This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
As chapter two will detail, existing and relevant empirical literature concerning the proposed inquiry has been developed predominantly within the disciplines of political science and sociology. This study builds on the knowledge base from the two disciplines while recognizing that social work is also an appropriate academic field from which to explore faith-based legislative advocacy. The profession and academic discipline of social work are necessarily concerned with such inquiry since legislative decisions concerning social policy effect the vulnerable populations with whom social workers engage. Such concern is related to a long history of legislative advocacy within the field of social work and current interest in the role of religion in shifting social policy.
The vulnerable populations with whom social workers frequently engage are directly affected by social policy legislation passed by national, state, and local governments, as demonstrated by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
The welfare reform legislation and practitioners
PRWORA required, at most, five year time-limits for individuals and families receiving assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in order to encourage families to prepare for and find employment. Virginia enacted legislation that further limited cash assistance to a maximum of two successive years and a lifetime maximum of five years (SPDP, 2002). While national and state leaders, including those in Virginia, touted the success of the legislation in reducing welfare roles and increasing employment, individuals and families struggled with issues not made public in such reports of success. Virginia leaders noted that welfare rolls had decreased, employment had increased, and even income had increased among families who once received assistance. Despite the reported success, however, many families still struggled with the expense of child care and health insurance due to the insufficient wages provided by the jobs that took them off "welfare as we know it" (Clinton, 1995). While employment among those who had previously been on welfare in Virginia increased by 2003, only 20% of those families were above the poverty level (Wemmerus, Kuhns, & Loeffler, 2003, p. xxv). The lived results of welfare reform legislation among social work clients prompted a number of social work groups including national and state chapters of the National Association of Social Work (NASW) to advocate for the reform of welfare reform and for a more effective system wide effort to alleviate poverty (NASW, 2006a, 2006b). Because social work practice with vulnerable populations is driven in part by social policy, legislative advocacy (Reisch, 2002; Schneider & Lester, 2001) or policy practice (Jansson, 2003) is well within the purview of social work practice and inquiry.
The NASW Code of Ethics states that Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social justice. (NASW, 1999, Section 6.04 a)
The ethical standard to engage in political and social activity as required by client needs, programming concerns, and injustice and oppression have historical precedent dating to the earliest days of the social work profession in the late nineteenth century.
The importance of legislative activism was underscored by the work and tradition of Jane Addams. Addams, a founder of Hull House and a key figure in the settlement house tradition, was politically active on matters of local, state, and national consequence. Connecting the welfare of the residents living in tenements around Hull House to physical and social conditions facilitated by local policy or a lack thereof, Addams advocated for garbage collection to prevent disease and improve aesthetics. In addition, she lobbied for labor laws, juvenile court, and pension for mothers with small children as solutions to the growing social problems of the industrial age (Jansson,
2003). She also advocated on a state level for laws that guaranteed fair and safe labor practices. Nationally and internationally, she lobbied for women's suffrage and peace. Addams and others in social work including Grace and Edith Abbott, Frances Perkins, Wilbur Cohen, and Bertha Reynolds anchor a tradition in social work that cannot disconnect individual and family casework from the political contexts that are to some extent determinative of micro situations and crises (Schneider & Netting, 1999).
Improving or fundamentally changing social policy in order to ameliorate human suffering and oppression was then and is now a principal task of the profession. As indicated by its inclusion in social work education accreditation standards, advocacy concerning social policy is a vital part of the profession that social work students must learn prior to entering the profession. According to the standards for baccalaureate and master's education programs, the purposes of social work education include, "preparing social workers to formulate and influence social policies and social work services in diverse political contexts" (CSWE, 2004, p. 5).
