Expert answer:Read the articles and write a personal reflection
Expert answer:Please read the following articles and write a personal reflection on them (the word file has suggested questions and sources to use).Showing critical thinking, moving from experience to critical reflection on ideas and issues.- Approximately 3-4 pages, double spaced (about 700 words).- Make sure to use the proper citations (source).- No Plagiarism.Journals are a learning tool, a powerful way for you to clarify your own experiences and observations and connect them to new concepts.Journal is an opportunity to explore hunches, questions, and associations with less emphasis on meeting the polished standards of formal writing.Some starting points for personal responses & critical responses:- An example from my own experience of one of the key points here is…- Some questions raised for me are…- A quotation that is important for me is… because…- A new insight I had is…- A pattern I notice is…- It is ironic that…- Some things I didn’t understand are…- A point I particularly disagree with in this article / our discussion is… because…- I agree that… because…- One assumption that… makes is… evident in…- Some limitations and problems I see are…- This material is similar to or different from… because…Suggested questions:- What is (are) the main point(s) of the article? What are the key ideas?- What ideas were new / startling / changed your thinking about non-profit organizations?- What questions did the article raise for you – things that you want to understand or discuss?
5.docx
alexander___the_impact_of_devolution_on_nonprofits.pdf
burnley___devolution_of_services.pdf
civil_society_in_crisis_2017.pdf
scott___summary_fundingmatters.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Please read the articles by Scott (pdf) and Burnley et al. (link), and choose one of the articles
by either Eikenberry & Kluver (Link) or Alexander (link).
Questions for the journal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Where would you go to find evidence of a ‘crisis’ in the nonprofit sector?
What are the roles of government in creating the crisis, or solutions to such problems?
How can we ask nonprofit organizations about their experience of the ‘crisis’?
Is it really a crisis, or is this simply the normal working out of neoliberalism?
Eikenberry & Kluver
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x/pdf
The Impact of Devolution
on Nonprofits
A Multiphase Study of Social
Service Organizations
Jennifer Alexander
The following article reviews the results of a multiphase study
of nonprofit social service organizations serving children and
youth in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The purpose of the study was
to assess the impact of devolution and related efforts to introduce the new public management in the nonprofit sector. Study
results strongly suggest that the capacity of community-based
and faith-based organizations to adopt the business-oriented
approach required to meet the expectations of government contracts is profoundly limited by their financial and human
resources and by the conflict that a market orientation can present to the nonprofit mission.
N
engaged in social service delivery have survived in
a tumultuous environment. Over the past twenty years, the
sector’s financial support from government has fluctuated
from a zenith in the early 1970s, when nonprofits were the backbone
of the government’s social service delivery, to a low during the Reagan era, when federal funding for social services dropped precipitously. In spite of the changing terms of partnership, the nonprofit
sector has continued to serve as the last public safety net for our most
vulnerable populations. It is also paradoxically regarded as a largely
voluntary, low-cost alternative to big government. While financial
stresses have been the perennial challenge, two current policy initiatives are dramatically altering the values and methods that have
characterized the sector to date: devolution and the new public
management.
Devolution, also known as “the new federalism,” has begun to
occur as the federal government converts a number of entitlement
and income security programs into block grants and turns responsibility for them over to the states, most notably in the area of welfare
ONPROFITS
NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 10, no. 1, Fall 1999
© Jossey-Bass Publishers
57
58
ALEXANDER
reform. The driving force behind devolution is the idea that social
programs run by the federal government have been ineffective,
unwieldy, and excessively expensive (Gold, 1996). The devolution
of government policy and services is actually a piece of a larger
reform movement, directed at both government and the nonprofit
sector, known as “the new public management.” The ideology of the
new public management can be characterized by two assumptions.
First, it assumes the efficiency of markets and the value of competition as a strategy for improving organizational performance. Second,
it asserts that private-sector practices and technologies are superior
and that management is a generic practice (Kaboolian, 1998). These
two trends—devolution and the new public management—have
resulted in stronger partnerships between local governments and
nonprofit social service organizations and greater emphasis on business practices intended to foster efficiency and effectiveness.
