The Power of Partnerships in Public Service: How Collaboration Enables Frontline Workers to Serve People Experiencing Homelessness

(1)

The Power of Partnerships in Public Service

How Collaboration Enables Frontline Workers to Serve

People Experiencing Homelessness

Aiden Gilbert

August 5, 2020

Student Number: s2415852 Word Count: 20,170

Program: Master of Public Administration Faculty: Governance and Global Affairs University: Leiden University

Capstone: Street-Level Bureaucrats Supervisor: Dr. N. J. Raaphorst Second Reader: Dr. C. J. A. van Eijk

(2)

Abstract

Inter-organizational collaboration is increasingly relied upon in the public service sector, and street-level bureaucrats who work directly with citizens are often at the frontlines of implementing collaborative policies. However, studies into the mechanisms of collaborative processes are lacking in their attempts to incorporate the views and experiences of workers at the street-level. Using a theoretical framework of sociological capital theory, this thesis research uncovers how collaboration in homelessness services allows frontline workers to better serve the unique needs of people experiencing homelessness in Denver, Colorado. Through the utilization of semi-structured qualitative interviews and inductive analysis, the findings of this study reveal that many resources in the forms of social, cultural, and economic capital are gained and shared through inter-organizational collaboration. Moreover, frontline workers in homelessness services view collaboration as an important and necessary component to their work in serving this especially vulnerable population.

Key words: street-level bureaucrats, frontline workers, inter-organizational collaboration, capital theory, homeless services, nonprofit

(3)

Chapter 6: Analysis………..………..……….………… 28 6.1 Importance of Collaboration…..………..………. 29 6.2 Social Capital………..………..……….……... 33 6.3 Cultural Capital………..………..………..….. 37 6.4 Economic Capital………..………..………..……….….. 43 6.5 Impact of COVID-19………..………..………..…..………..….. 46

Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion………..………..…..………….... 50

7.1 Discussion………..………..………..……….…. 50

7.1.1 Research Findings and Social, Cultural, and Economic Capital Resources…………. 50

7.1.2 Context of COVID-19 Pandemic………53

7.2 Limitations………..………..………..……….. 54

7.3 Practical Implications and Future Research…..………..………...…….….. 55

Bibliography………..………..………..……….………. 58

Appendix A: Informed Consent Form………..………..……….………. 66

Appendix B: Interview Guide………..………..………..……….………. 68 Appendix C: Coding Document………..………...…available upon request

(4)

Chapter One: Introduction and Research Question

The thought of becoming homeless is profoundly foreign and outright unimaginable for many people, especially those in nations with widespread wealth and economic opportunity such as the United States. Despite this, homelessness impacts millions of people in the U.S. every year, totaling to over half a million people on a given night in 2019 alone (Van Dam, 2019; U.S. CEA, 2019). Homelessness is on the rise in at least 48 U.S. cities, with some regions seeing exponential growth in recent years (Frohlich, 2019; Bendix, 2019). These and many other figures are widely considered to be conservative estimates, as the methods for collecting data on people experiencing homelessness are inherently variable and incomplete (Van Dam, 2019; U.S. CEA, 2019). Leading drivers of homelessness in the U.S. can vary drastically; some of the most common factors include a lack of basic necessities such as affordable housing, employment, and healthcare. More complicated factors, such as addiction, domestic violence, mental illness, and cycles of poverty, can also affect a person’s ability to stay housed (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2019). Each of these drivers represents a complex issue in and of itself. Furthermore, annual surveys of homeless populations across the nation have identified that the problem spans many demographics, as people of all ages, genders, and racial backgrounds experience homelessness in the U.S. (MDHI, 2019). Due to the wide variety of causes, attempts to solve the problem of homelessness require the coordinated efforts of many different agencies spanning public, private, and non-profit sectors (DeSimone, 2018; Partnership for Strong Communities, 2019; U.S. HHS, 2007).

The persistence and growth of homelessness throughout American society has forced many leaders to recognize it as a moral problem worthy of prioritization. Moreover, homelessness has also become an economic problem in the U.S., as a growing number of studies have found that a single person experiencing homelessness can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars annually (Van Dam, 2019; National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2017; DeSimone, 2018). Despite the billions of state and federal dollars that have been invested into efforts to combat homelessness over the past decade, many cities in the U.S. have been unable to stay ahead of the problem and have consequently seen an increase in homeless populations in recent years (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2020). The Trump Administration announced at the start of 2020 that funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the leading federal department in homelessness services, would be cut by 15% for the 2021 fiscal year (O’Donnell, 2020).

(5)

Furthermore, the president has placed blame of the problem on individual cities and states, maintaining that homelessness is “a state and local problem, not a federal problem” (O’Donnell, 2020). All of these measures increase the pressures on local agencies to work together to address the ongoing issues of homelessness within their communities (O’Donnell, 2020).

Localized collaborative efforts to combat homelessness in the U.S. have produced mixed results. Several major cities, such as Atlanta, Milwaukee, and New Orleans, have successfully decreased the number of people experiencing homelessness in their regions in recent years (Greenstone, 2019). In some cases, effective collaboration in the homelessness services sector has been credited as a leading factor in their success (Hobson, 2019). To contrast this, many other cities, including Denver, have seen a significant rise in homelessness over the past five years, despite similar efforts (Butzer, 2019; Garrison, 2017). In 2019, the City and County of Denver conducted an audit on Denver’s Road Home, the leading governmental body tasked with overseeing the city’s homelessness services, and concluded that collaboration among local agencies is severely lacking (Kenney, 2019b; Woodruff, 2019). The paucity of collaboration among homelessness organizations in the community further delays the process of finding permanent homes for those in need (Kenney, 2019b). Hence, the audit noted several elements of effective collaboration that have been absent from Denver’s approach to homelessness services, indicating a need for further investigation into collaborative processes (Office of the Auditor, 2019).

