The Relationship Between State Agencies and NonprofitOrganizations Introduction The relationship between governmentagencies and nonprofit organizations is the focus of increasingattention within the public administration community. Practitionersrecognize that the organization of public services relies to asubstantial degree upon what we have come to call third-partygovernment (Salamon, 1981). Nongovernmental actors not only delivergovernment-funded services but also actively participate throughoutthe policy process. Often the third-party is a nonprofitorganization. In the last decade or so, researchers from a varietyof disciplines have examined this evolutionary development moreclosely (Kramer, 1981; Salamon and Abramson, 1982; Salamon, 1987;Gronbjerg, 1987; Ostrander, Langton, and Van Til, 1987; Lipsky andSmith, 1989-90; Wolch, 1990; Provan and Milward, 1990). A 1989National Academy of Public Administration report, Privatization:The Challenge to Public Management, urged that publicadministrators and policymakers in general acknowledge thesignificant management challenges posed by government programs thatinvolve such "tools of government action" as contracting out, loanguarantees, government sponsored enterprises, and vouchers(Salamon, 1989b). Within this context of extensive sharing ofresponsibility between governmental and nongovernmental actors foroperating public programs, the government/nonprofit relationship iswidely acknowledged as a critical element. The shrinking capacityof public organizations, increasing demand for services, andcontinuing trend toward decentralized program delivery underscoreits importance. At the same time, an understanding of the precisecharacter of the state/voluntary sector relationship and the degreeof interdependence between public agencies and nonprofitorganizations requires additional empirical investigation. Researchfindings reported here describe that relationship in terms of thedependence of public agencies and nonprofit organizations on eachother for resources and their resulting interdependence. Theframework laid out in this study emerged from a synthesis of threesources: (1) the perspectives of organization theory, especiallypower/dependence and resource dependence, and bureaucraticpolitics; (2) a series of exploratory model refinement interviewswith four public-sector and five nonprofit- sector participants inan earlier policy study (Dawes and Saidel, 1988); and (3) a fieldpretest in June-July 1989, with 20 state agency and 20 nonprofitadministrators from four service areas. Emerson's (1962) theory ofreciprocal power-dependence relations provided the building blocksfor the framework used in this research. He reasoned that the powerof A over B is equal to, and based upon, the dependence of B uponA. Recognizing the reciprocity of social relations, we canrepresent a power-dependence relation as a pair of equations: Pab =Dba Pba = Dab (Emerson, 1962, p. 33). For the purposes of thisstudy, if a becomes s for state agencies and b becomes n fornonprofit organizations, the equations can be read as follows: Thepower of state agencies over nonprofit organizations equals thedependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies forresources (Psn = Dns). The power of nonprofit organizations overstate agencies equals the dependence of state agencies on nonprofitorganizations for resources (Pns = Dsn). The use of Dsn and Dnsyields two measures of resource dependence that, taken together,delineate a current picture of resource interdependence betweenstate and nonprofit organizations. What resources, common acrossservice areas, are exchanged between state government bureaucraciesand public benefit nonprofit organizations? Resources that flowfrom state agencies to nonprofit organizations are: revenues;information, including expertise and technical assistance;political support and legitimacy, in the sense of externalvalidation (Galaskiewicz, 1985); and access to the nonlegislativepolicy process (Rourke, 1984). Nonprofit organizations supply theirservice-delivery capacity, information, political support, andlegitimacy to state agencies. Nonprofit organizationservice-delivery capacity was documented as a substantial resourceto government in the Urban Institute Nonprofit Sector Projectfinding that "nonprofit organizations actually deliver a largershare of the services government finances than do governmentagencies themselves" (Salamon, 1987, p. 30). Three resourcedependence criteria or dimensions of dependence (Bacharach andLawler, 1981) can be specified: (1) the importance of the resource;(2) the availability of alternatives; and (3) the ability to compelprovision of the resource. The importance, or essentiality of aresource to an organization, consists of the organization's needfor the resource in order to function, to operate, or to deliverprograms or services (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau,1964; Jacobs, 1974; Thompson, 1967; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer andSalancik, 1978; Brudney, 1978; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, andKruytbosch, 1980; Provan and Skinner, 1989). The importancedimension incorporates the elements of substitutability andcriticality or the organization's ability to forego the resourceand still continue operating (Jacobs, 1974; Pfeffer and Salancik,1978; Aldrich, 1979). The availability of the same resource fromanother supplier is widely acknowledged as a dimension ofdependence (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964;Thompson, 1967; Jacobs, 1974; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik,1978; Brudney, 1978; Provan and Skinner, 1989). Cook's explanationis representative: "To the extent that alternative sources areavailable to an organization in an exchange network, dependence isless..." (1977, p. 66). Insofar as organization A can compel,pressure, or force organization B to provide needed resources, A isless dependent on B. In contrast to the availability ofalternatives, this dimension appears much less frequently in theliterature (Blau, 1964; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, andKruytbosch, 1980). In the context of third-party governmentresearch, the ability to compel provision of a resource includesstatutory and regulatory sanctions as well as the use of lessformal kinds of pressure to force resource provision. This expandedscope is appropriate to the complex political environment withinwhich inter-organizational resource exchanges