Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does service diversification enhance organizational survival?

Evidence from the private substance abuse treatment system

  • Regular Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rate of closure among US substance abuse treatment facilities in the private sector is considerable, further reducing access to treatments that are already in short supply in many locales. Using a nationally representative sample of 450 substance abuse treatment centers, this research considers the extent to which specific types of service diversification reduce the likelihood of treatment center closure in the private sector. Over the study period, 26.4% of centers ceased to offer substance abuse treatment services. There was mixed evidence that centers offering a more diversified array of services had a lower likelihood of closure. Specifically, the number of treatment tracks tailored to specific demographic groups was negatively associated with the likelihood of closure. There was a positive association between closure and offering an inpatient psychiatric program. These findings suggest that there may be strategic benefits in expanding services to meet the needs of diverse clientele.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson JA, Roman PM. Predicting closure of private substance abuse treatment facilities.Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2002;29:115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Covin JG, Slevin DP. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.Strategic Management Journal. 1989;10:75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fichman RG. The role of aggregation in the measurement of IT-related organizational innovation.MIS Quarterly. 2001;25:427–455.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ramanujam V, Varadarajan P. Research on corporate diversification: a synthesis.Strategic Management Journal. 1989;10:523–551.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haveman HA. Between a rock and a hard place: organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation.Administrative Science Quarterly. 1992;37:48–75.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen CM.The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hannan MT, Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change.American Sociological Review. 1984;49:149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hannan MT, Freeman J.Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lamb S, Greenlick MR, McCarty D, eds.Bridging the Gap Between Practice and Research: Forging Partnerships With Community-based Drug and Alcohol Treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Knudsen HK, Roman PM. Modeling the use of innovations in private treatment organizations: the role of absorptive capacity.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2004;26:353–361.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liddle HA, Rowe CL, Quille TJ, et al. Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22:231–243.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Martin GW, Herie MA, Turner BJ, et al. A social marketing model for disseminating research-based treatments to addictions treatment providers.Addiction. 1998;93:1703–1715.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roman PM, Johnson JA. Adoption and implementation of new technologies in substance abuse treatment.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22:211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  14. White WL.Slaying the Dragon: The History of Addiction and Recovery in America. Bloomington, Ill: Chestnut Health Systems; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roman PM, Johnson JA, Blum TC. The transformation of private alcohol problem treatment: Results from a national study.Advances in Medical Sociology. 2000;7:321–342.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mechanic D, McAlpine DD. Mission unfulfilled: potholes on the road to mental health parity.Health Affairs. 1999;18(5):7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Taleff MJ, Swisher JD. The seven core functions of a master's level alcohol and other drug counselor.Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 1997;42(3):1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blum TC, Roman PM, Shane S. Alcoholism treatment center death: interorganizational linkages in health care. In: Reynolds P, McDougall PP, Birley S, eds.Frontiers in Entrepreneurial Research. Boston: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies; 1996:16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knudsen HK, Johnson JA, Roman PM, et al. Rural and urban similarities and differences in private substance abuse treatment centers.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2003;35:511–518.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Etheridge RM, Smith JC, Rounds-Bryant JL, et al. Drug abuse treatment and comprehensive services for adolescents.Journal of Adolescent Research. 2001;16:563–589.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hser YI, Grella CE, Hubbard RL, et al. An evaluation of drug treatments for adolescents in 4 US cities.Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001;58:689–695.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ashley OS, Marsden ME, Brady TM. Effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programming for women: a review.The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2003;29(1):19–53.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Drain M, Godkin L, Valentine, S. Examining closure rates of rural hospitals: an assessment of a strategic taxonomy.Health Care Management Review. 2001;26(4):27–51.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SD, Alexander JA. Managing hospitals in turbulent times: do organizational changes improve hospital survival?Health Services Research. 1999;34:923–946.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chandler AD.Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stinchcombe AL. Social structure and organizations. In: March JG, ed.Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1965:142–193.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jawahar IM, McLaughlin GL. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach.Academy of Management Review. 2001;26:397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers EM.Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Scott WR.Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.Academy of Management Journal. 1991;34:555–590.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Milne SH, Blum TC, Roman PM. Qualith management in a health care setting: a study of substance abuse treatment centers.Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality. 2000;5:215–248.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mee-Lee DL, Gartner L, Miller MM, et al.Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders. 2nd ed. Chevy Chase, Md: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bantel KA. Technology-based “adolescent” firm configurations: strategy identification, context, and performance.Journal of Business Venturing. 1998;13:205–230.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Davis C. Entrepreneurial leader style and organizational performance: the moderating effects of life cycle and profit status in health care organizations. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 7, 2000; Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  35. Allison P.Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Data. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR.The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sheppard JP. A resource dependence approach to organizational failure.Social Science Research. 1995;24:28–62.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Merrick EL, Garnick DW, Horgan CM, et al. Benefits in behavioral carve-out plans of Fortune 500 firms.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:943–948.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Perry JL, Rainey HG. The public-private distinction in organization theory: a critique and research strategy.Academy of Management Review. 1988;13:182–201.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Food and Drug Administration. New drug to treat alcoholism.FDA Consumer. 2004;38(5):3.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fiellin DA, Kleber H, Trumble-Hejduk JG, et al. Consensus statement on office-based treatment of opioid dependent using buprenorphine.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2004;27:153–159.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Research on Behavioral Health and Human Services Delivery, Institute for Behavioral Research, The University of Georgia, 101 Barrow Hall, 30602, Athens, GA

    Hannah K. Knudsen PhD (assistant research scientist), Paul M. Roman PhD (distinguished research professor and center director) & Lori J. Ducharme PhD (assistant research scientist)

Authors
  1. Hannah K. Knudsen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul M. Roman PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lori J. Ducharme PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah K. Knudsen PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knudsen, H.K., Roman, P.M. & Ducharme, L.J. Does service diversification enhance organizational survival?. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 32, 241–252 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291825

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291825

Keywords

Search

Navigation