Organizations in the nonprofit sector, alternately described as
“independent,” “charitable,” and “voluntary,” have formed a critical
link between government, communities, and citizens in need, not
only through the provision of services but also through their political capacity. Nonprofit organizations are political entities when they
organize communities, respond to community needs, or articulate
these needs through advocacy. As this article demonstrates, the political character of nonprofits may be imperiled by the push to become
more business oriented. Many nonprofits will be required to alter
their organizational character in order to survive.
This article reviews the results of a multiphase investigation
focused on the impact of devolution on nonprofits serving children
and youth in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Cuyahoga County comprises
13 percent of the population of Ohio; it includes Cleveland and is
the thirteenth largest county in the United States. Organizations
included in the study serve families in general as well as youth in
particular. They include such things as social service centers devoted
to the arts, food pantries and homeless shelters, neighborhood multiservice centers, alcohol and substance abuse prevention and rehabilitation, youth activity groups, adoption services, and foster care.
This article begins with a discussion of how devolution pertains to
social service nonprofits. The methodology of the study and a profile of the organizations that completed the survey follow. Impacts
of devolution are then outlined in a discussion of the themes that
emerged from an analysis of survey results and a series of focus
groups conducted with nonprofit staff.
Impacts of Devolution on Nonprofits
in Human Service Delivery
In several respects nonprofits have a central role in the federal government’s efforts to devolve government services. Proponents of
devolution have asserted that this community-oriented sector would
T H E I M PA C T
OF
DEVOLUTION
ON
continue as the last safety net for high-risk citizens irrespective of
federal funding. Unfortunately, this vision may be an optimistic
assessment of what research on the nonprofit sector would predict.
By all indications, the capacity of nonprofit social service agencies is closely linked to government funding. The growth and decline
of nonprofits engaged in human service delivery has largely mirrored
state and federal funding patterns (Salamon, 1997, p. xiii; Estes and
Wood, 1984; Liebschutz, 1992). For example, when the federal government turned to nonprofits to provide the bulk of the nation’s
health and social service delivery system in the 1960s, the sector grew
(Salamon, 1997, p. xiii). During the 1980s, when federal government
grants were cut by 20 percent, the sector lost more than $30 billion
in funding and nonprofits decreased in size and number. Nonprofits
responded to the loss in revenue by terminating programs and staff
and by reducing overhead (Liebschutz, 1992). Nonetheless, the close
relationship between nonprofits and government continues; nonprofits engaged in human services receive approximately 40 percent
of their budgets from government sources (O’Connell, 1996).
A second reason nonprofits may not be an alternative to publicly
funded programs concerns the misconception of the character of the
sector. In spite of a reputation for providing charitable services, it
has been argued by some researchers that the redistributive effects
of nonprofits are minimal (O’Connell, 1996; Zimmerman, 1996).
Nonprofits are most often founded to serve the needs of particular
groups, such as children with diabetes or elderly Lutherans, rather
than to serve the general welfare (O’Connell, 1996). These organizations tend to serve their client communities and those most like
them. Research by Zimmerman (1996, p. 400) demonstrates that the
most important indicator of whether a nonprofit provides services
to lower-income populations is whether it receives federal funding.
In short, nonprofits engaged in human service delivery are confronting new challenges along a number of fronts. They are at risk
due to a historical dependence on government funding and the current changes in expectations. Nonprofits are experiencing pressures
from government and funders to emulate the private sector both in
structure and practice. There is increased attention to accountability and outcome measures in an effort to bring about organizational
efficiency and effectiveness. Nonprofits now find themselves competing with for-profit service providers in their traditional domains,
reducing revenues that financed the public service character of the
sector in the past.
