Astrid Molenveld

Coordinating for Integrated Youth Care: The need for smart metagovernance

Abstract Integrated youth care (IYC) requires co-ordination between many (semi-)autonomous actors, which can be achieved with a collaborative governance regime (CGR). Smart metagovernance by central government is imperative herein, choosing the mix of metagovernance roles at the right time for the issue at hand. Using a single case study of IYC in Flanders (Belgium), this article shows how important and difficult metagovernance is. Framing, designing, managing and participating in a CGR requires metagovernors to know when to allow for autonomy and dialogue, and when to use the ‘shadow of hierarchy’.

Coordinating Integrated Youth Care across Sectors

In this chapter, we describe a case that breaths wickedness, namely a policy focused on managing complexity and fragmentation in the youth care sector. The coordination practice under review is a policy program aimed at achieving ‘Integrated Youth Care’ (IYC), improving service delivery for young troubled persons and their next of kin. The governance of IYC is an interesting case to analyse because it entailed a mixed horizontal and vertical coordination strategy in order to align actors from multiple policy sectors — that is, to achieve joined-up government within parts of government. Starting from a coordination perspective, we analyse how the Flemish government developed and implemented a governance model emphasizing collaboration. The coordination practice described in this chapter was specifically designed to bring about more horizontal and vertical coordination between all relevant actors to achieve integrated service delivery to troubled youngsters.

A Cross-Cutting Program for Coherence: Flanders in Action

In previous decades, many European countries have rearranged their government apparatus into many specialized, (semi-)autonomous agencies under the banner of ‘New Public Management’. This specialization, but also the subsequent fragmentation, leads to a substantial challenge to coherently implement and coordinate horizontal or government-wide policy objectives (Verhoest et al., 2007). Also in the Flemish government these kinds of reforms took place and nowadays policy coherence, interagency coordination and collaboration and cross-cutting policy issues are high on the agenda.

Explaining Self-Perceived Accountability of Regulatory Agencies in Comparative Perspective: How Do Formal Independence and De Facto Managerial Autonomy Interact?

There is much scepticism about the accountability of regulatory agencies towards society. It is generally believed that their non-majoritarian nature and need for credible commitment, which motivate their formal independence, render the accountability of such agencies problematic (see Chapter 1 of this book). The need for upward accountability must be balanced with the strict principle of non-interference by politicians in the activities and decisions of such agencies. Agencification (or autonomization) of public sector organizations renders traditional forms of upward accountability towards political principals (ministers and parliaments) problematic, as autonomy and accountability have an uneasy relationship. Several authors point at alternative forms of accountability (see Chapter 1), including downward accountability towards stakeholders, peers and target groups, as ways to overcome deficiencies in upward accountability relations. However, it remains unclear to what extent such alternative accountability mechanisms are really effective (see, for instance, Schillemans 2008). In this chapter we look at the circumstances under which regulatory agencies have elaborated upward and downward accountability mechanisms, and to what extent their degree of formal independence, de facto managerial autonomy and political salience influence the use of such accountability mechanisms. Moreover, the chapter analyses to what extent and under what circumstances the use of upward and downward accountability mechanisms results in a high level of accountability towards society, as perceived by the senior management of regulatory agencies.