This study compares two federal grants, both from the same agency and both utilizing a national “boundary organization,” to assess how and why one was better able than the other to integrate divergent perspectives and produce new approaches to juvenile justice in multiple local jurisdictions. Results confirm the utility of boundary organizations but also show that not all organizations that bring together divergent perspectives necessarily result in anything new or better. Four factors stand out: (a) a different philosophy of evaluation research, (b) the grass-roots emergence of an inclusive rationale for the program that was orthogonal to the traditional “treatment versus punishment” ideology, (c) management strategies and agenda-setting arrangements at meetings that facilitated horizontal, upward, and downward information exchange, and (d) a different approach to knowledge and knowledge production that emphasized user-defined knowledge needs and diverse research methods. The case studies provide a wide range of insights for collaborative management practices, research—practitioner relationships, and implementation success.
Bazemore, G. (2005). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: Building theory and policy from practice. Devon, UK: Willan.
2.
Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2004). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: Building theory and policy from practice. Devon, UK: Willan.
3.
Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T., & O'Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65, 547-558.
4.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., & Stone, M.M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 44-55.
5.
Carlile, P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
6.
Cash, D.W., & Buizer, J. (2005). Knowledge-action systems for seasonal to interannual climate forecasting: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7.
Feinman, H. (1980). Legal issues in the operation of restitution programs in a juvenile court. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Ed.), Victims, offenders, and alternative sanctions (pp. 1-30). Lexington, KY : Heath Lexington Books.
8.
Feldman, M., Khademian, A.M., Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices . Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 89-99.
9.
Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter organizational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and multiple methods. In D. Faulkner & M. de Rone (Eds.), Perspectives on collaboration (pp. 243-260). New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Guston, D. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 299-408.
11.
Hamlett, P., & Cobb, M.D. (2005, September). Public deliberation problems: Polarization cascades and structured deliberations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
12.
Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5(3), 401-423.
13.
Ingram, H., & Bradley, B. (2005). Water sustainability: Policy innovation and conditions for adaptive learning (Discussion paper). East Lansing : Sustainable Michigan Endowed Project Academy.
14.
Innes, J.E., & Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 412-423.
15.
Kettl, D.F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review , 66(Suppl.), 10-19.
16.
Klein, M.W. (1979). Deinstitutionalization and diversion: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 1, pp. 145-201). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Kobrin, S., & Klein, M.W. (1983). Community treatment of juvenile offenders: The DSO experiments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works-Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 25, 22-54.
19.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 33-43.
20.
Meier, K.J., & O'Toole, L. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689-699.
21.
Miller, C. (2001). Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 299-408.
22.
Milward, H.B. (2003). Managing the hollow state: Collaboration and contracting . Public Management Review, 5(1), 1-18.
23.
O'Leary, R., Gerard, C., & Bingham, L.B. (2006). Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 6-9.
24.
Provan, K.G., Milward, H.B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1-33.
25.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385-403.
26.
Schneider, A.L. (1978). Effects of status offender deinstitutionalization in Clark County and Spokane, Washington. Unpublished technical report.
27.
Schneider, A.L. (1980). Policy expectations and program realities in juvenile restitution. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Ed.), Victims, offenders, and alternative sanctions (pp. 37-53). Lexington, KY: Heath Lexington Books.
28.
Schneider, A. L. (Ed.). (1985a). Guide to juvenile restitution: Restitution Education, Specialized Training and Technical Assistance Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
Schneider, A.L. (1985b). The impact of deinstitutionalization on recidivism and secure confinement of status offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
30.
Schneider, A.L. (1987). The role of restitution in juvenile justice systems . Yale Law and Policy Review, 4(3), 128-156.
31.
Schneider, A.L., Schneider, P.R. (1980). Overview of restitution program models in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile and Family Court Journal , 31(1), 33-22.
32.
Schneider, A.L., Schneider, P.R., Griffith, W.R., & Wilson, M.J. (1982). Two year report on the National Evaluation of the Juvenile Restitution Initiative: An overview of program performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
33.
Schneider, A., & Warner, J. (1987). The role of restitution in juvenile justice systems . Yale Law and Policy Review, 5(2), 382-401.
34.
Schneider, P.R., Schneider, A.L., Reiter, P.D., & Cleary, C.M. (1977). Restitution requirements for juvenile offenders-A survey of the practices in American juvenile courts. Juvenile Justice, 28(4), 43-56.
35.
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology . Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
36.
Thacher, D. (2004). Interorganizational partnerships as inchoate hierarchies: A case study of the community security initiative. Administration & Society, 36, 91-127.
37.
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15, S9-S25.
