Abstract
Information is a lubricant that enables actors to recognize shared interests. When it is successfully transmitted, exchanged, and synthesized, information can facilitate the process of actors in a network learning about each other and about possible connections between them. Sharing information spawns the formation and transformation of new ideas, which leads to new ways to view and approach a given situation, in turn leading to jointly defined problems and possibly jointly determined solutions. Essentially, information is the basis for making decisions. Information can also act as a glue, uniting actors into distinct and purposive relationships. It can help “seal the deal,” so to speak, as actors transform information into action. In a word, information matters.
Kathleen Hale defines information in the field of public policy and administration as including “the values and ideologies reflected in an area of public concern, how problems are defined, how solutions are crafted, how policy is put into action, and how to decide whether particular solutions are worthwhile” (p. 1). The specific issue addressed in the book, as expressed in its title, is one that wonders from where information comes, who provides such information, and, most important, how this information can lead to innovations in public policies. As we know, the world of the public administrator involves a host of nonpublic actors who are indispensable in implementing (and often formulating) public policy. It is thus not novel to explore the role of nonpublic actors in policy innovation. What is unique about Hale’s research is that she exposes the mechanisms through which nonpublic actors make their mark on policy: information networks. Her central premise is that “an information network of nonpublic actors contributes substantially to the capacity of government to implement policy” (p. 21).
Hale’s exhaustive multimethod, longitudinal study examines how nonpublic actors affected the development and evolution of a policy that could reduce drug use in the criminal justice population across the United States from the late-1980s to 2004. The policy innovation researched in the book is the creation of state-level drug courts. The book is not about drug courts, although we learn a great deal about their creation and diffusion. Instead, Hale adeptly focuses on the theoretical and practical implications of public nonprofit networks, using drug courts as the policy innovation under investigation. She establishes her argument by writing that
the diffusion and institutionalization of drug courts has come about through a series of interactions between state and local administrators and an extensive information network of national nonprofit organizations. In all fifty states, public administrators designed and implemented drug court programs by using information relationships, tools, and processes that were developed in and nurtured by the intersectoral policy information network. (p. 30)
The author examines the diverse organizations that were involved in the national information network, the methods used by the organizations to make information connections with public administrators and policy makers, and the organizations’ standing or position in the information network. She develops a typology—more of an organizing principle—of “information positions” that “reflects the extent to which an organization embraced the drug court concept and was committed to its success” (p. 53). These four positions, arrayed in terms of the nonpublic organization’s level of preference for the creation of drug courts and the organization’s level of engagement, are referred to as champions, supporters, challengers, and bystanders. A champion is highly engaged in the policy area and highly supportive of a particular policy solution, in this case the role of drug courts. A challenger is equally engaged in finding policy solutions, but does not support the same solutions as do champions (or may not even agree on the definition of the policy problem). Supporters and bystanders are less engaged in seeking policy reform, but may support or simply not devote much effort to promote or defeat a policy initiative (pp. 23-25). The “position” of the organization within the composition of the network has clear implications for the type and quality of information that is passed from the organization to administrators and policy makers. Indeed, these positions reflect “an environment of complementary and competing ideas in which nonprofit organizations strive for currency with and acceptance by public administrators as well as with their other stakeholder constituencies” (p. 178). Nonprofit organizations and public administrators thus depend on each other for improving policy outcomes.
Hale also looks at the experiences of administrators in using various information “tools” created by the organizations in the network. As she shows, state administrators looked to the network for such tools that could be used to replicate a general set of ideas about drug courts across jurisdictions, to validate the drug court concept, and to integrate drug court programs into their state’s criminal justice systems (p. 128). The most important tools for the state administrators she studied included evaluative studies, best practices, and model programs. However, the information coming from the national nonprofit information network is not static and does not exist in isolation; it is “iterative, cumulative, and interactive between organizations” (p. 178).
A succinct hypothetical example is offered by Hale to illustrate the significance of information position and the use of a specific information tool, evaluative studies, for organizations in an information network:
. . . assume that a champion organization has advanced a policy solution and a prototype has been initiated by administrators in one jurisdiction. The idea is novel and provokes reactions from both detractors and attractors. Administrators are interested in whether the idea “works” and conduct an evaluation of the prototype. A champion organization or a supporter group seeks an evaluation study as well; the results will assist administrators in learning about whether and how the idea can work. The idea is a success according to these initial studies. However, even if these studies are conducted at arms’ length from champions, the findings could be linked to champions or supporters, and so administrators may have reservation about the results. Supporters, challengers, and even bystanders may conduct additional evaluations . . . Ultimately, a body of information is available to administrators . . . (p. 178)
Hale’s book takes us from the hypothetical to a real world case and thus demonstrates convincingly that information from a nonprofit network not only supplements the work of public administrators but also indeed enhances the capacity of administrators to push forward with the creation and implementation of policy innovation. Her polished and easy-to-read work advances our knowledge of networks, public administration, and policy innovation, and is required reading for those scholars and students interested in the intersection of nongovernmental organizations and public administrators, and the role of networks in policy design and implementation.