Advocacy for collaboration through contracting arrangements between government and the nonprofit sector has gained momentum over the course of the last decade. Government contracting with the nonprofit sector for the provision of social services took a quantum leap as responsibilities for the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act were devolved to states and ultimately to local government. These shifts in service provision bring to the fore issues of governance, management and service capabilities, and authority. The hollow state metaphor, networking, and public management techniques are some of the lenses that have been used to conceptualize and improve these relationships. These research streams have been valuable to the field. As yet however, there remains little research that affords the field an intimate exploration of the fabric of these contract relationships. This study explores a contracted collaborative arrangement from such a position. The study aimed to develop a richer picture about the capabilities of both government and nonprofit agencies to implement, manage and sustain such collaborations, and to better understand how issues of authority and governance play out. An in depth case analysis reveals the experiences of the actors themselves. A framework of conceptual "tensions" drawn from the literature was used to examine interview results. Findings suggest that "tunnel government" may be a more appropriate metaphor than the hollow state; further, the contractual structure often overrode the order that intersubjective relationships brought to the process. A model for decision making that seeks to conceptualize contracting beyond a managerial focus is presented, and future research on such a decision making model, as well as on the political nature of contracting, is suggested.
My Research