
is
consid-
ered
“weak”
and
5
is
considered
“strong”
(Gittell,
2012).
Global
rankings
should
be
in
the
4’s
to
be
considered
strong.
Overall,
there
was
clear
and
significant
improvement
in
Intervention
Site
A,
improvement
and
a
precipitous
drop
in
Intervention
Site
B,
and
relatively
no
change
in
comparison
sites.
The
relational
coordination
intervention
significantly
increased
communication
and
coordination
in
one
inter-
vention
site,
but
not
the
other.
The
fact
that
comparison
sites
saw
no
significant
changes
supports
the
contention
that
the
RC
intervention
had
a
positive
effect
on
one
IC.
We
explore
the
intervention
site
findings
further
through
detailed
qualitative
examination.
5.1.
Intervention
City
A
qualitative
findings
Overall,
the
work
in
Intervention
City
A
was
focused
and
action-oriented,
aimed
at
codification
of
goals
and
process
structures
that
would
better
facilitate
IC
commu-
nication
between
organizations.
The
RC
intervention
was
formally
and
publicly
recognized
by
city
leadership
as
crit-
ical
to
the
citywide
youth
violence
prevention
plan.
Action
researchers
made
suggestions
throughout
the
intervention
on
how
to
incorporate
organizational
change
mechanisms
(e.g.
shared
meetings,
protocols,
and
information
systems)
into
their
city
planning
documents.
The
City
A
site
coor-
2Analysis
available
from
first
author.
dinator
and
another
partner
from
a
local
university
took
on
much
of
the
work
of
ensuring
that
many
of
these
sug-
gestions
were
adopted.
These
individuals
served
as
site
boundary
spanners.
The
coordinator
was
required
to
facil-
itate
meetings
amongst
partners,
but
their
collective
work
went
beyond
any
formal
role.
These
individuals
were
well-
respected,
had
been
involved
in
public
health
issues
in
the
city
for
years,
and
were
committed
to
reducing
gang
and
youth
violence.
They
were
the
main
communicators
and
central
repositories
of
collective
work.
Coaching
calls
with
them
often
centered
on
how
to
increase
communication
among
group
members
and
how
to
encourage
partners
to
work
together
to
address
thorny
issues,
with
racial
inequities
as
a
primary
focus.
During
a
discussion
about
longstanding
racial
disparities
that
were
rarely
discussed
publicly,
a
director
of
a
program
captured
a
foundation
block
of
RC
practice
of
addressing
conflict
by
stating,
“Good
agendas
have
pushed
us
toward
addressing
these
chal-
lenges.”
Site
boundary
spanners
took
the
lead
in
creating
meet-
ing
structures
to
support
better
communication
across
groups.
They
held
standing,
smaller,
weekly
planning
meetings
to
ensure
the
IC
was
on
track
and
to
trou-
bleshoot
problems.
Boundary
spanners
reached
out
to
diverse
entities
and
connected
youth
violence
plan
struc-
ture
to
the
variety
of
youth
violence
working
groups
which
included
employment,
early
childhood,
youth
services,
and
male-youth-of-color
serving
agencies;
thereby
delib-
erately
facilitating
communication
and
coordination
across
agencies.
They
proactively
asked
researchers
for
examples
of
shared
meeting
agendas
and
meeting
best
practices.
Continual
sharing
and
assessment
of
gang
and
youth
violence
data
was
central
to
City
A’s
work.
City
A’s
struc-
ture
included
time
at
monthly
meetings
for
working
groups
to
share
data
and
monitor
the
gang
and
youth
violence
problem.
Boundary
spanners
pushed
to
obtain
data
to
dis-
cuss
at
meetings
that
would
tie
into
their
overall
violence
prevention
goals
and
address
racial
disparities.
There
was
evidence
that
boundary
spanner
efforts
were
paying
divi-
dends.
Approximately
eight
months
into
the
intervention,
a
boundary
spanner
said,
“[I]
didn’t
have
to
request
monthly
data
from
agencies
and
programs”
as
collaboration
partners
were
proactively
sending
it
on
their
own
at
the
end
of
each
month.
This
is
an
example
of
the
changes
that
partnering
organizations
made
in
support
of
the
IC
and
was
evidenced
in
their
significantly
increased
RC
scores.
Accountability
and
reward
structures
also
were
being
built
into
the
IC
at
the
time
the
intervention
ended.
City
A
introduced
a
number
of
changes
aligned
with
RC.
