Search

In fragmented policy areas, collaboration between government entities and nonprofit providers is thought to promote knowledge sharing and reinforce mutual accountability, hopefully improving performance. The popularity of this trend is matched only by the difficulties in actually meeting these multiplex goals. This is partly because there are both process (e.g. engagement and mutual learning) and outcome (e.g. effectiveness) goals that can work at cross-purposes. In this article, we use longitudinal data from a specific collaborative governance model—Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Homeless Continuums of Care (CoCs)—to investigate the relationship between meaningful inclusion of nonprofit service providers in the network and a valued outcome: reducing regional chronic homelessness. Specifically, we use structural equation modeling to assess the degree to which provider influence and local government support play mediating roles between network governance structure, growth in federal resource munificence, and reductions in chronic homeless. Combining HUD administrative data and data from a national survey of the population of CoCs (N = 313, 75% response rate), we find that while both (1) provider influence in decision-making and (2) federal funding growth are directly associated with reductions in chronic homelessness, provider influence also serves as an important mediator in the relationships between network governance structure, federal funding growth, and reductions in chronic homelessness. Qualitative case examples are then used to demonstrate how these trends are experienced in practice. Overall, we argue that collaborative governance can best improve client outcomes when it is truly collaborative and providers are given meaningful ways to engage with and influence the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participants may lose faith in collaborative governance processes if they do not perceive internal decision-making processes to be legitimate. Yet, understanding how to assess internal legitimacy and what network characteristics are associated with it has been an enduring challenge. In this article, we propose conceptualizing internal legitimacy as multi-vectored, contrasting input legitimacy—the degree of openness and access that participants experience in their attempt to offer voice—with throughput legitimacy—the quality of the decision-making process itself. Using data from a comparative case study of 18 different US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-mandated Continuums of Care, we assess this framework with a mixed-methods approach, combining thematic analysis of interview data (n = 145) with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to show (1) differences in how participants experience input and throughput legitimacy, (2) the nature of the relationship between input and throughput legitimacy, and (3) what specific network characteristics are associated with positive assessments of each. Our findings indicate that input and throughput legitimacy are distinct but related—throughput legitimacy is harder to achieve and dependent on positive assessments of input legitimacy. Some network characteristics, particularly large size and commissioner-style network management, pose challenges, but a focus on in-person engagement can help ameliorate them. We conclude that distinguishing between input and throughput legitimacy can help managers identify where and how to intervene in order to improve the legitimacy of decision-making processes in collaborative governance networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-income people of color in urban communities have been found to suffer from high levels of political inequality and poor political representation. To make policy more responsive and accountable, neighborhood organizations are often solicited to serve as informal community representatives in local decision-making processes. Given this reliance on nonelected representatives, we ask, Do community residents believe neighborhood organizations are legitimate representatives of their interests? Using survey data from residents of the South Side of Chicago, this article demonstrates that residents’ trust in organizations as representatives varies significantly by organizational type. Specifically, community organizations, religious congregations, and schools are rated as more trustworthy to speak on behalf of the community than local elected officials. These findings hold relatively constant across a variety of individual- and community-level differences, implying that this preference is widespread and may extend to other vulnerable urban communities in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advocacy, essential to the unique role of the nonprofit sector, is a term that suffers from a definitional morass that is both crowded and inconsistent, undermining research progress. This problem has been exacerbated by changes in our understanding of the wide variety of nonprofit and voluntary organizations involved in advocacy. To address construct clarity and help research bridge disciplinary silos, we present a framework that, while drawing clearer boundaries around the construct's peripheries, integrates three major dimensions of organizational advocacy among nonprofits: goals, tactics, and motivations. This integrative framework focuses on the targets, contexts, and types of nonprofit actors associated with these dimensions, pointing to avenues for new lines of comparative research. We demonstrate how this framework can elucidate institutional change and advance the field by promoting new understandings of advocacy that better matches changing empirical reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philanthropic foundations play important symbolic and leadership roles in public policy debates by conferring legitimacy upon specific social problems and policy solutions, but little is known about how they respond to policy change and the roles they adopt in relationship to government. We investigate the degree to which foundations are responsive to the policy environment and ask whether they adopt roles consistent with meeting social needs, promoting social innovation, or both. We also investigate how these roles vary by foundation type (independent, community, corporate) and size. Longitudinal data on grants made by more than 1,000 U.S. foundations during the welfare reform era of 1993-2001 show that during this time foundation grants were not responsive to population need; grants to safety net and social service programs did not increase. Large foundations and independent foundations focused on social innovation by funding research and workforce development and giving more in states pursuing policy innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents counterarguments to the four questions raised in an essay published within the issue on ways to rebuild macro practice in schools of social work. Topics discussed include students needing micro- and macro-focused faculty or courses to expose them to new ideas and skills, the need for courses to engage macro content and courses like human behavior and social environment (HBSE), and faculty readiness for macro practice.

Participation in collaborative advocacy organizations is one of the most common advocacy tactics pursued by nonprofit organizations. However, field-level dynamics and norms around collaboration may be changing with the growth of public-private intermediary organizations. Using a lens that brings together theories of structuration and institutional entrepreneurship, this research investigates (a) how intermediary organizations structure advocacy opportunities and institutionalize new advocacy practices at the field level, and (b) how member organizations interpret those opportunities and practices. Qualitative findings from a regional homeless services policy field demonstrate that intermediary organizations gain members and thus, power, based on their position in the policy field and through their ability to connect members to valuable government contacts. In this field, participation in public-private intermediary organizations has surpassed involvement in traditional advocacy coalitions as providers are motivated to meet organizational legitimacy goals as much as advocacy goals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although awareness of the involvement of human service nonprofits (HSNPs) in policy advocacy has grown, scholars continue to know little about how they actually carry out their advocacy work. This study uses a large, representative survey of HSNPs to answer two primary research questions: First, what kinds of advocacy tactics do HSNPs participate in most frequently? Second, does reliance on government funding and greater institutionalization, both pervasive trends among HSNPs, affect the choices they make when it comes to the tactics they engage in? Findings indicate that HSNPs are involved in a wide range of advocacy tactics, but that together the field-level trends of institutionalization and privatization may be increasing political opportunity for HSNPs, leading to tactical choices similar to those of interest groups. Increased institutionalization and dependence on government funding are associated with using a wider variety of tactics overall and increased use of insider tactics in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]