Addressing an issue as complex as homelessness requires the successful collaboration of many distinctive services, including governmental agencies, non-profits, medical and mental health providers, substance abuse counseling, and countless others (Layman, 2020; Office of the Auditor, 2019). Street-level bureaucrats, those who interact directly with citizens in a wide variety of positions implementing government policy, are often at the frontlines of homelessness services (Lipsky, 1980; Alden, 2015). Frontline workers have the ability to play a major role in the collaborative efforts of these organizations, and also offer a unique perspective on the issue of homelessness, as well as how collaborative efforts are implemented in their communities. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to investigate the role that inter-organizational collaboration plays in homelessness services from the perspectives of frontline workers in Denver. As resources play an important role in the study of both street-level work as well as inter-organizational collaboration, this thesis utilizes a sociological capital theory framework to investigate how

(6)

resources in the form of social, cultural, and economic capital might be utilized in collaborative partnerships among homelessness services.

To the best knowledge of this researcher, the framework of capital theory has not previously been utilized to study a case of street-level inter-organizational collaboration. In doing so, a valuable perspective with a focus on exchanges of capital in the form of resources is added to these contemporary public administration disciplines. Moreover, this study contributes to existing literature and theory generation on both street-level bureaucracy and inter-organizational collaboration by offering insight into how collaboration among frontline workers in homelessness services may help or hinder their ability to serve people experiencing homelessness. Further value is added to the scholarly body of literature on sociological capital theory through the conceptualization of resources in the forms of social, cultural, and economic capital, as these conceptualizations greatly aid in uncovering the precise ways in which collaboration enables street-level workers to serve the homeless community. As such, the following question will serve as the focus of this thesis paper: How does inter-organizational collaboration among street-level

bureaucrats in homelessness services affect their ability to help serve citizen-clients?

This study utilizes qualitative interviewing to gather specific and robust detail about collaborative efforts among homelessness organizations. Qualitative data was obtained through semi-structured interviews with frontline workers employed in a variety of organizations involved in homelessness services in Denver. Due to the thesis research taking place in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, interview opportunities with frontline workers were somewhat limited in comparison with a ‘normal’ year; however, substantial data was collected and analyzed despite the circumstances. The results of this study add to the greater body of existing literature on inter-organizational collaboration and street-level bureaucrats, and provide a multitude of opportunities for the findings to be utilized and built upon by public administration scholars and leaders alike.

Following this introduction, the second chapter of this thesis discusses the scientific and societal relevance of the research as well as the contributions to the state of the art. The third chapter provides an overview of the relevant literature on inter-organizational collaboration. Chapter Four sets forth the theoretical framework and concepts utilized in the thesis research. Following this, Chapter Five explains the research design and method of data collection in greater detail. Chapter Six provides an explanation of the inductive coding method used to analyze the

(7)

interview data, as well as an analysis of the findings. Finally, Chapter Seven concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications for further research.

(8)

Chapter Two: Scientific and Societal Relevance

This thesis research presents several contributions to existing scholarship on inter-organizational collaboration and street-level bureaucracy. While inter-inter-organizational collaboration has been studied extensively for several decades, collaborative processes have not been deeply explored utilizing qualitative research designs (Hardy et al., 2003). Because of this, there is much work to be done in the realm of organizational collaboration theory generation. To the best knowledge of the researcher, the existing body of literature does not offer much insight into the mechanisms that explain how inter-organizational collaboration enables street-level workers to help citizen-clients. Whether or not collaboration is positive or beneficial for organizations and their clients is a contested topic, and the contrasting research highlights a need to further explore the ways in which inter-organizational collaboration allows workers to better serve their clients (Huxham and Vangen, 2004). Studies to date have not considered how collaboration helps these workers to serve their clients specifically in the context of the nonprofit sector (Guo and Acar, 2005). Nonprofit organizations are leading agencies in homelessness services, and therefore, the majority of collaboration in this sector occurs among nonprofits. Further, there is not much insight into inter-organizational collaboration in the particular context of homelessness organizations. Inter-organizational collaboration is fundamentally different in each partnership in which it occurs, and the principles that guide collaborative efforts vary drastically between organizations and sectors (Kozuch and Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2016). The ways in which collaboration can be utilized to help organizations serve their clients can also be context-specific. Because of this, it is important to study the concept across different organizational contexts. This study contributes to the field of literature on inter-organizational collaboration by focusing on collaborative efforts among homelessness services, which are presently under-studied in this discipline.

Existing studies on inter-organizational collaboration often seek to answer questions about the motivations and goals of managers when considering collaborative partnerships (Sowa, 2009). While related, the reasons why organizations collaborate is a distinct topic from this study’s focus on frontline workers and their ability to help citizen-clients. This research further adds to the inter-organizational collaboration literature by presenting an individual-level analysis, specifically, by utilizing the perspective of street-level bureaucrats, whose voices are not often elevated in this academic area. In the context of homelessness services, many workers, such as case managers,

(9)

social workers, health care providers, crisis line operators, and resident services coordinators, would be categorized as street-level bureaucrats. These frontline workers have regular interactions with individuals who are experiencing homelessness or have previously experienced homelessness. Because of this, street-level bureaucrats offer unique, first-hand knowledge about the collaborative process inherent in homelessness services, and the ways in which collaboration can help them serve their clients. Moreover, while many studies can be found on frontline workers in a wide variety of sectors, studies on street-level bureaucrats working in homelessness organizations are lacking, and collaboration has not been studied from the perspectives of frontline workers in homelessness services. As such, this thesis research adds value to the existing scholarship on inter-organizational collaboration theory by gathering information about how collaboration enables frontline workers to better serve their clients from the perspective of street-level bureaucrats in homelessness services. Street-street-level bureaucrats are uniquely situated in their position to span organizational boundaries and build relationships across organizations (van Meerkerk and Edelenbos, 2018). This, coupled with the fact that they are in direct contact with citizens in their work at the street-level, furthers their opportunity to create better outcomes for clients through collaborative activities. For all of these reasons and more, street-level bureaucrats play a crucial role in collaborative partnerships within homelessness services, and therefore provide a valuable perspective to the mechanisms inherent in these collaborative processes.