This
included
working
on
a
cross-agency
shared
protocol
that
would
be
signed
by
city
leadership,
including
the
mayor,
city
manager,
police
chief,
school
superintendent,
chief
judge,
and
district
attorney
to
facilitate
cross-agency
work
and
expectations.
The
IC
also
began
to
take
steps
to
build
a
platform
for
shared
information
systems
to
facilitate
com-
munication
among
partners.
City
A’s
IC
use
of
the
RC
tools
of
boundary
spanners,
productive
meetings,
shared
infor-
mation
systems,
and
protocols
were
at
the
forefront
of
work
during
the
intervention
period
that
helped
facilitate
increased
collaboration
and
organizational
change.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
6
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
5.2.
Intervention
City
B
qualitative
findings
RC
intervention
efforts
in
City
B
focused
on
encouraging,
modeling,
and
providing
resources
for
boundary
spanning
roles
and
productive
shared
meetings.
As
with
City
A,
the
site
coordinator
for
the
CGM
initiative
and
another
partner
took
on
much
of
the
work
of
helping
to
improve
the
part-
nership,
but
they
were
not
effective
boundary
spanners,
as
will
be
detailed.
To
strengthen
boundary
spanner
roles,
researchers
provided
resources
on
relational
job
design
that
would
lead
to
formalized
systems
of
coordination
so
that
if
one
person
was
unavailable
or
absent
for
any
length
of
time
–
as
happened
in
this
case
when
the
site
coordinator
was
on
medical
leave
for
three
months
–
the
collaboration
work
continued.
Researchers
also
used
a
humble
inquiry
approach
with
collaborating
partners
to
identify
barriers
and
solutions
for
positive
change
in
their
violence
preven-
tion
plan
and
in
their
IC.
Similar
to
Intervention
City
A,
the
Intervention
City
B
site
coordinator
and
supporting
partner
saw
the
need
to
ensure
meeting
agendas
were
out
to
members
ahead
of
time
with
agreed
upon
and
actionable
items
for
planning
and
accountability.
These
individuals
did
not
always
meet
their
own
standards,
however.
The
requested
information
to
be
sent
prior
to
an
upcoming
meeting
on
four
sepa-
rate
occasions,
but
no
one
in
the
IC
did
so.
There
was
no
true
discussion
about
setting
up
shared
accountability;
rather,
IC
participants
felt
that
they
had
informal
agree-
ments
about
how
they
would
work
and
be
held
accountable
for
that
work.
On
the
last
coaching
call
with
City
B,
the
coordinator
and
partner
brought
up
the
need
to
follow
up
on
a
request
for
data
from
partners.
That
did
not
occur.
City
B
continued
to
operate
solely
at
the
informal
pro-
gram
level,
which
did
not
increase
their
ability
to
better
communicate
or
collaborate
as
reflected
in
the
RC
survey
results.
In
the
early
months
of
City
B’s
intervention,
there
was
a
collective
sense
among
partners
that
youth-serving
enti-
ties
had
solid
relationships
and
did
not
need
formalized
structures
to
link
and
to
share
information
among
them.
One
partner
said,
“We
believe
our
strengths
are
based
in
pro-
grams.”
This
was
reflected
in
strong
RC
survey
results
in
the
second
round.
The
problems
with
a
limited
program-
level
focus
became
clear
to
many
of
them
seven
months
into
the
intervention.
During
an
action
research-facilitated
partner
meeting
exercise
to
identify
strengths
and
bar-
riers
for
CGM
organizational
change,
every
suggestion
identified
was
at
the
program
or
individual-level,
with
no
larger
system-level
suggestion
(e.g.
shared
informa-
tion
systems)
that
would
produce
the
goal
of
working
better
together.
Partners
then
held
a
protracted
discus-
sion
of
individuals
and
entities
important
to
violence
reduction
who
were
not
part
of
the
partner
committee.
Researchers
provided
violence
reduction
examples
and
organizational
best
practices
that
illuminated
the
need
to
move
beyond
program-level
membership,
discussions,
and
actions.
After
nine
months
of
intervention,
the
City
B
IC
decided
to
reconstitute
their
steering
committee
to
include
indi-
viduals
who
could
impact
policy,
leverage
more
power
to
make
changes,
provide
vision,
and
engage
city
leaders.