Methodology
The study began in May 1996 with the development of a database
that included all identifiable nonprofits with 501(c)3 status that serve
youth and children in Cuyahoga County. Two hundred thirty-nine
organizations were initially identified. A survey instrument was
NONPROFITS
59
By all
indications, the
capacity of
nonprofit social
service agencies
is closely linked
to government
funding
60
ALEXANDER
Discussion
groups generated
information
and insights
grounded in the
participants’
understanding of
the current
environment
rather than the
perceptions of the
investigators
developed and faxed or mailed to all of the organizations with valid
addresses. The purpose of the survey was to determine the extent to
which nonprofit providers were affected by recent changes confronting the sector and whether particular service groups or organizational types were affected differently. Data were collected regarding
organizational mission, age, budget size, service delivery, clientele,
sources of income, changes in income, fiscal stresses, and organizational responses to changes in the nonprofit sector. One hundred
twenty-four organizations (52 percent) returned completed surveys.
(The survey instrument is available from the author on request.)
In addition to the survey instrument, three series of focus groups
were held with service providers at four- to five-month intervals over
the course of the study. Attendees were randomly selected from the
database of nonprofit providers and encouraged to attend focus group
discussions. Focus groups were considered an optimal method for
generating information on coping strategies because directed conversations among participants could reveal and explore the challenges organizational representatives deemed pertinent. Discussion
groups generated information and insights grounded in the participants’ understanding of the current environment rather than the perceptions of the investigators. Nonprofit representatives in focus group
discussions were grouped according to organizational types generated from the survey results. They included traditionally established,
semipublic, community-based, and faith-based organizations.
Discussion in the first two series of focus groups was directed to
impacts of devolution and what the groups believed were optimal
organizational responses. Survival strategies that appeared effective
for nonprofits in the 1980s were presented in handouts and briefly
summarized for participants at the beginning of the discussions. Participants then examined the merits of these strategies for their
particular organizations in the current setting. In the process of evaluating strategies from the 1980s, participants also clarified differences
and similarities between challenges that organizations experience in
the current environment.
Survey Results
Organizations were classified into one of four categories based on a
core set of characteristics: funding sources, staff, mission, organizational age, and size. The purpose of creating classifications was to
discern whether there were differences in impacts or responses
to current environmental stresses and to create focus groups according to these subcategories. The organizational types, based on the
survey results, were as follows:
Traditional-established organizations included the large, professionalized, often nationally established nonprofits with local satellite
offices. Their annual budgets averaged $4 million; 36 percent
T H E I M PA C T
OF
DEVOLUTION
ON
were between $1 million and $5 million. Organizations averaged
100 full-time staff and 255 volunteers. Participating organizations
in this category included Easter Seals, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and Salvation Army.
Community-based organizations most often provided a broad range of
services (largely in the area of education and family services) for a
small locale or neighborhood. They typically maintained a strong
connection with their community by having community members
on the governing board. The organizations had an average age of
thirty-one years. Their annual budgets were small, with an average
of $907,000; more than one-third fell between $100,000 and
$500,000 per year. The average number of full-time staff was 12,
and the average number of volunteers was 89.
Faith-based organizations represented both of the organizational types
already described. Some were consistent with the traditional, established organizations (for example, Bellefaire Jewish Children’s
Bureau or parochial schools); others more closely resembled community-based organizations in terms of size, budget, and organizational structure (for example, Lakewood Christian Service
Center). Their missions often included a religious commitment to
serving people with deep-seated problems or the indigent. In this
study, these organizations were responsible for providing 59 percent of the services categorized as survival or emergency services.
The average number of full-time employees was 50 with a substantially greater reliance on volunteers than the other organizational types (the average number of volunteers was 372).
Semipublic organizations had 501(c)3 status but received more than
70 percent of their funding from government sources. Semipublic
organizations had the largest permanent staff size: an average of
32 full-time employees and 218 volunteers.
Survey data revealed that government funding was a source of
revenue for 79 percent of the organizations included in the study. The
organizational type with the lowest average percentage of its budget
derived from government funding was the traditional-established
(32 percent). After semipublic organizations (such as libraries) community-based organizations drew the highest average percentage of
their budgets from government sources (42 percent). Organizational
service areas most reliant on government funding were adoption services, foster care, day care, early childhood education, job training,
employment, family services, housing, and emergency shelter and
mental health services. Service areas least reliant on government were
arts, culture, and advocacy.