Further, the thesis combines a sociological theoretical framework of capital with a public administration-based research study and concepts, allowing for a unique analysis of data across multiple academic fields. This thesis research utilizes forms of social, cultural, and economic capital to investigate the understudied question of how inter-organizational collaboration among frontline workers affects their ability to help citizen-clients. As such, these theories of capital are the basis of possible mechanisms about how collaboration enables street-level workers to better serve the population of people experiencing homelessness in Denver. Moreover, using this theoretical background of capital theory facilitates the research process through the creation of interview questions based on resources in the form of these various types of capital. To the best knowledge of the researcher, these theories of capital have not been operationalized in this manner to study inter-organizational collaboration or street-level bureaucracy. Because of this, further value is added to literature on sociological capital theories through this research study.

(10)

Research on collaboration among homelessness services is of great importance to the study of public administration on a global scale, as homelessness is a problem that plagues societies all over the world. The rapid growth of cities over the past century has brought the majority of the world’s population into urban centers, and with that shift, problems such as housing shortages and homelessness have become more prevalent and much more visible (Chamie, 2017). This study on collaboration among homelessness organizations in Denver is of particular relevance, as homelessness is a growing issue in many cities throughout the United States (Butzer, 2019; McCarthy, 2020). Furthermore, organizational collaboration is increasingly recognized by scholars and leaders alike as an effective tool in solving complex, multifaceted problems (Gray and Wood, 1991; Hardy et al., 2003; Gray and Stites, 2013). In present times, the crisis surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic has brought awareness to the importance and essentiality of frontline workers in many sectors of society, including homelessness services. Because of this, the voices of frontline workers ought to become more salient in studies on collaborative efforts to solve societal problems such as homelessness. The findings of this study will potentially be useful for public administration scholars who are interested in inter-organizational collaboration theory building, as this study contributes to that body of literature by incorporating sociological theories of capital into the research. Moreover, professionals in homelessness services and the greater non-profit community may make use of the findings, which outline many specific ways in which inter-organizational collaboration is seen as valuable and necessary to frontline workers in the field.

(11)

Chapter Three: Literature Review

There has been a significant increase in the popularity and use of organizational partnerships across many sectors of society in recent years (Huxham and Vangen, 2004; Guo and Acar, 2005; Pennec and Raufflet, 2018). Accordingly, scholarly interest in inter-organizational collaboration has also been increasing over the last two decades (Pennec and Raufflet, 2018). Many experts agree that collaborative partnerships lead to positive organizational outcomes (Gray and Wood, 1991; Guo and Acar, 2005). Scholars agree that there is no ‘one size fits all’ theory for inter-organizational collaboration (Gray and Wood, 1991; Malatesta and Smith, 2014). As such, different theories are applicable depending on the context.

Inter-organizational collaboration among frontline workers has been studied in various organizational contexts spanning many sectors of society. Some studies have found that effective collaboration led to better outcomes for organizations and clients. Honig (2006) investigates organizational collaboration as it pertains to education policy implementation, finding that “boundary-spanning roles” in frontline office administrators allowed them to collect valuable information about the causes of poor school performance that they would not otherwise have had access to, and also notes that such relationships increased trust and support among organizations (p. 361). Robinson (2016) conducted a study of frontline workers implementing housing services for homeless veterans in Scotland and, also noting the importance of trust in collaborative relationships, found that the “blurring of boundaries” among agencies in the community was a risky but necessary element to successful collaboration and ultimately getting veterans into housing (p. 295). In a study on frontline workers in welfare reform, Sandfort (1999) found that collective beliefs about partner organizations influence how resources are utilized by street-level workers, and as these beliefs become ingrained into the structure of the organizations, they consequently impact inter-organizational collaboration.

A great number of organizations and scholars maintain that collaboration is a positive, necessary, and advantageous concept, particularly for public sector organizations (Gray and Wood, 1991; Gray and Stites, 2013; Malatesta and Smith, 2014; Pennec and Raufflet, 2018). However, there is some scholarly debate surrounding the benefits and risks of inter-organizational collaboration. Longoria (2005) analyzes various definitions of ‘collaboration’ and raises doubts about whether collaboration consistently leads to positive outcomes for public service

(12)

organizations, warning that “an unconditional and overzealous embrace” of inter-organizational collaboration could cause these organizations to lose out on already-limited resources (p. 124). In their analysis of a case study of mental health care partnerships in the U.K., Dickinson and Glasby (2010) maintain that most organizational partnerships are more problematic than they are valuable for the organizations in question, as they set unrealistic or unattainable goals for success and ultimately lose legitimacy. Using survey data from public managers employed at a broad range of homeland security organizations, Hocevar et al. (2011) analyzes the many challenges of inter-organizational collaboration and concludes that achieving effective collaboration is a monumentally difficult task. In a similar vein, Huxham and Vangen (2004) provide an analysis of seven common dilemmas faced by managers engaging in collaboration, and assert that collaborative efforts frequently result in organizational inertia, leading them to conclude that collaboration should be actively avoided unless the advantages are well-defined. It is notable that none of these studies focus on collaboration among homelessness services, nor take into account the views and experiences of street-level workers. This, coupled with the fact that much of the research is contrasting, demonstrates a need to pursue greater theory development about inter-organizational collaboration.

Theories of capital have not been widely explored in inter-organizational collaboration literature to date. Some recent studies have investigated the impact of social capital on collaborative partnerships at the network level (Macke et al., 2010; Mandarano, 2009). Huggins et al. (2012) explores the connection between inter-organizational collaboration and social capital on a network level between regional organizations, finding that social ties across networks were often utilized to access knowledge, a type of cultural capital resource. Other studies put a focus on how collaboration can increase social capital and enhance innovation at the organizational level (Steinmo, 2015; Carmona-Lavado et al., 2010). Existing scholarship in the collaboration discipline is lacking in the exploration of capital theories at the individual level; specifically, how frontline workers can utilize inter-organizational collaboration to acquire or exchange resources in the forms of capital, and how these additional resources may affect their ability to help citizen-clients experiencing homelessness. Hence, this research study begins to fill this gap in literature.