Studies on the Interaction of Government and Nonprofit Organizations
Recent researchers provide more comprehensive descriptions of the interaction of government and nonprofit organizations by focusing on single locations. Austin's (2004) edited book, Changing Welfare Services: Case studies of local welfare reform programs, details welfare reform implementation in the San Francisco Bay Area. This book is composed of several case studies that focus on three topics: service delivery redesign, partnerships between and among community-based nonprofits and county social service agencies, and restructuring of county social service agencies. Libby and Austin (2004) address in detail a Napa County collaboration of nonprofit and county human service agencies (pp. 267-283). After studying the coalition-building process, the authors indicate that, in the end, nonprofits still face identity challenges due to welfare reform. The participating nonprofits in Libby and Austin's study have shifted back and forth from a focus on mental health to behavioral health, due to the inclusion of many additional programs in the collaboration. The collaborative nonprofits also expressed difficulty in maintaining an identity that is separate from the county offices (Libby & Austin).
Schneider (2006) explained the notion of social capital in order to capture the dynamics of welfare reform implementation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Milwaukee and Kenosha, Wisconsin. The author examined how nonprofit human service agencies became involved in service provision after welfare reform. Schneider identified that size is one factor that affected nonprofit agencies. The study indicated that because of lesser social capital connections to funding sources, smaller agencies typically experienced significant financial stress after welfare reform in contrast to the larger agencies. In addition, Schneider found the smaller agencies with official contracts were able to expand their programs due to increased funding. The agencies in the ancillary system experienced funding strains; these included organizations providing food, shelter, and health care (Schneider).
Chapter Two will continue with a review of the literature with a focus on the definitions of nonprofit human service organizations. History and theories will then be reviewed in detail to assist the reader in understanding the context of the relationship between the government and the nonprofit sector. I will apply failure theories, frameworks of government-nonprofit relations, and resource dependence theory to understanding nonprofits' roles, their interaction with government, and the ways in which environmental factors affect the organizations.
Definitions of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations
Definitions of nonprofit organizations are evolving and have been cause for debate. Terminology related to nonprofit organizations includes references to the tax exempt sector, non-governmental sector, independent sector, the civil society, voluntary sector, and charitable sector. These terms refer to several of the foci that nonprofit organizations represent. As these terms have emerged from different contexts over time, a detailed review is a helpful first step in clarifying this concept before I define the other concepts for this study.
"Tax-exempt sector" refers to the organizations in this sector that are exempt from taxation under tax law. Nonprofit human service organizations fall into this classification. This term appeared as early as the 1910s when Congress applied tax exempt status to those organizations that were proposed to work for charitable, scientific and educational goals (Frumkin, 2002). Since then, increasing categories have been added to the tax-exempt sector, producing additional categories and a composition of the sector that has changed over time. In 1998, there were up to 29 categories of tax-exempt organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (Weitzman, Jalandoni, Lampkin, & Pollak, 2002). This term, however, does not include a great number of nonprofit-like groups such as grass-roots groups or informal community organizations that do not register with the IRS.
Developed in the 1970s, the term "non-governmental sector (NGO)" emphasizes the nature of those organizations in contrast to government. It refers to actions and activities concerning public affairs, but these activities are implemented by private entities rather than the governmental sector. This term is broadly used in developing countries to refer to those organizations engaged in rural and social development, educational improvement, environmental issues and community health (Salamon & Anheier, 1992). NGO is a term typically applied to organizations at a grass-roots level internationally, while the term "nonprofit organizations" is used to indicate organizations and activities within the United States.
Both "independent sector" and "third sector" are used to emphasize the role and capacities of organizations, as a third force, free from the pressure of political power and market forces. The term "independent sector" which was widely accepted in the 1980s, emerged from the start of a particular organization, Independent Sector, the national trade association that represented both grant-making and grant-receiving organizations (Frumkin, 2002; O'Connell, 1997). However, these terms are criticized in that those organizations are neither independent nor clearly defined as opposed to the government and market forces. The problem with this definition is that nonprofits depend highly on both government and private business. In addition, the boundaries between those organizations and the government/market are quite vague.
