No abstract

Although cooperative, interorganizational networks have become a common mechanism for delivery of public services, evaluating their effectiveness is extremely complex and has generally been neglected. To help resolve this problem, we discuss the evaluation of networks of community-based, mostly publicly funded health, human service, and public welfare organizations. Consistent with pressures to perform effectively from a broad range of key stakeholders, we argue that networks must be evaluated at three levels of analysis: community, network, and organization/participant levels. While the three levels are related, each has its own set of effectiveness criteria that must be considered. The article offers a general discussion of network effectiveness, followed by arguments explaining effectiveness criteria and stakeholders at each level of analysis. Finally, the article examines how effectiveness at one level of network analysis may or may not match effectiveness criteria at another level and the extent to which integration across levels may be possible.

No abstract

Although cooperative, interorganizational networks have become a common mechanism for delivery of public services, evaluating their effectiveness is extremely complex and has generally been neglected. To help resolve this problem, we discuss the evaluation of networks of community-based, mostly publicly funded health, human service, and public welfare organizations. Consistent with pressures to perform effectively from a broad range of key stakeholders, we argue that networks must be evaluated at three levels of analysis: community, network, and organization/participant levels. While the three levels are related, each has its own set of effectiveness criteria that must be considered. The article offers a general discussion of network effectiveness, followed by arguments explaining effectiveness criteria and stakeholders at each level of analysis. Finally, the article examines how effectiveness at one level of network analysis may or may not match effectiveness criteria at another level and the extent to which integration across levels may be possible.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

As examples of a state of agents, this paper will present a comparative analysis of the evolution of two community mental health networks that both have similar contracts from the State of Arizona and operate under the same set of rules. One of these is governed by a for-profit firm that both produces services directly and buys them from a network of nonprofit agencies. The other is governed by a community based nonprofit that contracts with four separate nonprofit networks to offer services. These networks are analyzed, using social network analysis, at the beginning of the system and four years later. The mature network is compared to the new network. The for-profit governed system is compared to the nonprofit governed system. The paper discusses the evolution of structure over time and a limited comparison of the networks in terms of which produced higher quality outcomes.