(13)

Chapter Four: Theoretical Framework

4.1 Resources and Capital Theory

One of the most prevalent concepts in literature on both street-level bureaucrats and collaboration is that of resources. Street-level bureaucrats often lack resources, so much that many scholars identify a lack of resources as a central element of street-level work (Lipsky, 1980; Hupe and Buffat, 2014; Williams, 2002). Hupe and Buffat (2014) explore this assertion further, identifying what they term a “public service gap,” which occurs when the demands of public service work surpass the resources that are provided to frontline workers (p. 556). Street-level bureaucrats may change their behavior as a means of coping with the persistent lack of resources and maintaining their workloads (Lipsky, 1980; Hupe and Buffat, 2014). In correlation to this, collaboration is identified as a way for organizations to obtain and share resources (Hardy et al., 2003; Pennec and Raufflet, 2018). As such, this thesis follows the sociological theoretical framework of capital theories, including social, economic, and cultural capital, to investigate how various types of capital brought on by inter-organizational collaboration can serve as additional resources for street-level bureaucrats.

Sociological capital theory is centered on the idea that capital is the result of accumulated labor (Bourdieu, 1986; Abel, 2008). Social capital can be generally defined as the social resources and relationships to other individuals or organizations that a person has accessibility to (Bourdieu, 1986; Abel, 2008; Walker, 2004). The amount of social capital an individual has is determined by their own social network, as well as the social ties and networks of those in their network (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 1999). Social capital is intrinsically tied to relationships and trust, and is considered by some scholars to be the foundation for trust-building (Hocevar et al., 2011). Cultural capital refers to informational resources, which can be either tangible or symbolic goods, and is acquired through culture, education, and socialization (Abel, 2008). Tangible cultural goods, such as books or other belongings with cultural significance, or intangible resources such as skills and knowledge, tools, or professional titles, can influence and increase an individual’s cultural capital, as well as access to social and economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Abel, 2008). Economic capital includes financial resources and other material assets, such as property, that are transferrable into money (Bourdieu, 1986; Pinxten and Lievens, 2014). All three forms of capital are related to one

(14)

another, and can influence one another to determine the amount of resources available to the individual or organization (Abel, 2008).

In this thesis, the concepts of social, cultural, and economic capital are operationalized into interview questions to investigate how inter-organizational collaboration may help or hinder street-level bureaucrats’ ability to gain and share resources, therefore enabling them to better serve their clients in homelessness services. It is hypothesized that inter-organizational collaboration enables street-level workers to better serve their clients through the exchange and acquisition of various forms of capital. This hypothesis is supported by Gray and Stite’s (2013) notion that one of the primary reasons organizations engage in collaborative activities is to acquire resources, including those categorized as social and financial capital. Examples of resources that are obtained through collaboration include “investments, goods, services, a greater base of volunteers, and technical and managerial expertise,” all of which may further support street-level workers and clients in the homelessness services sector (Gray and Stites, 2013, p. 51). An increase in social capital in the form of an expanded network of social ties could allow frontline workers to provide more community resources to their clients, something that is highly necessary, yet often difficult, for people experiencing homelessness to obtain. Additionally, collaboration arguably allows organizations to increase cultural capital through “new knowledge about existing problems,” something that could be valuable to frontline workers in homelessness services, as homelessness is an evolving issue, and problem-solving efforts may change as society develops in new and different ways (Gray and Stites, 2013, p. 50). Further, increased skills or knowledge about the specific problems that unhoused citizens may face would allow the street-level workers helping this population to deepen their understanding about the needs of their clients.

4.2 Street-Level Bureaucrats

Street-level bureaucrats are defined by Lipsky (1980) as “public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work” (p. 3). Although they do not have the formal authority of their superiors, street-level workers have unique power in their ability to make discretionary judgements on their citizen-clients (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2000). Individuals working at the street-level also have more opportunities to utilize discretion in their work in ways that many other agents in the

(15)

process of policy implementation do not have (Lipsky, 1980). Due to the nature of their work, they are able to assess situations on a case-by-case basis and make decisions that can directly and immediately impact the lives of the citizens with which they interact (Lipsky, 1980, Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2000). Additionally, they hold the power to assess and decide how and when to refer their clients to other organizations, depending on their individual needs. Street-level bureaucrats are also in control of citizens’ access to the resources and other opportunities provided by the state, as well as how the rules of the state are applied on a case-by-case basis (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2000). Because of this, the relationship between these employees and their clients is far from equal; street-level bureaucrats have the upper hand in the relationship with citizen-clients due to the control they have over resources and services.

4.3 Inter-Organizational Collaboration

As is the case with many concepts in the field of public administration, there is no single, widely agreed upon definition of inter-organizational collaboration available to date (Hardy et al., 2003; Pennec and Raufflet, 2018). Many scholarly definitions focus on the participation of two or more organizations working together (Longoria, 2005; Pennec and Raufflet, 2018; Kozuch and Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2016; Robinson, 2016). Others expand on this definition to include elements such as communication, planning, action, and negotiations (Amir and Auslander, 2003; Hardy et al., 2003). Some definitions put emphasis on the outcomes of collaboration, such as increased public value, or solving complex problems (Kozuch and Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2016; O’Leary and Vij, 2012; Gray and Wood, 1991). Still others emphasize that collaborative efforts are not controlled by markets or hierarchies (Hardy et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2000). Many studies have found that inter-organizational collaboration enhances the effectiveness of efforts to solve social problems (Kozuch and Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2016). However, there is no dominant theory or definition for effective collaboration (Kozuch and Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2016). In the context of this study, “effectiveness” is the dependent variable: street-level bureaucrats’ ability to help citizen-clients, in this case, people experiencing homelessness. Andrews and Entwistle (2010) define effectiveness in public service partnerships as “the attainment of formal objectives” of the organization, which inherently furthers “progress on the so-called wicked issues” which the organization seeks to address (p. 681). This definition can be applied to the outcomes of frontline

(16)

workers’ efforts to help people experiencing homelessness through collaboration with other agencies, as helping people experiencing homeless is considered to be both the formal objective of the organization as well as the “wicked issue” the organization seeks to address. For the purpose of this thesis paper, the following definition for inter-organizational collaboration will be utilized: the process of two or more organizations working together to produce shared organizational goals and objectives (Longoria, 2005).