Dur-
ing
one
related
coaching
call,
the
site
coordinator
stated
that
trying
to
focus
their
gang
and
youth
violence
reduction
efforts
had
been
a
“rollercoaster”,
but
with
the
reconstituted
steering
committee,
“we
are
regaining
momentum.”
With
support
of
the
research
team,
the
IC
defined
the
purpose
and
roles
for
their
CGM
steering
committee.
The
City
B
site
coordinator
and
partners
tried
to
engage
non-program
personnel
and
city
leadership,
but
they
had
little
access
to
leadership
whose
endorsement
and
support
for
cross-organization
efforts
would
be
beneficial
for
buy-
in
of
other
organizations,
such
as
the
police
department.
Their
attempts
to
engage
leadership
were
not
successful.
This
absence
of
access
and
influence
suggests
that
true
boundary
spanning
mechanisms
were
lacking.
The
effort
to
engage
more
diverse
stakeholders
was
redoubled
with
the
decision
to
reconstitute
the
steering
committee.
Yet,
schools
were
not
actively
involved
until
just
prior
to
the
end
of
the
RC
intervention,
and
other
key
entities
still
were
not
at
the
table.
As
one
IC
member
said
fifteen
months
into
the
eighteen-month
intervention,
“I’m
a
little
disappointed
because
we
need
some
other
big
players,
like
the
police
depart-
ment
and
the
mayor’s
office.”
Though
the
police
department
was
on
the
steering
committee
roster,
there
was
no
consis-
tent
departmental
representation
at
the
meetings
until
the
advent
of
the
reconstituted
steering
committee
when
the
site
coordinator
secured
a
more
formal
commitment
from
the
chief
of
police.
Fewer
structural
interventions
took
place
than
were
initially
identified
in
City
B.
Despite
creating
an
ideal
youth
development
model
for
violence
prevention,
City
B
struggled
to
make
the
changes
needed
to
align
diverse
organizations
in
pursuit
of
shared
goals.
Productive
meet-
ings
did
not
always
occur,
especially
with
important
entities
missing
from
the
table
and
with
the
site
coordina-
tor
out
of
work
for
several
months.
Accountability,
while
discussed,
was
never
implemented
as
a
tool
to
improve
the
IC.
There
also
was
a
significant
shift
in
focus
during
the
intervention
itself
—
a
reconstituted
steering
committee.
While
this
change
was
needed
and
aligned
with
RC
tools,
it
likely
influenced
RC
survey
results
as
survey
respondents
recognized
the
problems
they
needed
to
address
to
produce
positive
change.
In
sum,
the
IC
in
Intervention
City
A
enhanced
and
strengthened
a
structure
to
formally
communicate
and
coordinate
as
part
of
an
overall
youth
violence
preven-
tion
plan
in
which
boundary
spanners
played
a
key
role.
Organizational
change
was
added
as
a
formal
component
of
the
youth
violence
prevention
plan.
The
IC
in
Interven-
tion
City
B
worked
entirely
informally
and
did
not
adopt
work
process
or
structural
interventions
into
any
citywide
plan,
and
effective
boundary
spanning
roles
were
relatively
non-existent.
While
each
city
was
compared
to
its
own
baseline
and
in
the
use
of
RC
tools,
it
is
interesting
to
con-
trast
how
partners
saw
organizational
change
at
the
end
of
the
intervention.
In
City
A,
when
discussing
how
organiza-
tional
change
occurs,
one
IC
partner
said,
“It’s
the
structure
that
allows
us
to
move
forward.”
While
in
City
B,
an
IC
part-
ner
said,
“It’s
[name
of
site
coordinator]
that
moves
things
in
this
city.”

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
7
6.
Discussion
This
study
examined
the
effects
of
a
research
project
designed
to
improve
IC
capacity
to
address
gang
and
youth
violence.
Results
were
mixed.
While
one
site
made
linear,
positive
progress
over
time
as
evidenced
by
survey
results;
another
site
had
initial
gains,
but
returned
to
baseline
scores
by
the
end
of
the
study.
There
were
no
changes
in
RC
scores
over
time
in
the
comparison
sites.
Implementation
analyses
help
to
explain
intervention
results.
Structural
changes
occurred
in
Intervention
City
A
and
boundary
spanners
were
effective,
helping
to
strengthen
commu-
nication
and
coordination.
There
were
structural
change
efforts
in
Intervention
City
B
with
a
reconstituted
steering
committee,
but
no
effective
boundary
spanner
who
delib-
erately
communicated
and
coordinated
across
organiza-
tions
and
levels
of
government.
