Making Connections: Performance Regimes and Extreme Events

Abstract

Local officials in the emergency management field have reached out and increased their connections with other agencies and organizations during the past several years. Collaborative networks have been created in an effort to address the complexities and uncertainties surrounding extreme events. But has this collaboration really taken root? In this article, the authors find that although a collaborative ethos has penetrated local emergency management, it is neither deep nor uniform. Data from a survey of emergency managers in North Carolina counties show that maintaining a functional network—a performance regime in which participants develop consistent management practices and rely on each other for the generation of new ideas—is a difficult task. The explanation for the variation found across the counties largely involves capacity and vulnerability.

Local Autism Policy Networks: Expertise and Intermediary Organizations

“…For example, the most frequently mentioned state government agencies in the collaborative network belong to the VA DOE and VA DARS. Richmond’s place as the central governing hub of the state likely contributes to the role these state agencies play in collaboration within the network, relative to the other localities, a finding consistent with previous research on other local governing networks (Bowman & Parsons, 2013). In the Roanoke data and information network, the cross section of network actors from various subsystems is also apparent from the diversity of node shapes and colors in the graph.…”

“…Although a comprehensive overview of the policy networks literature is beyond the scope of this article, some examples of scholarly applications of policy networks include agriculture watershed management (Lubell & Fulton, 2008), marine protected areas (Weible, 2005; Weible & Sabatier, 2005), national estuaries (Schneider, Scholz, Lubell, Mindruta, & Edwardsen, 2003), land-use planning (Gerber, Henry, & Lubell, 2013; Henry, Lubell, & McCoy, 2011), and economic development (Lee, Lee, & Feiock, 2012). For example, networks of local emergency managers, state agencies, local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations frequently collaborate in disaster preparation and recovery efforts (Bowman & Parsons, 2013; Robinson, Eller, Gall, & Gerber, 2013). These emergency management networks, and the diversity of participating actors that assist localities, may not be unlike ones we might find in autism policy networks.…”

Challenges of Post-Disaster Recovery in Rural Areas

“…Cooperation and regional networks can also be a mechanism through which local communities can support each other in meeting their responsibilities relative to public safety. However, maintaining such networks can be very difficult and require extensive, continual resource investments (Bowman and Parsons 2013).…”

“…This constitutes a paradigm shift for many government departments or the entire communities, particularly when they are used to sharing some minimal information but not sustaining consistent action-based involvement with partners (Bowman and Parsons 2013;Skertich et al 2012). However, integrated emergency management, which is characterized by the use of networks, is far more effective at coordinating with other entities, both locally and vertically.…”

“…As this indicates, rural communities face certain disadvantages when attempting to work within network structures, including negative impacts from population instability and economic downturns (Bowman and Parsons 2013;Caruson and MacManus 2011). One study by Choi and Kim found that power, defined as the ability to get things done, is a determinant of network effectiveness (2007).…”