(17)

Chapter Five: Research Design

In the following chapter, the research design and its various components are elaborated upon. In Section 5.1, case selection is discussed, and more background on the situation of homelessness in Denver is provided. Section 5.2 reviews the inductive small-N design of the research. A table with anonymized information about the respondents interviewed is set forth in Section 5.3. Section 5.4 provides explanation for the method of data collection via qualitative interviews, and Section 5.5 discusses the method of data analysis. Section 5.6 concludes with a discussion of the validity and reliability of data collected.

5.1 Case Selection

The city of Denver offers ample opportunity to investigate collaboration among homelessness services. Homelessness in Denver is an issue that has received a great amount of attention in recent years, in part due to the increased visibility of the problem as homeless encampments have grown in public spaces. Denver has seen a significant rise in homelessness over the past five years, with at least 5,755 people in the Denver metropolitan region experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2019 alone (Butzer, 2019; Garrison, 2017; MDHI, 2019). The following definition of “homeless,” provided by the United States Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is utilized by all states and cities in the U.S., and therefore will be used in this thesis paper:

Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state and local government programs); or (iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution (USICH.gov, 2018).

(18)

The primary statistics on homelessness in the region are those collected during the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, a survey mandated by HUD in which people experiencing homelessness are counted over the course of one 24-hour period in January. The survey includes both “sheltered” homeless, people residing in shelters or transitional housing, as well as “unsheltered,” those found living on the streets (MDHI, 2019). Because the survey is only conducted once per year, and many variables, such as weather, can influence how many people are found to be homeless on a given night, the statistics are largely considered to be a conservative estimate of the exact number of people experiencing homelessness in Denver (MDHI, 2019). Some organizations, including the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, estimate that the actual number of people without a place to sleep on a given night is about 2.5 times the number reported in the PIT (Sell, 2020). Despite this, the findings of the PIT report greatly illustrate the diversity of homelessness in Denver, as it affects everyone from families to veterans to the elderly. In doing so, the vastness of services required to solve the problem begins to be realized.

5.1.1 Statistics on People Experiencing Homelessness, Denver Point in Time Report, 2019

Left: Number of persons by homeless population and living situation; Right: Tracked characteristics of people experiencing homelessness in Denver Metro area (MDHI, 2019)

(19)

Denver has also struggled with finding solutions to the problem on a legal level, and is presently in an ongoing dispute with regard to an ordinance known commonly as the “urban camping ban,” which prohibits individuals from sleeping outside (Sell, 2020; McCormick-Cavanagh, 2020). Citizens, local leaders, and even those working in homelessness services are very much divided on the issue (Kenney, 2019a). The ongoing battle about the camping ban, coupled with the increasing visibility of the issue due to homeless encampments throughout the city, has thrusted the problem into both the local and national spotlight, making obvious that more attention needs to be given towards solving the problem. Furthermore, a 2019 audit conducted by the City and County of Denver indicated that collaboration among local agencies involved in homelessness services is severely lacking (Kenney, 2019b). This lack of effective collaboration further delays the process of finding permanent homes for those in need and therefore contributes to the overall success of homelessness services in Denver (Kenney, 2019b). Because of this, gathering information on inter-organizational collaboration from frontline workers in Denver offers an opportunity to gain insight into the mechanisms of the collaboration processes and how collaborative efforts enable them to better serve the homeless community. If it is the case that inter-organizational collaboration allows frontline workers to better serve people experiencing homelessness by increasing their access to resources in the form of social, cultural, or economic capital, such findings could highlight the notion that more collaboration is necessary for effective services to the homeless population in Denver.

5.2 Inductive Small-N Design

A primarily inductive, small-N, single-case research design was utilized to complete this thesis research. In total, 13 interviews were conducted with frontline workers at 10 organizations in Denver. This relatively small sample size was utilized in order to obtain in-depth information from the interviews conducted. All interviewees were considered street-level bureaucrats based on their work at the frontlines of the industry and frequent interactions with citizen-clients. As homelessness is a complex problem, and any one individual experiencing homelessness may require a multitude of different services, the organizations and types of jobs reflected the diversity and complexity of the issue. Interviewees were employed at a variety of organizations, including supportive, temporary and permanent housing services, large and small nonprofit organizations

(20)

offering a wide variety of services for the homeless community, mental health and wellness organizations, crisis hotlines, and more. A table with anonymized information about the respondents and their employers is set forth below, in Section 5.3. Interviews were scheduled based on which organizations had frontline workers available. Due to the research taking place in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations were operating with limited hours, and many frontline workers were much busier than usual. Because of this, personal connections were the most realistic option to obtain interview data in a timely manner, given the time constraints of the thesis. As such, a convenience sample was utilized to obtain interview contacts.

5.3 Respondent Information

A table and key with anonymized information about all of the respondents and their respective employers is set forth below. It is important to note that several of the employer organizations overlap with the respondents, and one respondent was employed at two different organizations. In total, 13 respondents were interviewed, with employment at 10 different organizations.

5.3.1 Employer Organization Information Key

Small Less than 50 employees Mid-sized 51 to 200 employees Large More than 200 employees

5.3.2 Respondents’ Table

Respondent Employer Male/Female Employer Information

Respondent 1 Employer A Female Mid-sized, local nonprofit organization with a focus on housing formerly homeless, low-income, single-parent families. In addition to housing services, this organization also provides educational facilities for parents and children.

Region Organizational Reach Local Denver area

State-wide Throughout Colorado National Throughout the U.S.

(21)

Respondent 2 Employer B Male Large, national nonprofit organization that provides affordable housing for a multitude of low-income populations, including formerly homeless. Other services include on-site medical services, educational services, and case management services for residents.

Respondent 3 Employer C Female Large, international nonprofit organization with a wide variety of services for low-income populations. This respondent works at the state-wide crisis call center, helping connect individuals experiencing crisis, including homelessness, to a diverse range of community resources.

Respondent 4 Employer D Female Large, state-wide nonprofit organization with a variety of housing and medical services for people experiencing homelessness throughout Colorado.

Respondent 5 Employer E & Employer F

Female Employer E: Mid-sized, state-wide nonprofit organization that provides a range of crisis care services for individuals experiencing mental health and/or substance abuse emergencies. This respondent works at the state-wide crisis call center, helping connect individuals experiencing crisis, including homelessness, to a diverse range of community resources.