Organizational
change
was
memorialized
through
Intervention
City
A’s
youth
violence
prevention
plan;
while
Intervention
City
B
did
not
codify
shared
goals
or
link
to
their
citywide
plan.
Both
cities,
how-
ever,
used
their
plans
as
work
process
interventions
to
con-
sider
an
ideal
state
of
gang
and
youth
violence
reduction.
Structural
change
is
necessary
for
sustained
relational
change
(Gittell,
2016).
Research
shows
that
the
existence
of
structures
through
which
organizational
change
can
take
place
are
essential
to
achieve
outcomes
of
interest
(Daley,
2009),
and
this
may
be
especially
true
in
ICs
as
demon-
strated
here.
Structural
changes
include
clear
roles
and
purpose
for
ICs
in
general
(Koschmann,
2013),
and
in
the
CGM
realm
(National
Gang
Center,
2010).
Structured
meet-
ings
with
clear
agendas
and
shared
protocols
are
structural
changes
that
can
lead
to
relational
change
(Huxham
&
Vangen,
2000).
Structured
meetings
also
are
important
to
promoting
an
atmosphere
where
diverse
participants
feel
like
they
have
an
equal
stake
in
the
partnership
and
will
be
heard
(Zakocs
&
Edwards,
2006).
Finally
shared
proto-
cols
increase
trust
across
diverse
organizations
that
lead
to
more
effective
delivery
of
services
and
programs
(Hean,
Warr,
&
Staddon,
2009).
Research
is
clear
that
initiatives
relying
on
people
alone,
rather
than
on
structure
to
support
people,
are
less
effective
and
sustainable
(Bryson,
Crosby,
&
Stone,
2006).
This
study
reinforces
that
finding.
RC
research
in
single
organizations
has
shown
that
boundary
spanners
are
not
typically
critical
factors
to
suc-
cess
(Gittell
&
Logan,
2018);
yet
boundary
spanners
were
vital
in
terms
of
communication,
coordination,
and
pro-
ducing
change
in
this
study.
They
are
part
of
a
structural
intervention
according
to
RC
theory,
but
also
are
essential
to
relational
interventions.
Boundary
spanning
roles
may
be
an
important
element
of
success
in
ICs
where
there
is
a
heightened
need
for
cross-agency
communication
and
coordination
and
perhaps
a
heightened
set
of
tensions
(Lewis
et
al.,
2010).
These
roles
also
are
more
likely
to
be
negotiated
and
sometimes
informal
in
public
sector
ICs
that
address
“wicked
problems”,
such
as
violence
(Woo,
2019).
Boundary
spanners
created
bridges
vertically
and
horizontally
in
Intervention
City
A.
They
were
active
and
effective
at
reaching
out
and
communicating
with
diverse
entities
at
different
levels
of
government
and
in
various
organizations.
They
also
obtained
data
from
them
as
a
work
process
intervention
to
help
meet
shared
goals.
At
the
same
time,
with
a
global
RC
score
of
4
out
of
5,
City
A
still
had
work
to
do
to
achieve
excellent
communication
and
coor-
dination
across
partners.
Boundary
spanners
may
not
have
official
roles
that
designate
them
as
liaisons
among
differ-
ent
groups,
but
City
A’s
boundary
spanners
buffered
and
nurtured
relationships
among
diverse
groups
at
many
lev-
els.
These
relationship-supporting
roles
are
essential
to
effective
collaboration
(Turrini
et
al.,
2010).
RC
can
be
a
practical
guide
to
overcoming
collabora-
tive
challenges
in
ICs,
but
critical
elements
may
be
missing.
Absent
from
the
RC
framework
is
a
deliberate
emphasis
on
higher
leadership
in
organizations
beyond
boundary
span-
ners.
In
the
case
of
this
public
sector
initiative,
leadership
refers
to
city
officials.
Leadership
in
this
sense
may
have
a
direct
outcome
on
the
degree
to
which
ICs
effectively
col-
laborate
and
change.
Active
involvement
of
city
leadership
occurred
in
Intervention
City
A
with
a
noted
absence
of
leadership
in
Intervention
City
B.
One
clear
example
of
the
need
for
leadership
is
interagency
memoranda
of
under-
standings,
which
facilitate
information
sharing
and
work
among
agencies
with
different
missions.
