Nonprofit and public sector interorganizational collaboration in disaster recovery: Lessons from the field

• Author: Steven Curnin,Danielle O'Hara
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21389
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Nonprofit and public sector interorganizational

collaboration in disaster recovery: Lessons from the

field

Steven Curnin

1

| Danielle O'Hara

2

1

Disaster Resilience Research Group,

University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania,

Australia

2

Emergency Services, Australian Red

Cross, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Correspondence

Steven Curnin, Disaster Resilience

Research Group, University of Tasmania,

Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Email: steven.curnin@utas.edu.au

Funding information

Tasmanian State Emergency Management

Program

Abstract

Recent disasters have identified that interorganizational

collaboration is often fraught with complexity. This article

explores interorganizational collaboration in the nonprofit

and public sectors during the disaster recovery efforts after

a catastrophic flooding event. Based on a series of in-

depth interviews with practitioners involved in the recov-

ery following a flooding event, the findings offer insights

into the barriers and mechanisms used to facilitate collabo-

ration. In disaster recovery, collaboration is reliant on

established interorganizational structures and trusting rela-

tionships. Role clarity is the link between these two char-

acteristics, and this article posits the association between

this and the concept of swift trust to facilitate collabora-

tion. Theoretically, this article extends an existing multi-

dimensional model of collaboration into the context of

emergency management. Importantly, it also offers a tan-

gible output for industry in the form of an aide-mémoire

for collaborating in disaster recovery.

KEYWORDS

collaboration, disaster, emergency management, swift trust

1|INTRODUCTION

Recent failures of interorganizational collaboration as observed during numerous recent disasters

demonstrate that those involved in emergency management arrangements must collaborate holisti-

cally. Interorganizational collaboration is imperative in the response to and recovery from any type

Received: 27 March 2019 Revised: 27 June 2019 Accepted: 8 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/nml.21389

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2019;30:277–297. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 277

of disaster. The response phase of a disaster typically has a short duration of hours, days, or weeks.

Following this, the recovery phase of a disaster often spans months and years in an effort to return

the affected communities to a state of normality. During this recovery phase the economic and social

costs can far often outweigh the financial burden of the immediate response (Deloitte, 2016). In the

United States alone, the federal government spent a total of $136 billion from fiscal year 2011 to

2013 on disaster relief and recovery (Weiss & Weidman, 2013). Recovery efforts require input from

multiple stakeholders to restore community well-being. This always involves organizations from the

public sector and typically, also those representing the nonprofit sector. In addition, the nonprofit

sector will often provide the lead role in the disaster recovery efforts if the disaster is linked to war or

internal conflict as the local public sector capacity and political will to act is often severely limited

(Stephenson & Schnitzer, 2006).

Interorganizational collaboration in emergency management is vital but can be challenging, so it

is important to understand what facilitates and constrains collaboration in these circumstances. Thus,

the research question in this article is what are the barriers and enablers of interorganizational col-

laboration between the nonprofit and public sectors in disaster recovery? This article adopts an in-

depth empirical case-study approach of a recent Australian disaster to explore the process dimensions

of interorganizational collaboration in the recovery phase of emergency management. In Australia,

the response and initial recovery phases of a disaster are almost always followed by formal and com-

plex post-event inquiries to identify the cause, consequences, and actions of those involved (Cole,

Dovers, Gough, & Eburn, 2018; Eburn & Dovers, 2015). Eburn and Dovers (2015) recommend that

as a society, we need to move beyond developing policy by royal commission and instead seek les-

sons from positive as well as negative aspects directly from those involved in disasters. We address

this recommendation by exploring the negative and positive aspects of interorganizational collabora-

tion with people involved in the chosen disaster and aligning the findings to the five dimensions of

collaboration described by Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007).

This article is structured as follows. After describing the current research on interorganizational

collaboration between the nonprofit and public sectors in emergency management, it presents the

methods and the chosen case study. Next, the findings analyze the challenges of interorganizational

collaboration and mechanisms used to facilitate collaborative partnerships. The discussion

section provides a theoretical contribution and offers practitioners from the nonprofit and public sec-

tors tangible outcomes that can be applied in current practice to enhance collaboration. Finally, the

article concludes with limitations and future research opportunities.

2|EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COLLABORATION

Collaboration is a term used to describe the relationships between organizations when partners need

to work towards a common goal to solve complex societal problems. These realtionships are charac-

terized by high levels of interaction (AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016; Cigler, 2001; Gray,

1989; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). The high levels of interaction needed for collaborative partnerships

require several intrinsically linked dimensions. In Thomson et al. (2007) multidimensional frame-

work of collaboration, they offer five components of collaboration: (a) “administration”that is the

implementation and operational management of the agreed mission; (b) “norms”that are the repeated

interaction among partners that establishes reputation for trustworthy behavior; (c) “governance”

involves creating organizational structures that allow participants to solve the collective mission-

related problems; (d) “mutuality”is the shared interests that go beyond an individual organization's

mission; and (e) “autonomy”which is the ability for an organization to maintain their own distinct

278 CURNIN AND O'HARA