Employer F: Small, local nonprofit organization that assists formerly incarcerated women as they face a myriad of obstacles, often including homelessness, upon their return into society.

Respondent 6 Employer G Female Small, local nonprofit organization that coordinates all services for people experiencing homelessness in the Denver Metro Area. This organization is also tasked with coordination of the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, the nationally-mandated regional survey of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January every year.

(22)

Respondent 7 Employer C Female Large, international nonprofit organization with a wide variety of services for low-income populations. This respondent works at the wing of the

organization specifically supporting at-risk youth as they transition from the child welfare system to self-sufficiency, many of whom have previously

experienced or are currently at risk for homelessness.

Respondent 8 Employer B Male Large, national nonprofit organization that provides affordable housing for a multitude of low-income populations, including formerly homeless. Other services include medical services, educational services, and case management services on-site for residents.

Respondent 9 Employer D Male Large, state-wide nonprofit organization with a variety of housing and medical services for people experiencing homelessness throughout Colorado.

Respondent 10 Employer H Male Large, international nonprofit organization that builds and provides affordable housing for low-income individuals and families, including formerly homeless.

Respondent 11 Employer J Female Small, local nonprofit organization that provides employment and mental health services to people experiencing homelessness as well as poverty in the Denver area.

Respondent 12 Employer K Female Small, national nonprofit organization that works in housing development for individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

Respondent 13 Employer F Female Small, local nonprofit organization that assists formerly incarcerated women as they face a myriad of obstacles, often including homelessness, upon their return into society.

(23)

5.4 Method of Data Collection

Data was collected through semi-structured, qualitative interviews. Street-level work is complex, and tasks “call for sensitive observation and judgement, which are not reducible to programmed formats” (Lipsky, 1980/2010, p. 15). Moreover, existing research on street-level bureaucrats has emphasized how the personal views of frontline workers impact and shape decision-making in their work (Hupe and Buffat, 2014). Given the research aim of understanding inter-organizational collaboration from the unique perspective of street-level bureaucrats, this method was chosen to utilize open-ended interview questions, allowing respondents to provide detailed and thorough answers in their own words and opinions. Semi-structured interviewing does not restrict interviewees to specific research questions, and therefore allows the researcher to guide the interview, ultimately leading to the acquisition of denser and more complete answers. Furthermore, data is based on human experience, specifically, the experiences of frontline workers in homelessness services. Consequently, the findings of this study may uncover subtleties or complexities about collaboration among homelessness services that would not otherwise be found using other research methods, such as a survey (Anderson, 2010). Hearing first-hand, detailed stories from frontline workers themselves is an invaluable research tool.

Ethical research measures were abided by throughout the entire interview process. Prior to each meeting, interviewees signed a consent form, a copy of which can be found in Appendix A. Due to COVID-19 social distancing measures, all interviews were conducted using the video conference platform, Zoom. The interviewees were either at their homes, or at their place of work, in a private office environment. The researcher conducted the interviews in her home. Each interview lasted approximately thirty minutes to one hour in length. The interviews were recorded using both Zoom and the researcher’s personal iPhone for backup. To protect the participants’ confidentiality, recordings were safely stored on the researcher’s password-protected personal laptop, to which only the researcher has access. All interviewees were asked the same general, open-ended questions during the interview, with follow-up questions discussed on the spot and varying slightly between interviews, dependent on participant’s answers. The researcher made sure to treat interviewees fairly, equally, and to be sensitive to the confidential nature of their work.

Interviewees were first asked some general questions about their collaborative partnerships within the community and if collaboration helped their ability to serve people experiencing

(24)

homelessness. These questions helped gauge the amount of social capital present within the homelessness services sector, as a high amount of collaborative partnerships would indicate a high level of social capital, and how collaboration is viewed with regard to their goals of serving the homeless community in Denver. The second question asked pertaining to social capital was the following: Has collaboration with other organizations increased trust and/or reciprocity between

various agencies in the community? Please provide an example. Social capital can be gained and

maintained through mutual trust and reciprocation; as such, this question seeks information on measurements of social capital in the form of trust and reciprocity among organizations engaged in collaboration.

Two additional main questions were asked to respondents pertaining to various types of capital. The first question asked pertained to cultural capital: Has collaboration with other organizations increased your skills/knowledge about helping individuals experiencing homelessness? If so, please provide an example. If not, please explain why. When applicable, two

follow up questions were asked: How does collaboration with professionals of different backgrounds enable you to better serve people experiencing homelessness? How is their new perspective helpful in your work? These questions were asked to gain understanding about how

cultural capital could be increased through collaboration by the exchange of information, new skills or knowledge about how to help the homeless community, and how the perspectives of various professionals in the homelessness services sector may be valuable for frontline workers in these organizations. The next question asked pertained to economic capital: Has collaboration

with other organizations led to any financial benefits for [employer organization], such as cost savings, shared labor, exchange of property, etc.? This question was designed to ask respondents

about a wide variety of economic benefits that might be obtained through collaborative partnerships.

Respondents were also asked about how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted organizational collaboration. This question was asked to get a sense of how the current crisis has affected collaboration among homelessness services, as the pandemic has presented unique challenges for this sector. Finally, respondents were asked if they had any ideas for how collaboration among organizations could be improved to better serve people experiencing homelessness. The researcher decided to conclude the interviews with this open-ended question to further gauge the value and effectiveness of inter-organizational collaboration, and to see which

(25)

forms of capital, if any, were deemed most important to improve collaborative efforts. A copy of the interview guide can be found in Appendix B.

5.5 Method of Analysis

The method of analysis utilized in this thesis research is primarily inductive. This data-driven approach was chosen so as not to limit the scope of the analysis and maintain flexibility in analyzing the interview responses. Bowen (2006) explains the interconnected relationship between theory generation, inductive analysis, themes, and sensitizing concepts. Included in the method of analysis are three sensitizing concepts: social capital, cultural capital, and economic capital. These concepts were utilized in the conceptual framework of the thesis, and as such, guided the analysis of the interview data, and were used to examine the codes and ultimately develop the themes present throughout the interview data (Bowen, 2006).