Leadership
is
an
important
feature
in
the
operation
of
ICs
in
the
private
sector
(Contractor,
DeChurch,
Carson,
Carter,
&
Keegan,
2012;
Kramer
et
al.,
2019)
and
in
the
CGM
public
sector
(Cahill
&
Hayslip,
2010).
It
may
be
that
leadership
support
is
a
precondition
to
positive
change
as
measured
through
relational
coordination
(Fu,
2015).
Future
research
should
examine
leadership
dimensions
on
the
achievement
of
IC
goals
in
the
public
sector.
Improving
community
capacity
to
work
together
is
one
CGM
goal.
This
study
demonstrates
that
RC
was
used
to
significantly
improve
communication
and
coordination
in
one
intervention
site.
RC
was
a
useful
guide
for
change
with
a
set
of
practical
tools
that
partnerships
could
implement
to
improve
how
various
entities
went
about
their
collec-
tive
violence
reduction
work.
Importantly,
RC
provides
an
instrument
to
measure
success,
and
research
shows
that
evaluation
of
the
collaboration
itself
is
essential
to
overall
success
(Silva,
2018).
To
more
fully
understand
the
utility
of
RC
in
the
CGM
context,
replicating
the
use
of
RC
in
other
CGM
sites,
with
careful
attention
paid
to
codifying
prac-
tices
and
boundary
spanning
roles,
is
warranted.
Because
of
the
similarity
of
problems
with
ICs
across
contexts,
it
also
is
useful
to
explore
the
use
of
RC
in
other
public
sector
settings.
Several
study
limitations
exist.
Researchers
were
care-
ful
to
craft
an
intervention
that
was
rooted
in
best
practices
and
that
met
the
18-month
time
requirement
to
observe
outcome
changes
(Proctor,
Powell,
&
McMillen,
2013).
A
quasi-experimental
design
was
used
with
matched
com-
parison
sites
to
ensure
any
changes
could
be
attributed
to
the
intervention
itself.
Yet
organizational
change
within
ICs
is
a
challenge,
and
organizational
changes
in
these
contexts
are
likely
to
be
more
difficult
than
in
single
organizations
(Belenko,
Johnson,
Taxman,
&
Rieckmann,
2018).
Organi-
zational
change
work
needs
conscious
attention
over
time
(Fixsen,
Naoom,
Blasé,
Friedman,
&
Wallace,
2005).
These
efforts
in
intervention
sites
sometimes
took
a
backseat
to
issues
galvanized
around
violent
shootings
and
public
events.
Forward
momentum
was
paused
several
times
in
each
site
because
of
other
events
that
percolated
to
the

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
8
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
top
of
the
priority
list,
echoing
results
from
CGM
evalua-
tions
(McGarrell
et
al.,
2013).
There
are
always
competing
demands
for
time
and
effort.
Prioritizing
the
health
of
the
collaboration
itself
must
be
a
priority
and
part
of
the
over-
all
collaboration
plan,
as
was
demonstrated
in
Intervention
City
A.
Internal
validity
may
have
been
affected
if
those
sur-
veyed
for
this
study
were
not
representative
of
those
who
were
involved
in
the
delivery
of
the
CGM
in
sites.
Sur-
veyed
individuals
provided
critical
key
informant
data
as
they
were
centrally
involved
in
the
CGM
execution
in
their
sites.
Exogenous
factors
not
assessed
in
this
study
also
may
have
affected
study
results,
such
as
shifts
in
city
leadership
and
economic
downturns.
Fundamental
context
factors,
including
funding
stability,
IC
structure,
and
CGM
strate-
gies
were
state
mandated
and
stable
over
time
in
each
site.
This
limited
some
of
the
influence
of
outside
factors
and
was
a
primary
reason
these
sites
were
chosen
for
the
study.
Finally,
positive
changes
may
have
occurred
in
Intervention
City
B
with
a
longer
evaluative
time
horizon.
This
study
is
informative
for
improving
communication
and
coordination
in
pursuit
of
shared
goals
in
interor-
ganizational
collaborations
in
the
public
sector.
A
robust
intervention
implementation
plan
allowed
for
a
careful
examination
of
the
RC
process
lending
itself
to
transla-
tion
from
this
setting
to
others.
Cross-disciplinary
research
shows
that
effective
collaboration
is
part
of
organizational
change
and
central
to
overall
initiative
success
(Bryson
et
al.,
2006),
yet
ICs
have
not
been
well-studied
in
this
regard
(Kramer
et
al.,
2019;
Stokols,
2006).
Boundary
span-
ners
may
be
essential
to
the
achievement
of
effective
collaboration
because
of
their
critical
role
in
facilitating
communication
and
coordinating
across
diverse
entities.
This
study
adds
to
the
literature
by
applying
a
practical,
innovative
approach
of
incorporating
relational
coordina-
tion
theory
and
tools
into
a
criminal
justice
IC.
Future
research
should
continue
to
examine
the
interorganiza-
tional
elements
of
diverse
collaborations
and
integrate
knowledge
from
other
fields
to
help
unpack
the
process
by
which
entities
work
together
–
and
work
better
together
–
as
these
practices
ultimately
may
have
broad
influence
on
meeting
shared
goals.
Declaration
of
interest
None.
Funding
This
project
was
supported
by
Award
No.
2015-R2-CX-
0013
awarded
by
the
National
Institute
of
Justice,
Office
of
Justice
Programs,
U.S.
Department
of
Justice.
The
opinions,
findings,
and
conclusions
or
recommendations
expressed
in
this
presentation
are
those
of
the
authors
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
the
Department
of
Justice.
References
Armstrong,
D.,
Gosling,
A.,
Weinman,
J.,
&
Martaeu,
T.
(1997).
The
place
of
inter-rater
reliability
in
qualitative
research:
An
empirical
study.
Sociology,
31(3),
597–606.
Belenko,
S.,
Johnson,
I.
D.,
Taxman,
F.
S.,
&
Rieckmann,
T.
(2018).
Probation
staff
attitudes
toward
substance
abuse
treatment
and
evidence-based
practices.
International
Journal
of
Offender
Therapy
and
Comparative
Criminology,
62(2),
313–333.
Bryson,
J.
M.,
Crosby,
B.
C.,
&
Stone,
M.
M.
(2015).
Designing
and
imple-
menting
cross-sector
collaborations:
Needed
and
challenging.
Public
Administration
Review,
75(5),
647–663.
Bryson,
J.
M.,
Crosby,
B.
C.,
&
Stone,
M.
M.
(2006).
The
design
and
implementation
of
cross-sector
collaborations:
Propositions
from
the
literature.
Public
Administration
Review,
66(s1),
44–55.
Cahill,
M.,
&
Hayslip,
D.
(2010).
Findings
from
the
evaluation
of
OJJDP’s
Gang
Reduction
Program:
Juvenile
justice
bulletin.
Washington,
DC:
OJJDP.
Contractor,
N.
S.,
DeChurch,
L.
A.,
Carson,
J.,
Carter,
D.
R.,
&
Keegan,
B.
(2012).
The
topology
of
collective
leadership.
The
Leadership
Quarterly,
23(6),
994–1011.
Cramm,
J.
M.,
&
Nieboer,
A.
P.
(2012).
Relational
coordination
promotes
quality
of
chronic
care
delivery
in
Dutch
disease-management
pro-
grams.
Health
Care
Management
Review,
37(4),
301–309.
Daley,
D.
(2009).
Interdisciplinary
problems
and
agency
boundaries:
Exploring
effective
cross-agency
collaboration.
Journal
of
Public
Administration
Research
and
Theory,
19(3),
477–493.
Dillman,
D.
A.,
Smyth,
J.
D.,
&
Christian,
L.
M.
(2014).
Mail
and
internet
surveys:
The
Tailored
Design
Method
(4th
ed.).
Hoboken,
NJ:
Wiley.
Fixsen,
D.
L.,
Naoom,
S.
F.,
Blasé,
K.
A.,
Friedman,
R.
M.,
&
Wallace,
F.
(2005).
Implementation
research:
A
synthesis
of
the
literature.
Tampa,
FL:
National
Implementation
Research
Organization
planning:
Cases
and
Concepts.
Homewood,
IL:
Irwin.
Ford,
J.
D.,
Ford,
L.
W.,
&
D’Amelio,
A.
(2008).
Resistance
to
change:
The
rest
of
the
story.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
33(2),
362–377.
Fu,
N.
(2015).
The
role
of
relational
resources
in
the
knowledge
manage-
ment
capability
and
innovation
of
professional
service
firms.
Human
Relations,
68(5),
731–764.
Gebo,
E.,
Bond,
B.
J.,
&
Campos,
K.
S.
(2015).