According to Salamon and Anheier (1992), the terms "charitable sector" and "voluntary sector" refer to the philanthropic character of those organizations. "Charitable sector" is a popular term in several European countries; it implies that the supports for these organizations come from private, charitable donations. Issues raised in using this term are, first, that it implies the contributions of those organizations are from elite donors and thus may not adequately represent the efforts of self-help among clients and caregivers. Second, it is not clear that charitable contributions are ever a single source of revenue. In some cases, charitable contributions are not even the major source of revenue (Salamon & Anheier, 1992). The term "voluntary sector" expresses the critical role that volunteers play in organizations' operations (Lohmann, 1992). The term is problematic in that it obscures the growing professionalism in this sector. In many organizations, trained and paid employees, rather than volunteers, are in charge of activities (Frumkin, 2002).
This study used the term "nonprofit organizations" because this is the most widely used term in the United States, emphasizing that these organizations are not intended to generate profits. Some other features are tied to this term. In Salamon and Anheier's (1992) massive study of nonprofit organizations in the United States and in other countries all over the world, the authors concluded that nonprofit organizations share five common features.
1. Formal: the organizations have to be institutionalized to some extent.
2. Private: the organizations are different from government institutionally.
3. Non-distribution: the organizations do not return the profit they produced to the owners, or managers.
4. Self-governing: these organizations can control their own activities rather than being under the control of other outside organizations.
5. Voluntary: the organizations are involved in some significant degree of voluntary participation.
Frumkin (2002) provides another definition comprising three features of nonprofit and voluntary organizations: "(1) They do not coerce participation; (2) they operate without distributing profits to stakeholders; (3) they exist without simple and clear lines of ownership and accountability" (p. 3). In comparison to Salamon and Anheier (1992), the first feature matches the voluntary character and the second one matches the non-distribution feature. The third feature, which is not related to any characteristic provided by Salamon and Anheier, demonstrates the large variety within this sector and shows the need to define it more specifically. As Esman and Uphoff(1984) indicated: "Almost anything that one can say about [nonprofit organizations] is true-or false-in at least some instance, somewhere." (p. 58). Because the concept of nonprofit organizations includes a great degree of diversity, the study applied the specific term "nonprofit human service organizations".
Nonprofit Human Service Organizations
Although there is some dispute, the term "human service" is a commonly used equivalent of "social services" in the United States. Kahn (1979) defined "social services" in the United States as "those services rendered to individuals and families under societal auspices, excluding the major independent fields of service (that is, excluding health, education, housing, and income maintenance)" (p. 20). Kramer (1987) described social services as the social care given to deprived, neglected, or handicapped children and youth, the needy elderly, and mentally ill. In practical terms, those services would include day care, foster care, institutional facilities, information and referral services, counseling, sheltered workshops, homemaking services, vocational training and rehabilitation. Smith (2002) believed that social services are the activities encompassing an expanding array of programs developed to improve the lives of families and individuals. These services include programs designed to address domestic violence, rape, AIDS, poverty, homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, and the needs of disabled persons.
Human service organizations, according to Hasenfeld (1983), are differentiated from other organizations by two characteristics: (a) the organizations work directly with "people" who are called the "raw material" of human service organizations; and (b) the organizations "are mandated to protect and to promote the welfare of the people they serve" (p. 1). Hasenfeld then provided distinctive features of human service organizations, which overlap in part with later definitions of the nonprofit organization as discussed by Salamon and Anheier (1997) and Frumkin (2002). This study adopted an integrated definition of nonprofit human service organizations: they are the nonprofit organizations working in the human service area, such as the YMCA, American Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. These organizations fit with the research question of this study, because they are at the center of service delivery between the government and many welfare recipients.
History of Government and the Development of Nonprofit Organizations
Gronbjerg and Salamon (2003) indicated four major arenas of government nonprofit interaction: (a) government spending, (b) government taxation policies which regulate nonprofits' tax-exempt status and eligible donation activities, (c) government regulations that determine the activities the nonprofits can undertake, and (d) government policies. I focus on these arenas as I review the history of relationships between the government and nonprofit organizations in the United States.