The researcher opted to transcribe the interviews manually, rather than using a transcription application or software, to become more familiar with the data in the beginning stages of the analysis process. After the manual transcription of the interviews, each was coded inductively to identify themes and patterns present across all of the interviews. Only data extracts that were related to the research question were coded. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidelines for inductive thematic analysis, the first phase of coding began during the transcription of the interviews, in which the researcher made notes of initial ideas within the data. The second phase was comprised of generating initial codes which related to the research question, particularly those relating to the three sensitizing concepts of capital. After the second phase, it was obvious that forms of social, cultural, and economic capital were present in each interview and throughout the interview data, and dominated respondents’ answers to interview questions. Hence, the third phase of coding was focused on identifying the most representative data extracts for each type of capital and formulating the most prominent themes present throughout the data. The fourth phase consisted of reviewing the themes and narrowing down the best data extracts for each theme. Once this was completed, the names of each theme were revised and defined with brief explanations. Finally, the most relevant and compelling data extracts were selected for detailed analysis, in which they were analyzed in relation to the research question and theoretical framework of the thesis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). An example of the coding process is set forth in Appendix C.

(26)

5.6 Validity and Reliability of Data Collected

External validity is somewhat limited because of the small sample size of interviewees. There are many organizations involved in homelessness services that the researcher was not able to obtain interviews with due to time constraints of the thesis paper. The generalizability of qualitative research is a somewhat contested topic, and many qualitative researchers claim that their research is not generalizable to populations outside of the realm of their studies (Eisenhart, 2009). On the contrary, external validity can be measured as it relates to the theoretical framework used in the research design. As such, the findings of this study are relevant not only to the specific population studied, but also for theory development beyond the case of homelessness services in Denver. Scholars agree that theoretical generalization is a legitimate analysis of the validity of data collected, as it allows for the development of “a refined understanding of a generic process…that [has] wide applicability in social life” (Eisenhart, 2009, p. 60). It is understood that findings utilized for theoretical generalizations may appear differently from study to study, but that there is meaning in the patterns, or themes, which are discovered (Eisenhart, 2009). It is reasonable to expect that the patters identified in this research study may reappear in other studies of inter-organizational collaboration and sociological capital theory; therefore, theoretical generalizations may be derived from this study.

Factors that contributed to the internal validity of the study include the fact that the interviewees did not know the full scope of the other organizations involved in the research project, and the consistent study protocol of using the same interview guide for each interviewee. In addition to this, the use of semi-structured interviews allows the researcher to enhance responses by asking follow-up questions and investigate the deeper meaning of respondents’ answers, all of which enhances internal validity. One factor that potentially threatens the internal validity of this study is the fact that the research was conducted during a historical event: the COVID-19 pandemic. This event had a drastic impact on the daily lives of frontline workers, including those interviewed for this study. It also had a huge impact on the health of individuals experiencing homelessness, as well as how homelessness services could be provided during a public health crisis. It is certainly possible that the impact of the pandemic influenced or altered the interview responses or the direction of the conversations in ways that may not have occurred under more ‘normal’ circumstances. The impact of the pandemic can be felt throughout society, so it is not a

(27)

stretch to say it may have impacted the responses of frontline workers in homelessness organizations at the time of the interviews. A further discussion of the impact of the pandemic on the validity of this research study can be found in Chapter Seven.

(28)

Chapter Six: Analysis

The following chapter presents an analysis of the findings from the inductive coding and thematic analysis of the interview data. This chapter is separated into five sections, and within each section, themes are identified and discussed with the utilization of data extracts from the interviews. Section 6.1 discusses three themes related to the importance and necessity of collaboration in the homelessness services sector. Section 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 discuss themes related to social capital, cultural capital, and economic capital, respectively. Finally, Section 6.5 identifies two themes centered on the negative and positive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on inter-organizational collaboration among homelessness services. The table set forth below outlines the sections and related themes for further clarification.

Section Themes

6.1 Importance of Collaboration

Theme #1: Necessity of Collaboration Theme #2: Need for More Collaboration

6.2 Social Capital

Theme #1: High Volume of Collaborative Partnerships Theme #2: Trust and/or Reciprocity

Theme #2a: Increased Trust and/or Reciprocity Theme #2b: Lack of Trust and/or Reciprocity Theme #3: Collaboration Increases Reputation/Legitimacy

6.3 Cultural Capital Theme #1: Variety of Partnerships

6.4 Economic Capital

Theme #1: Economic Benefits for the Organization Theme #2: Economic Benefits for Clients

6.5 Impact of COVID-19

Theme #1: Negative Impact of COVID-19 on Collaboration Theme #2: Positive Impact of COVID-19 on Collaboration

(29)

6.1 Importance of Collaboration

Theme #1: Necessity of Collaboration

The first theme in this section includes excerpts from some of the many instances in which frontline workers expressed the importance and necessity of collaboration among homelessness services. The necessity of collaboration was noted by all respondents at some point during the interview, and particularly emphasized by several to explain that collaboration is a crucial element which enables them to better serve people experiencing homelessness by working in tandem with other organizations in the community. Respondent 3 emphasized the importance of collaboration by explaining how her employer utilizes a collaborative model, called the Collective Impact Model, to guide their practices:

So there’s kind of a new thing, a model that’s come out, it’s pretty popular in the social services world, called Collective Impact. And the idea is that, the more people that you involve in a network of social services, the more effective it is. So rather than just having one agency trying to do a million things, kind of, like, shallow, and poorly, you have partnerships with a bunch of different organizations, and collectively, you can make a greater impact than just one organization alone. So that’s the model that we use…. I think we all know, too, that collaboration is going to help us out, it’s kind of mutually beneficial, and so it seems like almost all of them are open to it.

In this excerpt, Respondent 3 illustrates how the Collective Impact Model is utilized by this organization to guide community relationships. Collaborative partnerships among services for people experiencing homelessness allow these organizations to serve their clients more effectively by creating a “network of social services.” This method takes the strain off of individual organizations who might otherwise try to provide a wide range of services themselves, and allows services to be spread across a multitude of organizations within the community. The model also reinforces the importance of having social capital, as collaborative partnerships with other organizations in the community are deemed necessary by street-level workers for effective

(30)

services. It is also notable that Respondent 3 works at a large, international organization that is highly regarded in the nonprofit community and serves a high volume of clients, both locally in Denver and throughout the United States. The fact that such an organization utilizes a model based on collaboration goes to show how necessary inter-organizational collaboration is deemed to be within the field of homelessness services.

