This study seeks to understand similarities and differences in why local governments and nonprofits choose to collaborate, particularly when those relationships are not governed by formal contracts or grants. Exchange, transaction, and resource dependence theories are used to understand the perceived advantages and disadvantages of collaboration as expressed by local government and nonprofit executives. Based on two large, comparable samples from Georgia, the analysis finds that the two sectors demonstrate a remarkable similarity in the benefits they seek from public-private partnerships, but with some key differences. The motivation to partner is driven by a desire to secure those resources most scarce for the respective sector: expertise and capacity for government, funding for nonprofits. Nonprofit executives generally exhibit a stronger undercurrent of negativity toward intersectoral partnership than do their public sector counterparts. This article discusses possible reasons for these similarities and differences and contributes to the scholarship linking capacity with organizational outcomes.

Privatization research lacks an understanding of the scope and nature of informal service delivery relationships between nonprofits and local government. This article reports on a study of local service delivery partnerships in Georgia using survey and interview data. In addition to assessing the frequency of noncontractual partnerships, this study builds on B. Guy Peters’s definition of public–private partnerships to delineate the control–formality dimensions of these partnerships more clearly. The agency theory notion that a trade‐off occurs between formality and control is also tested. The findings show that most public–private partnerships involving nonprofits are led by government agencies, and they are only weakly collaborative in the sense of shared authority or resources. Often, community norms substitute for formal service agreements. The study concludes with suggestions for further research regarding trust and behavioral norms in public–private partnerships.

SUMMARYPublic administration researchers and practitioners have placed a heavy emphasis on the theme of programme performance. More recently, there has been a growing sentiment in the literature about the integral role of organisational capacity in achieving performance. While this is often expressed in the (re)iteration of a 'management matters' mantra, we see some disarray in the broader capacity literature both in definition and application. As scholars call for more integrated models of governance that link, for example, capacity and performance, we see a growing need for an analysis of the concept of capacity. Using bibliometric and content analyses to explore scholarly treatment of capacity constructs, this article assesses whether the perceived disarray is real, and if so what consequences it might have. We do so by reporting on capacity's meaning and measurement through an analysis of four decades of the private, public and nonprofit management literatures. While specific definitions of capacity are, by nature, context dependent, we conclude by distilling a general, conceptual framework of capacity for public management researchers and practitioners.

This study uses the context of local government-nonprofit partnerships to test the potential influence of various partnership and organizational factors on collaborative outcomes, using two contrasting outcome measures. Although the structural qualities of effective partnerships are fairly well understood, many of their informal and interpersonal qualities have not been captured in "new governance" research. These include, potentially, the strength of shared goals and trust built on prior joint experience. This study finds that formal contracts and prior experience working with nonprofits and volunteers can increase at least a public manager's perception of success, but the strongest association to real performance improvement comes from the intensity of shared goals and the level of investment in the partnership. The findings suggest the value in comparing multiple performance measures and also reinforce an understanding of the experiential, interpersonal factors that support collaborative success.

Does board diversity or representativeness influence organizational performance? Though it is understudied in both the public and the nonprofit sectors, learning more about this critical subject can enhance organizational performance within highly collaborative settings. Community mediation centers, which rely on multiple public and private resources to meet their programmatic objectives, provide excellent case studies for analyzing the impact of different kinds of interorganizational linkages on organizational performance. A multitheoretic view incorporating agency, resource dependence, and stakeholder perspectives is employed through a national sample and a two‐stage analysis using a logic model to test the cumulative impact of board characteristics and interorganizational relationships on organizational outcomes. Organizations’ collaborative capacity depends on several kinds of boundary‐spanning activities, including network ties, revenue sources, and the number of stakeholder groups represented on the board.