Government-nonprofit relations date back to colonial America (Hammack, 2002).
At that time, churches provided most religious services. Affiliated with the churches were ministers, their wives, and many services that included formal education, libraries, and efforts to aid the poor. Although these appeared as some early forms of later nonprofit organizations, the real appearance of the independent and charitable organizations was not apparent until the American Revolution. British officials applied their influence through the Church of England in America by tax support (Hammack).
The churches carried out the official duties, maintained Anglican control of colleges and universities, and denied charters and privileges to other religious groups (Hammack).
Hammack believes that those established churches actually generated an environment unfriendly to the real nonprofit organizations. Although there was government spending on many of those institutions, it was very limited at the time. For example, government spending flowed to the newly founded Harvard University, Columbia University, and
Massachusetts General Hospital because of their connections to the Anglican Church
The American Revolution and the resulting new republic built an environment for the development of nonprofit organizations, in part at least because of the constitutional separation of church and state (Hammack, 2002). This provision made it more difficult than it had been under British rule for the federal and state governments to levy taxes for program expansion or subsidization of churches, schools, libraries or other nonprofit organizations. With limited government support, the organizations of the new republic had to seek other sources of income, such as private donations or service fees. Hammack argues that "constitutional change accounts for a new demand for nonprofit organizations (or of a means of some sort to provide essential educational, cultural, social, health care, and religious services) and a new supply of nonprofit organizations" (p. 1648). By 1900, there was significant growth in the number of organizations that meet today's criteria of nonprofit structure. Organizations worked on behalf of white women, African Americans and/or other disadvantaged people (Hammack). Although nonprofit service agencies in the Northeast and Midwest received government funding, most other nonprofit organizations relied on private contributions instead of governmental funding (Smith, 1998). According to Smith and Lipsky (1993), the government accepted only moderate responsibility for dealing with social problems at this time.
Theories Related to Government and Nonprofit Relations
Theories applied to this study include three perspectives.
The first perspective covers fundamental questions about the roles nonprofit organizations play in service delivery, in contrast to the other two major sectors of government and the market.
The second perspective specifically involves various forms of government and nonprofit relations.
Third, in applying a resource dependence framework, this study attempts to reveal how the government-nonprofit relationship might be reshaped when the policy environment changes.
I. Failure Theories
Failure theories explain nonprofit organizations' participation in public service delivery through a series of failures related to the government and market sectors, including government failure, market and contract failure, and voluntary failure. Weisbrod (1975, 1977) indicates that nonprofit organizations exist to provide public goods where government tends not to produce. This is his public goods theory or the nonprofit theory of government failure. As a term of economic theory, public goods refer to two characteristics: nonrival and nonexclusive. "Nonrival" means the costs to produce public goods for many people are the same as the costs of producing them for one person and many persons can enjoy the goods at the same time without reducing the amount of the goods. The "nonexclusive" feature is that once public goods are produced, there is no easy way to limit other people from consuming them when they do not pay for them. Public goods, such as national defense, air pollution control, and radio broadcasts, can hardly be provided by the market because few customers will pay for goods they can enjoy for free. Government, on the other hand, is supposed to produce public goods since it has the authority to tax people to produce them. However, Weisbroad (1977) argues that government will tend to produce public goods merely to satisfy a majority of voters. That is, there will be some residual public goods left beyond government's provision. Government is unable to provide public goods that benefit only a few people other than the majority. In this regard, Weisbroad (1977) believes that nonprofit organizations are needed to fill the gap of supplying the goods and services that government does not provide.
Second, Hansmann (1980, 1987) provides another theory of nonprofits' roles: nonprofit organizations exist to prevent "contract failure." Contract failures occur when the purchaser and consumer are not the same agent. Krashinsky (1973), in his study of Ontario day care centers, found that many nonprofits participated in the child care area. He argued that this resulted from parents' difficulty determining the quality of services in for-profit child-care centers. Hansmann further suggested that under these circumstances, a private organization has incentives for taking advantage of its customers by reducing the quality and quantity of services which it originally promised its purchasers. On the other hand, nonprofit organizations are viewed as trustworthy because they are constrained by the regulation of nondistribution. Nonprofit organizations have limited incentives to provide fewer or low quality services because they will not benefit by these behaviors. Salamon (1987) argued that the above two theories of government and market failure neglect the essential reality of government-nonprofit relations. In his earlier research (1981), he termed the role that nonprofit organizations play as "third-party government" by studying the historical context of these organizations in the United States. He recognized the extensive part played by government supports for nonprofits and nonprofits' involvement with public actions in the American welfare state. Salamon (1987) was unsatisfied with the former theoretical perspectives as they defined organizations as merely residual players in response to government and market failures. He argued that nonprofit organizations are an object with inherent failures in which government is needed to supplement those shortcomings. He indicated that "voluntary failure" included: (a) philanthropic insufficiency, the idea that nonprofits tend to be unable to generate adequate resources to deal with rising human service problems in an industrial society; (b) philanthropic particularism, that nonprofits tend to center their services on particular groups instead of all populations; (c) philanthropic paternalism, that is, when private contributions are the only source of nonprofit organizations' revenue, they tend to serve their wealthy members instead of responding to community needs; (d) philanthropic amateurism, that nonprofits tend to cope with human problems by applying nonprofessional approaches such as attributing moral disadvantages to the poor. Moreover, with limited sources of income, nonprofits may not be able to hire trained professionals because they cannot offer adequate wages. Salamon (1987) indicated that nonprofits' failures "correspond well with government's strength, and vice versa" (p. 113). He also stated that: Government is in a good position to generate a more reliable stream of resources, to set priorities on the basis of a democratic political process instead of the wishes of the wealthy, to offset part of the paternalism of the charitable system by making access to care a right instead of a privilege, and to improve the quality of care by instituting quality-control standards. (p.113)
Salamon's (1987) voluntary failure theory reveals a picture in which government and nonprofit share an interactive relationship. He believes government and nonprofits play supplemental roles in the area of human service delivery. Those features are helpful in discussing the changes in government and nonprofit organizations as a result of welfare reform implementation. Failure theories provide this study with a view that the government and nonprofit sectors have different functions. Those theories suggest that the government, market, and nonprofit sectors have unchangeable features. However, increasingly blurry boundaries exist among them, raising questions about the applicability of the theory. Below, I discuss cross-sectored frameworks and form a theoretical perspective for this study.
II. Government and Nonprofit Relations
Recently, scholars have organized and categorized government-nonprofit relations by recognizing the diversity of their relationships all over the world.
Clark (1991) suggested that nonprofits have only three choices in responding to government but they can never ignore the government; he noted that nonprofits could oppose government, complement it or reform it.
Commuri (1995), on the other hand, indicated that governmental attitudes toward nonprofits have ranged from supportive to facilitative, then to neutral, to regulative, and finally to repressive.
Other scholars look at both sides of the relationship (Coston, 1998; Najam, 2000; Young, 1999).
Among them, Young (1999) provides three straight forward views for conceptualizing government-nonprofit relations:
1. Supplementary model: nonprofits are viewed as independent agents operating for public goods where the government is unable to fulfill them or satisfy the public;
2. Complementary model: nonprofits are viewed as partners with the government;
3. Adversarial model: mutual accountability exists in this model in which government actively regulates behaviors and services of nonprofit and also responds to advocacy activities of the nonprofits at the same time.
Young (1999) indicates that the three models are not mutually exclusive; therefore, supplementary, complementary, and adversarial relationships can co-exist in one nonprofit organization's relations with government agencies.
In a later study, Young (2000) applied the three models to four countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Japan. With a particular focus on the literature in the United States, he found that the three models were helpful for understanding government-nonprofit relations in the history of United States. The supplementary model described the relations between government and nonprofits in late 19th century when the government was relatively passive and charitable organizations actively responded to social problems coming from industrialization and immigration. The complementary model was helpful for viewing the post-World War II era when the American government built the welfare state with nonprofit organizations to provide for extensive public human services needs. The adversarial model applied to the protest movements that originated in nonprofits in the 1960s, which sought to change governmental policies. Young (2000) stressed that shifts in government-nonprofit relations occurred from time to time. As these relations have changed, sometimes supplementary, complementary, and adversarial models have coexisted. Through the supplementary model, government is viewed as adopting limited roles in public service provision and leaving spaces for nonprofits to fill the gaps by generating resources from charitable funding and voluntarism. The complementary model indicates that government nonprofit relations increase in response to government's higher degree of promise in public service involvement. An adversarial relationship exists as nonprofit organizations play advocacy roles with or in opposition to aspects of the government. This framework best supported the subject of this study. It addressed various relationships between government and nonprofit organizations and was applicable to relationships in changeable circumstances. It allowed researchers to include the variables of power and formality in the relationship, and organizations' choices of strategies. Young's (1999) framework and his subsequent study about the United States are helpful in indicating the changing relationship between government and nonprofit organizations.
Applying this framework in the welfare reform context, I argue that PRWORA has created a complementary relationship because the Act encouraged states to provide human service by contracting with non-governmental organizations including public charitable organizations, religious organizations, and for-profit organizations. On the other hand, the relationship can be supplemental. Because the government no longer takes full responsibility for people in need after welfare reform, nonprofit organizations may provide public goods that government cannot provide in the post-welfare reform era.
The above government-nonprofit relations are applicable to most forms of relationships in a society, but they omit a longitudinal perspective which would explain the reason that some nonprofit organizations continuously receive government support.
One possible explanation is the bureaucratic nature of government agencies. Often, government agency staff seeks to avoid the additional works that accompanies the awarding of government support to new agencies. Instead, government agencies tend to contract with the same nonprofit agencies continuously. On the other hand, nonprofits are likely to seek continuous government support; this can be explained by neoinstitutional theory.
According to Frumkin (2002), nonprofits are viewed as "legitimacy seeking conformists" in neo-institutional theory rather than "innovators" and "efficiency-maximizers" (p. 207).
In the beginning, organizations may develop new practices or purposes when commencing new operations. They make rational choices to interact with their environment. However, in the long term, the environment constrains the organizations' capacity for innovation. From this perspective, nonprofits will maintain continuous contracting relationship with government agencies if possible, making nonprofits and government agencies similar to one another.
III. Resource Dependence Perspective
The resource dependence perspective is reviewed in this study to address the process of change within nonprofit organizations as a result of government influences. The resource dependence perspective is one of the most significant approaches addressed in the organizational research literature. This perspective is also believed to parallel the model of political economy (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). It views the organizational environment as an open system, which accounts for organizational activities and outcomes (Pfeffer & Salancik). It holds that organizations have to engage in exchange behaviors with other groups and with the environment, as organizations are not "self-contained" or "self-sufficient " (p. 43). The exchange may involve monetary resources, physical resources, information, and/or social legitimacy. However, in order to acquire resources consistently, the organization may be required to reciprocate in some fashion. This process is called the organization's "social control" or "external constraint" (p.43).
Whether social control or external constraint causes one organization to depend on another is determined by three factors (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978):
1. "Resource importance" means the extent to which the organization requires the resources supplied by other organization for its continued operation and survival.
2. The extent of discretion over the allocation of a resource supplied by another group.
3. "The concentration of resource control" refers to the extent to which input or output transactions involve a relatively small number of significant organizations (p. 45-51).
According to the resource dependence perspective of Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), dependence can be defined as "the product of the importance of a given input or output to the organization and the extent to which [the input or output] is controlled by relatively few organizations" (p. 51). Thus, resource dependence theory holds that "the greater the dependence of one organization on resources controlled by an external element, the greater the influence of that element on the organization" (Hasenfeld, 1992, p.31).
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) further indicate that an "asymmetry" exists when the dependence between organizations gives one organization power over the other. The reason for asymmetry is that the exchange is not of equal importance to the two organizations, which may happen when the two organizations are greatly different in size (Pfeffer & Salancik). The asymmetry may occur when the government provides funds to nonprofit human service agencies because the government can control greater financial resources and has legitimate power.
Furthermore, in order to secure external resources, a nonprofit service agency may develop various strategies to manage the external environment, which, in turn, may influence its service delivery system. For example, nonprofit human service organizations receiving governmental contracts for delivering services may adopt strategies such as "creaming" clients so that they may avoid helping the most difficult people in order to ensure positive outcomes or using unpaid or low-paid workers to reduce costs (Hasenfeld, 1992). Applying a resource dependence perspective to government-nonprofit relations demonstrates that the impacts of government policy on nonprofits lie in the financial conditions of the organization. Thus, this study considered organizational financial conditions by applying measurements of nonprofits financial vulnerability which will be introduced in the next section of this chapter.
Summary of Theories
Three theories were introduced to form a theoretical perspective on government nonprofit relationships. Failure theories help us to understand the different functions of government and nonprofit organization in a society. These theories also indicate the advantages and disadvantages of government and nonprofit organizations in their involvement in service delivery. This theoretical perspective clarifies both government and nonprofit organizations' roles in welfare reform implementation.
In addition, it reveals the importance of government-nonprofit relationships in the service delivery systems resulting from welfare reform policies. Young's (1999) frameworks specifically indicated three types of government nonprofit relationships in the United States. In this study, the supplementary and complementary models are suitable for analyzing the government-nonprofit relationship after welfare reform. The supplementary model is applicable if changes in states' welfare reform regulations are not related to changes in government support for nonprofit organizations. This would mean that nonprofit human service organizations work independently in the area where governments are not involved, or that welfare reform policies posed by state governments have limited interaction with nonprofit human service organizations. The complementary model applies if changes in welfare policy are highly related to changes in government support and expenses for major programs in nonprofit human service organizations. The assumptions of this study are based on this theoretical framework
Resource dependency theory suggests that whether an asymmetrical relationship exists between government and nonprofit organizations depends on many organizational factors, such as the importance of income other than government support, the organizations' discretion over the money, and the organizations' income concentration.
Based on this perspective, familiarity with the financial backgrounds of nonprofit organizations is essential to understanding the government-nonprofit relationship after welfare reform. This study sought appropriate measures of organizational financial factors and used those described by Tuckman and Chang's (1991) model of financial vulnerability of nonprofit organizations. The details of this approach are presented in the next section.
In the above sections of this chapter I have discussed the developmental history of relations between government and nonprofits. In addition, I presented three theoretical perspectives-Failure Theories, Young's (1999) Cross-sectored Framework, and Resource Dependence Theories- and discussed their application for this research.
In the following section, I review the backgrounds of predictors for this study including state-level variables and organizational variables. I begin with a discussion of variables related to organizations' financial vulnerability.
HAHN, Y.-T. (August, 2007). GOVERNMENT-NONPROFIT RELATIONSHIP AFTER WELFARE REFORM-AN ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY.
Clark, J. M. (1991). Democratizing development: The role of voluntary organizations.
West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. - Requested @ Main library
Commuri, C. (1995, November). Sate repression and the limits of voluntary action:
Case study of the "Save Narmada Movement" in India. Paper presented at the
ARNOVA annual conference, Cleveland, Ohio.
Coston, J. (1998). A model and typology of government-NGO relationships. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358-382.
Najam, A. (2000). The four-C's of third sector-Government relations: Confrontation,
co-optation, complementarity, cooperation. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 10(4), 375-396.
Young, D. R. (1999). Complementary, supplementary or adversarial: A theoretical and historical examination of government-nonprofit relations in the U.S. In E. T.
Boris. and C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Government and nonprofit organizations: The challenges of civil society. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations:
Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 149-172.