When respondents were asked whether their organizations
served a population they would characterize as “at risk” (defined
either financially or in terms of the acuity of service need), 73 percent indicated that they did. Data classified by organizational
type revealed that 89 percent of the community-based organiza-
NONPROFITS
61
Survey data
revealed that
government
funding was a
source of revenue
for 79 percent of
the organizations
included in
the study
62
ALEXANDER
tions, 80 percent of the faith-based organizations, 64 percent of
the traditional-established organizations, and 46 percent of the
semipublic organizations provided services to a population they
define as “at risk.” Given that community-based and faith-based
organizations comprise more than 80 percent of the emergency and
crisis intervention organizations, these figures were not surprising.
These two categories of organizations represented the vast majority of food banks, emergency shelters, emergency health care centers, and neighborhood centers that provide support services for
families.
Organizations were asked to indicate whether they had employed
strategies for coping in the current environment, and they were provided with a list of several possible strategies (including “other”).
Respondents were not limited as to the number of strategies they
could select. The most frequently selected strategy was “reduction in
staff levels and increased workloads,” which was selected by 55 percent of the respondents. Thirty percent reported “an increased
reliance on volunteers,” 26 percent had engaged in “management
reforms, mergers, or consolidations,” and 20 percent noted the need
to “eliminate services and programs.” (Additional survey results are
included under the themes in the subsequent section.)
Themes from Focus Groups and Survey Data
Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using a combination
of ethnographic and content analysis. Through a review of the transcripts, the four research participants identified recurring themes,
which were then systematically coded and categorized under larger
themes until the following five themes emerged.
Theme #1: Bifurcation of the Sector
Based on discussions in the focus groups as well as the survey results,
nonprofits of all organizational types are being required to professionalize their financial systems, their fundraising and marketing
strategies, and other management processes. Professionalization corresponds to a trend Salamon (Salamon, 1997) dubbed “the marketization of the sector,” in which nonprofits take on private sector
practices and technologies. As nonprofits are increasingly required
to demonstrate their effectiveness and efficiency through outcome
measures, they must implement administrative systems that document measures of fiscal and programmatic accountability.
Both the survey data and focus groups revealed that particular
types of nonprofits were better positioned to professionalize than others, although all seemed aware that it was a necessary adaptation.
Long-established traditional organizations, such as the YMCA, Red
Cross, and Salvation Army, had largely done so using a variety of
management techniques; they had also expanded into new growth
areas defined by county agency demand. In focus group discussions
T H E I M PA C T
OF
DEVOLUTION
ON
representatives of these organizations indicated that they were
strained by the requirements to adopt a management orientation.
However, their organizational structures and processes had already
clearly attained the level of maturation and specialization necessary
to make such a shift. They were challenged but adjusting.
By contrast, a diverse array of community- and faith-based organizations, including neighborhood centers and settlement houses,
were in different circumstances. Research from the survey as well
as the focus groups indicated that many of these organizations lacked
the service capacity, economies of scale, revenue flows, and trained
staff necessary to adjust to the new demands. For example, one nonprofit director spoke of the sophisticated performance measurement
plan designed specifically for the needs of his organization; he lacked
the staff to implement it. In other circumstances, the licensing of
organizations by various state boards (necessary for Medicaid reimbursement) often requires that organizations employ staff with higher
credentials, but salaries are not competitive enough to draw or retain
such staff. Positions may remain vacant for extended periods of time,
and organizations may find they do not meet requirements for state
licenses or Medicaid licensing.
Community- and faith-based nonprofits indicated in survey data
that they were responding to the current environmental shifts by cutting programs, rationing services, and charging fees when possible.
In focus groups organizational representatives indicated that the current shift to market- and business-directed management was resulting
in an internal shift in organizational resources from service delivery
to administration and management. They were spending more organizational resources on administration, grant writing, fundraising,
and documenting the need for their services, and less on service
delivery, than in the past.
Survey data indicated that community-based and smaller faithbased nonprofits had experienced the greatest financial difficulties
over the past year (Salamon, 1997) and the greatest degree o …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades