Understanding the Structuring of an Institutional Field: Examining the Intersection of Emergency Management and Historic Preservation in the U.

There are frameworks available to explain adoption and implementation of public policy at the national level. However, much less is known about how these processes work at the local level. There is also limited knowledge regarding structuring of nonprofit subsectors, and how factions in those subsectors may participate in or influence local-level policy processes. An institutionalist approach undergirded by a wealth of literature in social science dictates that these elements and levels of influence and actors comprise an interrelated system and must be examined together in context if they are to be understood.;Because of increasing concerns over the frequency and severity of natural disasters and cultural resource loss, the intersection of emergency management and historic preservation is an interesting context to ask questions salient to public administration regarding structuring of subsectors and local policy processes. Hazard mitigation planning is mandated for some federal grant eligibility, and numerous institutions and regulations in the United States support cultural resource preservation. Despite this, little is understood about pressures shaping decision making in this area. This three-paper dissertation seeks to address these gaps by examining nested national and regional forces shaping organizational structure and capacity in nonprofit historic preservation; determine the relative contributions of policy processes and economics to local-level disaster planning decisions, and better understand constrainers and drivers of local-level post-disaster policy change.;The first study, To what extent is regionalism versus institutionalism shaping the field of U.S. nonprofit historic preservation?, examines patterns in the structure and capacity of the nonprofit subfield of historic preservation to understand the structuring of organizations and of the field. Data comprise telephone interviews with leaders at 96 National Trust for Historic Preservation Partner organizations in six regions used to develop frameworks for explaining organizational scope and capacity. Regional comparisons show that both institutional and regional pressures shape the field, and underscore the need to study nonprofit organizations within nested institutional and cultural contexts.;The second study, What are the relative contributions of policy process factors versus economics to local-level disaster planning for cultural resources?, explores factors related to cultural resource specification in local disaster policy. It uses survey data from 96 county managers and interviews with 3 historic preservationists in the Pacific Northwest to explain inclusion of and emphasis on cultural resources in local disaster planning. Findings show neither policy process nor economic factors are related to inclusion of cultural resources in disaster plans, but that economic importance of historic resources is significant in predicting the amount of emphasis on cultural resources in planning.;The third study, From agenda setting to policy change after Hurricane Sandy: constrainers and drivers of local-level change, uses a grounded theory approach to examine local-level policy processes and develop explanatory propositions for future research. Propositions suggest similarities between extant policy process frameworks and local-level post-disaster policy regarding previous history of adjustment, coalition formation, and degree and type of damage, but importantly suggest that pressures asserted by state and federal level policies that interact with localized capacity shape local policy and cause variation in policy adoption and implementation.;Overall, findings indicate field-level values in this nonprofit sector and in disaster planning often overlap but, in large part because of economic and funding factors, interaction and shared decision-making are rare. This has important implications for public managers, legislators, and others involved in decision-making or policy implementation. They must recognize variation in opinion and behavior even among seemingly narrow subsectors, as well as factors that constrain or drive public input into the public policy process, and should support adequate funding to help ensure relevant stakeholders' policy input and compliance with legislative intent.