Contradictions in public policy: Interagency collaboration and bureaucratic organization

The general purpose of the study is to generate knowledge about the trend underagency collaboration in the bureaucratic organization of social policy. The trend is taken as a contradiction in as much as interagency collaboration conflicts with the division of labour and system boundaries that maintain bureaucratic organization. The contradiction is addressed according to characteristic of bureaucratic organization (hierarchy, specialization, standardization, and formalization) which are combined with radical humanist and radical structuralist approaches to analysis to constitute the conceptual framework to meet three objectives: (1) to describe an example of interagency collaboration and bureaucratic organization, (2) to describe contradictions for the intent of interagency collaboration in the bureaucratic organization of social policy and (3) to conceptualize the challenges and implications for social policy as a process of interest, articulation and practice. The example utilized in the study is Opening Doors: Collaborative Services for Children and Families in Calgary, Alberta with a focus on the period June 1993 to June 1994 when the collaborative endeavor was linked to the Alberta Government Interdepartmental 'Coordination of Services for Children Initiative.' The contradictions for interagency collaboration are: (1) focus on person and process versus immobilization by a high tolerance for confusing directives; (2) cooperative values in a common culture versus lack of recognition because of "complexities"; (3) defining needs in the community qualitatively versus devolution of governmental responsibility; (4) experience of interdependence versus degradation of professional skills and knowledge; (5) allow high needs/high risk clients to define services versus displaced consequences for inadequate public policy; (6) build trust through relationship building versus assuming that silence is consent; and (8) solve problems by visioning versus intra-class conflict within the middle class. The challenges and implications indicate guides to knowledge and action: (1) develop and maintain a dictionary of terms; (2) link to national and international organizations; (3) broaden needs identification process and sources; (4) articulate professional ethics; (5) maintain cross-disciplinary inclusive collaboration; (6) develop standards for distinguishing social problems and personal problems; (7) link goals and procedures; and (8) share information about discretionary practices.