occur across sectors.In order to determine the degree of reciprocal dependence, it isimportant to examine both state and non-profit administrators withrespect to the level of dependence each group perceives both stateand non-profits have on each other. While the literature hasprovided a framework for the factors that need investigation, ithas not provided any evidence of actual differences in dependence(or the perception of dependence), either generally or in the caseof specific service areas. The present study examined four keyvariables. The first was the general dependence of nonprofitorganizations on states (the importance of the resource obtainedfrom the state, the availability of the resource from alternativesources, and the ability to compel the provision of the resourcefrom the state). The second was the general dependence of the stateon nonprofit organizations (the importance of the resource obtainedfrom the nonprofit organization, the availability of the resourcefrom alternative sources, and the ability to compel the provisionof the resource from the nonprofit organizations). These werederived from the work of Bacharach and Lawler (1981). The third wasdependence of the state on the non-profit organizations by servicesector (arts, health, developmental disabilities, and humanservices). The fourth was dependence of nonprofit organizations onthe state by service sector (arts, health, developmentaldisabilities, and human services). The following hypothesescharacterized the specific expectations of the study: [Itemize AllHypotheses Here] Method Sample The population of interest in thisstudy was 1) nonprofit organizations in the State of New York inone of the designated service areas, and 2) divisions within thestate system in each of the same service areas. An explanation ofthe study was sent to each sector (nonprofit and state) requestingresponses from interested parties. The final sample of 80 nonprofitorganizations consisted of a random sample of 20 organizations ineach of the four service areas – arts, health, developmentaldisabilities, and human service areas – from those who indicatedinterest. The sample from the state was obtained by randomlyselecting 20 persons from the same four service sectors from thosewho responded with interest. Tables 1 and 2, below, present theprinciple descriptive categorical and continuous information,respectively, for the two final groups: [Insert Table 1 Here][Insert Table 2 Here] Measures To measure reciprocal resourcedependence of state agencies and nonprofit organizations, 14Likert-type scales were constructed with a number of items to whichthe respondent indicated intensity of agreement or disagreement ona six-point scale. Response categories were strongly disagree,generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generallyagree, strongly agree. The conceptual anchors of each scale were(1) independence and (6) dependence. That is, higher scoresrepresented greater dependence in the area being assessed. Threescales (importance, alternative availability, and pressure)measured the dependence of state agencies on nonprofitorganizations for resources. Three parallel scales measured thesame dimensions for resource dependence in the other direction,that is, the dependence of nonprofit organizations on stateagencies for resources. Items were predominantly attitudinal; somewere behavioral. The following items are samples from theimportance, alternative availability, and pressure scales,respectively. S1. State agencies often use ideas from nonprofitorganizations to formulate policy recommendations. N1. Nonprofitorganizations often use ideas from state agencies lO formulatepolicy recommendations. S2.There are certainly other supporters ofagency interests as valuable as nonprofit organizations. N2. Thereare certainly other supporters of nonprofit organizations'interests as valuable as state agencies. S3.Agencies are in noposition to force nonprofit organizations to implement theirprograms. N3. Nonprofit organizations are in no position to forceagencies to fund their programs. Scale scores were the average ofthe item scores. Table 3 reports reliability results for the sixscales. Alpha reliability coefficients are listed in bold-facetype. Discriminant validity may be measured by the inter-scalecorrelation coefficients shown on the diagonal in that table. Table3: Reliabilities of State and Nonprofit Scales Scale ReliabilityState Importance .67 State Alternative Availability .73 StatePressure .63 Nonprofit Importance .70 Nonprofit AlternativeAvailability .70 Nonprofit Pressure .75 The remaining eight scaleswere divided, four each for state departments and non-profitagencies, into individual service areas. These were arts, health,developmental disabilities, and human services. The first set offour examined dependence of the state departments on nonprofitagencies in the four areas; the second set of four scales assessedthe dependence of nonprofits on state agencies in the same fourareas. The average of the three individual scale scores measuringstate agency dependence on nonprofit agencies became Dsn in themodel. The average of the three individual scale scores measuringnonprofit agency dependence on state agencies became Dns. Thesereciprocal resource flows, understood together, became the basisfor a g e n e r a l model of resource dependence between sectors.Design The design of the study was [Enter the Study Design Here].The particular strengths of this design are [Enter the DesignStrengths Here]. The design is weak in the areas of [Enter theDesign Weaknesses Here]. Procedure The total number of studyparticipants was 153: 80 nonprofit and 73 state agency managers.Public-sector respondents were 20 people, including commissioners,from each of the 4 state agencies and executive directors from 20nonprofit organizations in each of the service areas. Of the 80nonprofit agency respondents, 14 were top-level managers other thanthe executive director. All nonprofit and some state agencyrespondents participated in two-part, on-site interviews, includinga self-administered survey completed immediately and an interviewwith demographic and open-ended questions. State agencycommissioners designated two additional executive administratorsfor the research interview, and they, in turn, identified 17 othermanagers to receive a mailed survey.
- a) What is/are the independent variable(s) in your study? (5points)
PADM 580
Assignment 1
b) What is/are the dependent variables in your study? (5points)