The necessity of having a network of collaborative partnerships was again emphasized by Respondent 7, who works at the same organization as Respondent 3, but in a different part of the organization that is focused on helping youth as they emerge from the child welfare system:

You get to know other agencies, and you know, one agency is never going to do it by themselves. It’s just like one person is not going to be able to help do everything for one person. So, our ideal method is to get connected to other agencies and to other people, so that they have a team around them. And so, in order for that to happen, we also need to create that team around us so we can pull on any of the different resources that are available out there. So, I think that’s really important to know about all the different agencies that have these resources, and how that could help, not just the individual that we work with, but their whole family… I’ve never experienced a program that wouldn’t collaborate. Again, I think it’s going to make it easier for whoever you’re working with to have other resources for them, and not just silo them into one program. Because, either they’re going to grow out of that program, or they’re going to have other needs that are not part of your service. So you want to be able to reach out and find those other services for them.

In order to effectively serve their clients and their client’s families, Respondent 7 explains that they need a “team” of resources and workers from multiple agencies with different specialties. Because of this, it is also necessary for the organization itself to have a network of partnerships, especially so that they can continue to help their clients when they age out of their programs and have different needs. This excerpt demonstrates the need for a high number of partnerships, a form of social capital, and also the importance of having a variety of resources to give to clients when

(31)

their organization cannot satisfy all of their needs, putting an additional emphasis on cultural capital.

Several respondents explained the importance and prevalence of organizations working together towards common goals in this sector. It is understood that the common goals of these organizations are primarily to help people experiencing homelessness, whether through housing, mental health and other health services, food assistance, job training, and more. Respondent 8 explains how collaboration is related to working towards common goals:

It is definitely helpful, having people work in different fields, working towards the same goal, and having those conversations together. Because then, you can kind of get to the root, what is the base need.

The ideas in this excerpt were echoed by other respondents, who explained that collaboration with various agencies in the community allows frontline workers to discuss how they can best serve the homeless population, because in the end, that is what all of these agencies strive to do. Organizations in homelessness services span many different fields and industries, but they are all working towards the same end result. Following this line of thinking, another excerpt from Respondent 12 emphasizes the importance of collaboration as a means to fill gaps in services for people experiencing homelessness:

At least in this sector, the homeless sector. At the end of the day, we’re all trying to achieve the same thing, so it only makes sense to collaborate. I mean, we’re all unique, right? But I think we can only do more if we do collaborate, and fill the gaps. Because there are gaps, and there are plenty of them. So, I’ve found that everyone we work with is always open to collaborating with, and I don’t see what the harm is in that at all. I think it’s a really good thing.

Respondent 12 explains how collaboration among homelessness services is crucial for addressing gaps in services, instances in which services are lacking or need to be improved upon. As homelessness is a complex, yet underfunded, issue in Denver, there are many gaps to be filled. Each organization is unique in its specialty or focus, but all are working towards the same common

(32)

goals of helping people experiencing homelessness. As such, collaboration is considered to be an important, necessary, and positive thing for organizations in this sector.

Theme #2: Need for More Collaboration

This theme illustrates the commonalities between frontline workers when discussing potential improvements for collaboration among homelessness services. Several respondents expressed their ideas that more direct opportunities for collaboration among service providers, either through regular, organized meetings or online through a communication platform, would greatly benefit the efficiency of homelessness services in Denver. Respondent 11 explains her ideas, below:

I have this, like, vision of service providers across Denver meeting consistently, in some sort of capacity, like, maybe it’s at the library every month, or something like that. And the library actually does host service provider meetings every month for shelters and for other nonprofits, and I think that could be more robust and more attention put to it….I think just a platform for us to all communicate, or just more – and once again, this comes down to how stressed and overworked we are – it would be ideal if we could do a meeting once or twice a month for all of us service providers to come together.

Overall, more collaboration among frontline workers in homelessness services is associated with a greater ability to serve people experiencing homelessness. Many respondents explained that more opportunities to collaborate and expand their social capital would lead to a better understanding about the various services available for people experiencing homelessness in the Denver area, subsequently increasing cultural capital, as well. Both higher social capital and cultural capital are believed to benefit collaborative efforts of frontline workers in homelessness services.

(33)

6.2 Social Capital

Theme #1: High Volume of Collaborative Partnerships

The first theme in this section is centered on the high volume of collaborative partnerships that exist among homelessness service organizations. All respondents noted that there were a multitude of partnerships in place at their organizations – with several respondents stating that there were too many partnerships to list – indicating the importance of high social capital in this sector. Furthermore, respondents noted that the high volume of partnerships was directly related to their ability to help clients suffering from homelessness in Denver. Respondents explained that a high volume of partnerships were not only present, but also necessary to effectively serve people experiencing homelessness. Respondent 1 explains the general consensus below:

I think having any one resource to help someone rise up out of homelessness and the cycle of poverty is really not enough. They really need a network to create that safety net, and to create that hand up.

In this excerpt, Respondent 1 makes note of the relationship between “homelessness and the cycle of poverty” to further her explanation about why having a large network of partnerships is necessary to effectively serve people experiencing homelessness. Due to the complexity of the issue, and the vast amount of community resources that are required to effectively lift someone out of poverty, a high volume of collaborative partnerships is crucial to make sure there are enough resources available for clients in need. Organizations involved in homelessness services need to build and maintain a high volume of social capital in the form of collaborative partnerships in order to build the network of community resources and “create that safety net” to help them escape the cycle of poverty, and sustain their progress after doing so.

Theme #2: Trust and/or Reciprocity

This theme includes instances in which collaboration directly resulted in increased trust and/or reciprocity among organizations in the homelessness services community. This theme is

The Power of Partnerships in Public Service: How Collaboration Enables Frontline Workers to Serve People Experiencing Homelessness