Co-constructing Performance Indicators in Home and Community Care: Assessing the Role of NGOs in Three Canadian Provinces
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2016v7n1a215Keywords:
Community care, Nonprofit healthcare providers, Home care, Performance indicators, Policy engagement, Policy co-creation / Soins de proximité, Prestataires de soins à but non lucratif, Soins à domicile, Indicateurs de performance, Engagement politiqueAbstract
This article examines the extent to which public servants interact with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to co-construct performance indicators in the home- and community-care sector. It uses 32 intensive qualitative interviews with NGO representatives and public servants in three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario) with distinctive home- and community-care systems to uncover the lived experiences of NGO/government interactions around this issue and seeks to gain a greater understanding of the role of NGOs in shaping permanence indicators. Varying funding and delivery models of home and community care across provinces put NGOs in different roles in the delivery of home and community supports, and hence, set different contexts for NGO/public servant interactions across the three provinces.
Cet article examine dans quelle mesure les fonctionnaires publics interagissent avec les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) pour établir des indicateurs de performance dans les secteurs des soins à domicile et de proximité. Il se base sur 32 entretiens en profondeur avec des représentants d’ONG et des fonctionnaire publics dans trois provinces canadiennes (Colombie-Britannique, Saskatchewan et Ontario) ayant des systèmes distincts de soins à domicile et de proximité, et ce afin d’en apprendre davantage sur la réalité des interactions entre les ONG et le gouvernement. L’article cherche en outre à mieux comprendre le rôle des ONG dans la formulation des indicateurs de performance. Les divers modèles dans chaque province pour financer et offrir des soins à domicile et de proximité ont un impact sur la manière dont les ONG peuvent fournir leur aide à domicile et dans la communauté, et créent ainsi des contextes différents dans chacune des trois provinces pour les interactions entre les ONG et les fonctionnaires publics.Downloads
References
Ansell. C, & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research, 18(4), 543-571.
Babcock, A., Charles Chiu, A., Hofmann, T., Macrae, S., & Tremblay, S. (2012). From strategy to implementation: An integration toolkit for community-based health service providers. Toronto, ON: Woodgreen Community Services.
Baines, D., & McBride, S. (2015). Orchestrating Austerity: Impacts and Resistance. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 1-16). London, UK: SAGE Publishing.
Bourgault, J. (2003). The contemporary role and challenges of deputy ministers in the Government of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Management Development.
British Columbia. Ministry of Health. (2012). Home and community care policy manual. Chapter 3: Performance management. Victoria, BC: Author. URL http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=9B75FD6EBF374E32960422F15345EC1C [October 1, 2015]
British Columbia. Office of the Ombudsperson. (2012). The best of care: getting it right for seniors in British Columbia (Part 2). Public report no. 47 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer.
Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). (2011). Health indicators 2011: Definitions, data sources and rationale, June 2011. Ottawa, ON: Author. URL: http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/pdf/internet/definitions_062011_en [October 1, 2015]
Canadian Health Care Association. (2009). Home care in Canada: From the margins to the mainstream. Ottawa, ON: Author. URL: http://www.cha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Home_Care_in_Canada_From_the_Margins_to_the_Mainstream_web.pdf [October 1, 2015]
Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services. (2012). Public services for Ontarians: A path to sustainability and excellence. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Evans, B., & Sapeha, S. (2015). Are non-government policy actors being heard? Assessing New Public Governance in three Canadian provinces. Canadian Public Administration, 58(2), 249-270.
Evans, B.. & Shields, J. (2014). Nonprofit engagement with provincial policy officials: The case of Canadian immigrant settlement services and NGO policy voice. Policy and Society, 33(2), 117-127.
Evans, B.,& Wellstead, A. (2013). Policy Dialogue and engagement between non-government organizations: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 73-97.
Eversole, R. (2010). Remaking participation. Community Development Journal, 47(1), 29-41.
Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175.
Johri, M., Béland, F., & Bergman, H. (2003). International experiments in integrated care for the elderly: A synthesis of the evidence. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 222-35.
Lindquist, E. (2009). There’s more to policy than alignment. CPRN Research Report. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. URL: http://www.cprn.org/documents/51384_EN.pdf [October 1, 2015]
Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). (2014, November). Multi-sector service accountability agreement 2014-2017: Indicator technical specifications. Version 5. Toronto, ON: Author. URL: http://www.mississaugahaltonlhin.on.ca/~/media/sites/mh/Secondary%20Navigation/For%20HSPs/MSAA%20CAPS/2015-06%20MSAA%20Indicator%20Tech%20Specs%20FINAL.pdf?la=en [December 21, 2015]
Lum, J. M. (2013). Did you know? BC’s Better at Home program. CRNCC E-News, 31(Spring), 2-3. URL: http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/crncc/enews/pdfs/2013/2013-spring-crncc-enews-vol31.pdf [October 1, 2015]
MacAdam, M. 2008. Frameworks of integrated care for the elderly: A systematic review. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Noveck, B. (2011). The single point of failure. In S. Van der Hof & M. Groothuis (Eds.), Innovating Government (pp. 77-99). The Hague, The Netherlands: Asserr Press.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (2014). Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks. Toronto, ON: Author. URL: http://www.lhins.on.ca/aboutlhin.aspx [October 1, 2015]
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (2015). Patients first: A proposal to strengthen patient-centred health care in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2015/docs/discussion_paper_20151217.pdf [December 21, 2015]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Commission. (2013, fdJune). A good life in old age? Monitoring and improving quality in long-term care. Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium: Authors. URL: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/PolicyBrief-Good-Life-in-Old-Age.pdf [October 1, 2015]
Osborne, S.P., Ed. (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London, UK: Routledge.
Sinha, S. K. (2012). Living longer, living well: Report submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Minister Responsible for Seniors on recommendations to inform a seniors strategy for Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Thomas, P. G. (2007, May). Why is performance-based accountability so popular in theory and difficult in practice? Paper presented at the World Summit on Public Governance: Improving the Performance of the Public Sector, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Thomas, P. G. (2006). Performance measurement, reporting, obstacles and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press.
Tuohy, C. H., Flood, C. M., & Stabile, M. (2004). How does private finance affect public health care systems? Marshaling the evidence from OECD nations. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 29(3), 359-396.
Van der Heijden, J., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. (2012). The mechanics of virtue. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(3), 177-188.
Walker, D. (2011). Caring for our aging population and addressing alternate level of care: Report submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario
Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93-106
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research / Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l'économie sociale [thereafter CJNSER] will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, and that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication.
The journal takes the stance that the publication of scholarly research is meant to disseminate knowledge and, in a not-for-profit regime, benefits neither publisher nor author financially. It sees itself as having an obligation to its authors and to society to make content available online now that the technology allows for such a possibility. In keeping with this principle, the journal will publish all of its issues online.
Authors who publish in CJNSER agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
[Content published between 2010 and 2019-10 was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 CA) License. Content published between 2019-10 to 2023-12 was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. Content published after 2023-12 is licensed under the Creative Commons 4.0 International (CC BY) License.]