The
OJJDP
comprehensive
gang
strategy:
The
Comprehensive
Gang
Model.
In
S.
H.
Decker,
&
D.
C.
Pyrooz
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
gangs
and
gang
responses
(pp.
392–405).
New
York:
Wiley.
Gittell,
J.
H.
(2000).
Organizing
work
to
support
relational
coordination.
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
11(3),
517–539.
Gittell,
J.
H.
(2012).
Relational
coordination:
Guidelines
for
theory,
measure-
ment,
and
analysis.
Cambridge,
MA:
Relational
Coordination
Analytics.
Gittell,
J.
H.
(2016).
Transforming
relationships
for
high
performance:
The
power
of
relational
coordination.
Stanford,
CA:
Stanford
University
Press.
Gittell,
J.
H.,
&
Logan,
C.
(2018).
Relational
coordination
theory:
A
sys-
tematic
review
of
evidence.
In
Research
Seminar
Presented
at
the
IÈSEG
School
of
Management.
Gray,
B.
(1985).
Conditions
facilitating
interorganizational
collaboration.
Human
Relations,
38(10),
911–936.
Hean,
S.,
Warr,
J.,
&
Staddon,
S.
(2009).
Challenges
at
the
interface
of
work-
ing
between
mental
health
services
and
the
criminal
justice
system.
Medicine,
Science,
and
the
Law,
49(3),
170–178.
Howell,
J.
C.,
&
Griffiths,
E.
A.
(2016).
Gangs
in
America’s
communities.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Huxham,
C.,
&
Vangen,
S.
(2000).
Leadership
in
the
shaping
and
implemen-
tation
of
collaboration
agendas:
How
things
happen
in
a
(not
quite)
joined-up
world.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
43(6),
1159–1175.
Kanter,
R.
M.,
Stein,
B.,
&
Jick,
T.
(1992).
The
challenge
of
organizational
change:
How
companies
experience
it
and
how
leaders
guide
it.
New
York:
Free
Press/Maxwell
Macmillan.
Kaplowitz,
M.
D.,
Hadlock,
T.
D.,
&
Levine,
R.
(2004).
A
comparison
of
web
and
mail
survey
response
rates.
Public
Opinion
Quarterly,
68(1),
94–101.
Keyton,
J.,
Ford,
D.
J.,
&
Smith,
F.
I.
(2008).
A
mesolevel
communicative
model
of
collaboration.
Communication
Theory,
18(3),
376–406.
Klein,
M.
W.,
&
Maxson,
C.
L.
(2006).
Street
gang
patterns
and
policies.
New
York:
Oxford.
Kramer,
M.
W.,
Day,
E.
A.,
Nguyen,
C.,
Hoelscher,
C.
S.,
&
Cooper,
O.
D.
(2019).
Leadership
in
an
interorganizational
collaboration:
A
quali-
tative
study
of
a
statewide
interagency
taskforce.
Human
Relations,
72(2),
397–419.
Koschmann,
M.
A.
(2013).
The
communicative
constitution
of
collective
identity
in
interorganizational
collaboration.
Management
Communi-
cation
Quarterly,
27(1),
61–89.
Lewis,
L.,
Isbell,
M.
G.,
&
Koschmann,
M.
(2010).
Collaborative
tensions:
Practitioners’
experiences
of
interorganizational
relationships.
Com-
munication
Monograph,
77,
460–479.
Maccio,
L.,
&
Christofoli,
D.
(2017).
How
to
support
the
endurance
of
long-term
networks:
The
pivotal
role
of
the
network
manager.
Public
Administration,
95(4),
1060–1076.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Gebo,
E.,
&
Bond,
B.J.
Improving
interorganizational
collaborations:
An
application
in
a
violence
reduction
context.
The
Social
Science
Journal
(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
SOCSCI-1662;
No.
of
Pages
9
E.
Gebo,
B.J.
Bond
/
The
Social
Science
Journal
xxx
(2019)
xxx–xxx
9
McGarrell,
E.
F.,
Corsaro,
N.,
Melde,
C.,
Hipple,
N.
K.,
Bynum,
T.,
&
Cobbina,
J.
(2013).
Attempting
to
reduce
firearms
violence
through
a
comprehen-
sive
anti-gang
initiative
(CAGI):
An
evaluation
of
process
and
impact.
Journal
of
Criminal
Justice,
41(1),
33–43.
Mizrahi,
T.,
Rosenthal,
B.
