Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Tanya Settles
January 17, 2025
Intergovernmental collaboration is far from a new idea, and in some places, it is the legally required resolution to certain types of problems. In many states, county governments statutorily retain primary responsibility for certain services and when municipal governments do not have the capacity or resources on their own, the county is responsible for service provision. Often, this relationship results in a negotiated intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that exchanges financial resources for services. In this sense, intergovernmental collaboration between local governments can remedy practical problems of providing basic services to the community.
Intergovernmental collaboration at the local level can exist for many reasons. Often the driving force behind the collaboration is a desire for two or more governments to achieve efficiency in resource allocation. When governments share resources that can include funding, expertise and personnel they are able to achieve greater efficacy and efficiency in problem solving. IGAs create economies of scale, reduce redundancy and limit unnecessary duplication of services. At the same time, IGAs create opportunities for local government leaders to achieve more together than they could individually and set a foundation for ethical decision making that builds trust in government. In this sense, improvements in public trust stem from intergovernmental collaboration.
Theres an ebb and flow to trust in government. Gallup data indicate that Americans are more likely to trust their local governments than federal, which is good news for chief administrative officers (CAOs) of local governments, but there’s still work to be accomplished. A lack of oversight, funding shortfalls and local resistance to government objectives can be counterproductive to building and retaining trust in government. Yet, ethical leadership is attainable when governments take a multi-dimensional approach to public ethics. Strategic partnerships with other local governments can enhance opportunities for local government leaders to improve decision making, transparency and accountability and build capacity to tackle large scale problems.
Ethical Decision Making: When decision making processes involve multiple stakeholders, groups, interests and a free flow of idea generation of decision alternatives, the likelihood of ethical decision-making increases. Local government leadership is complex because CAOs—whether city managers, county executives, town administrators or leaders known by other titles—are responsible for the day-to-day function of an organization, they are at the same time continually held accountable by the community for developing policies and other solutions as required by the political entity for whom they work. However, when local governments have a shared vision and resources coupled with similarly situated communities, intergovernmental collaboration that allows the generation of innovation to occur is more likely to be successful and earn the trust of the shared communities they serve.
Transparency and Accountability: Accountability is elusive in government. Everybody wants it, but clearly defining what accountability means and looks like is a continual challenge. Intergovernmental collaboration, particularly those that result in formal agreements, can improve accountability because shared oversight of projects and initiatives where there’s an articulated purpose and objective means that accountability mechanisms are built into the process. Transparency increases when multiple entities are involved and monitoring one another, which reduces the risk of missed goal attainment or mismanagement. In cases where an IGA specifies revenue sharing or an exchange of funds for services between collaborating governments, internal financial monitoring and reporting on both sides improves transparency to communities about how funds were expended and provides multiple sources of information about return on investment.
Improved Capacity for Large-Scale Problems: In times of locally situated distress, collaboration between governments is not just optimal—it is imperative—to reach problem resolution. In some circumstances there’s little time to engage in a negotiated IGA. However, local governments that have invested in building relationships with one another, find that collaboration comes much easier. The capacity to manage large magnitude or even apocalyptic problems, as is the case of the Los Angeles wildfires, builds on existing relationships between local governments. This existing relationship leads to agility and nearly automatic collaboration to solve problems of unimaginable scale. Engagement in regional collaboration shows communities that governments are proactive and capable, even under the direst circumstances. In turn, this can build public trust.
When governments collaborate effectively, they project unity, competence and a commitment to the common good. These factors directly improve public trust by showcasing leadership that works together to deliver modern results that matter to the community. To maximize trust-building, these efforts must be visible, transparent and representative of community values and priorities.
Author: Tanya Settles is the CEO of Paradigm Public Affairs, LLC. Tanya’s areas of work includes relationship building between local governments and communities, restorative justice, and the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters on at-risk populations. Tanya can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions in this column and any mistakes are hers alone.
Follow Us!