Skip Navigation



Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access published online on August 27, 2009

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, doi:10.1093/jopart/mup022
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sosin, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, L. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Temporary Crises and Priority Changes: The Case of State Substance Abuse Systems

Michael R. Sosin

University of Chicago

Steven Rathgeb Smith

University of Washington

Timothy Hilton

Northern Michigan University

Lucy P. Jordan

University of St. Andrews

Address correspondenc to the author at m-sosin{at}uchicago.edu.

Many doubts have been expressed about the capacity of states to administer federally supported social service programs. This article relies on institutional theory, punctuated equilibrium theory, and evidence from two states to analyze the way states administer the programs in times of fiscal crisis. The particular context is the fiscal crisis of the early 2000s in substance abuse programs. The analysis suggest that, during the crisis, state administrative authorities and the providers they funded refocused services on federal rather than local priorities. The states and providers also further integrated substance abuse services with the services of other programs and promoted managerial practices that seemed to loosen the match between services and clients. The findings point to some of the ways in which the states’ capacities to respond to crises can be undermined by the national trend toward encouraging state discretion. Findings also reveal challenges for state-level crisis management.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.