B.,
&
Ivery,
J.
(2013).
Coalitions,
collaborations,
and
partnerships:
Interorganizational
approaches
to
social
change.
In
M.
Weil,
M.
Reisch,
&
M.
L.
Ohmer
(Eds.),
The
handbook
of
community
practice
(pp.
1–22).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Mock,
L.
F.
(2010).
Action
research
for
crime
control
and
prevention.
In
J.
Klofas,
N.
K.
Hipple,
&
E.
McGarrell
(Eds.),
The
new
criminal
justice:
American
communities
and
the
changing
world
of
crime
control
(pp.
97–102).
New
York:
Routledge.
National
Gang
Center.
(2010).
Best
practices
to
address
community
gang
problems:
OJJDP’s
Comprehensive
Gang
Model.
Tallahassee,
FL:
National
Gang
Center.
Noël,
P.,
Lanham,
H.,
Palmer,
R.,
Leykum,
L.,
&
Parchman,
M.
(2013).
The
importance
of
relational
coordination
and
reciprocal
learning
for
chronic
illness
care
in
primary
care
teams.
Health
Care
Management
Review,
38(1),
20–28.
Patton,
M.
Q.
(2015).
Qualitative
research
and
methods:
Integrating
theory
and
practice.
London,
UK:
Sage.
Proctor,
E.
K.,
Powell,
B.
J.,
&
McMillen,
J.
C.
(2013).
Implementation
strategies:
Recommendations
for
specifying
and
reporting.
Implemen-
tation
Science,
8,
139.
Retrieved
from.
https://implementationscience.
biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139
Rosenbaum,
D.
P.,
&
Schuck,
A.
M.
(2012).
Comprehensive
community
partnerships
for
preventing
crime.
In
D.
P.
Farrington,
&
B.
C.
Welsh
(Eds.),
The
Oxford
handbook
of
crime
prevention
(pp.
226–246).
London:
Oxford.
Seaton,
C.
L.,
Holm,
N.,
Bottorff,
J.
L.,
Jones-Bricker,
M.,
Errey,
S.,
Caper-
chione,
C.
M.,
.
.
.
&
Healy,
T.
(2018).
Factors
that
impact
the
success
of
interorganizational
health
promotion
collaborations:
A
scoping
review.
American
Journal
of
Health
Promotion,
32(4),
1095–1109.
Silvia,
C.
(2018).
Evaluating
collaboration:
The
solution
to
one
problem
often
causes
another.
Public
Administration
Review,
78(3),
472–478.
Spergel,
I.
A.,
Wa,
K.
M.,
&
Sosa,
R.
V.
(2006).
The
Comprehensive
Community-Wide
Gang
Program
Model:
Success
and
failure.
In
J.
F.
Short,
&
L.
A.
Hughes
(Eds.),
Studying
youth
gangs
(pp.
203–224).
Lan-
ham,
MD:
AltaMira
Press.
Stokols,
D.
(2006).
Toward
a
science
of
transdisciplinary
action
research.
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
38(1-2),
63–77.
Turrini,
A.,
Cristofoli,
D.,
Frosini,
F.,
&
Nasi,
G.
(2010).
Networking
literature
about
determinants
of
network
effectiveness.
Public
Administration,
88,
528–550.
U.S.
Census
Bureau.
(2010).
American
fact
finder:
Community
facts
Retrieved
from.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml
Van
Eyk,
H.,
&
Baum,
F.
(2002).
Learning
about
interagency
collaboration:
Trialling
collaborative
projects
between
hospitals
and
community
health
services.
Health
and
Social
Care
in
the
Community,
10,
262–269.
Wandersman,
A.,
&
Florin,
P.
(2003).
Community
interventions
and
effec-
tive
preventions.
American
Psychologist,
58(6–7),
441–448.
Williams,
P.
(2013).
We
are
all
boundary
spanners
now?
International
Journal
of
Public
Sector
Management,
26(1),
17–32.
Woo,
D.
(2019).
Reconceptualizing
interorganizational
collaborations
as
tensile
structures:
Implications
of
conveners’
proactive
tension
man-
agement.
Communication
Monographs,
86(2),
158–183.
Zakocs,
R.
C.,
&
Edwards,
E.
M.
(2006).
What
explains
community
coalition
effectiveness?
A
review
of
the
literature.
American
Journal
of
Preven-
tative
Medicine,
30(4),
351–361.