This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Austin, M. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Changing Relationship Between Nonprofit Organizations and Public Social Service Agencies in the Era of Welfare Reform

University of California, Berkeley

The implementation of welfare reform in the United States provides another opportunity to assess the relationship between nonprofits and public social service agencies. The primary goal of this analysis is to identify the major forces affecting the county social services agencies as they sought to implement welfare reform and how these forces can affect the agency’s relationship with community-based nonprofit service providers. The internal and external dimensions of the organizational change process are assessed in terms of the central concepts of devolution, privatization, and community building.

Key Words: nonprofits • public social services • welfare reform

References

• Adams, C., & Perlmutter, P. (1995). Leadership in hard times: Are nonprofits well-served?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(3), 253-262.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Alexander, E.R. (1995). How organizations act together: Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. New York: Gordon and Breach.
• Alexander, J. (1999). The impact of devolution on nonprofits: A multiphase study of social service organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(1), 57-70.[CrossRef]
• Alliance for Redesigning Government. (1997). Labor leaders voice reinvention goals. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
• Alperin, D. (1992). Family service agencies: Responding to change in a conservative decade. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 73(1), 32-39.[Web of Science]
• Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Austin, M.J. (Ed.). (2002). Innovative programs and practices emerging from the implementation of welfare reform. Berkeley: University of California, School of Social Welfare, Bay Area Social Services Consortium.
• Austin, M., Martin, M., Carnochan, S., Berrick, J.D., Goldberg, S., Kelley, J., & Weiss, B. (1999). Building a comprehensive agency-university partnership: The Bay Area Social Services Consortium. Journal of Community Practice, 6(3), 89-106.[CrossRef]
• Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Bartik, T. (1995). Using performance indicators to improve the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs (Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper 95-36). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
• Bernstein, S. (1991). Managing contracted services in the nonprofit agency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Brown, P., Pitt, J., & Hirota, J. (1999). New approaches to technical assistance: The role of coach. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
• Carnochan, S., & Austin, M. (1999). Supporting low-income workers in the 21st century: An evolving BASSC vision statement. Berkeley: University of California, School of Social Welfare, Bay Area Social Services Consortium.
• Carnochan, S., & Austin, M. (2002). Implementing welfare reform and guiding organizational change. Administration in Social Work, 26(1), 61-77.
• Craig, C., Klik, T., James, T., & Shamim, N. (1998). Blueprint for the privatization of child welfare. Boston: Institute for Children.
• Crittenden, W. (2000). Spinning straw into gold: The tenuous strategy, funding, and financial performance linkage. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 164-182.[Abstract]
• DeHoog, R.H. (1984). Contracting out for human services: Economic, political, and organizational perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Dina, R.P. (1993). Toward a new nonprofit structure: Lessons from the past. Nonprofit World, 11(4), 37-41.
• East Bay Management Assistance Partnership Project. (2000). East Bay MAPP online. Oakland, CA: Author.
• Eggers, W., & Ng, R. (1993). Social and health service privatization: A survey of county and state governments. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation.
• Ferris, J., & Grady, E. (1986). Contracting out: For what? With whom?Public Administration Review, 46(4), 332-344.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Fleisher, C.S. (1991). Using an agency-based approach to analyze collaborative federated interorganizational relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 116-130.[Abstract]
• Gais, T.L., Nathan, R.P., Lurie, I., & Kaplan, T. (2001). Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. In R.M. Blank & R. Haskins (Eds)., The new world of welfare (pp. 35-69). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Golensky, M., & DeRuiter, G.L. (1999). Merger as a strategic response to government contracting pressures: A case study. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(2), 137-152.[CrossRef]
• Gooden, V. (1998). Contracting and negotiation: Effective practices of successful human service contract managers. Public Administration Review, 58(6), 499-509.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Gray, B., & Wood, D.J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22.[Abstract]
• Gronbjerg, K. (1991). Managing grants and contracts: The case of four nonprofit social service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20, 5-24.[Abstract]
• Gronbjerg, K. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Gronbjerg, K.A., Chen, T.H., & Stagner, M.W. (1995). Child welfare contracting: Market forces and leverage. Social Service Review, 69, 583-596.[Web of Science]
• Hagen, J. (1999). Public welfare and human services: New directions under TANF?Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80(1), 78-90.[Web of Science]
• Harlan, S., & Saidel, J. (1994). Board members influence on the government-nonprofit relationship. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5, 173-196.[CrossRef]
• Hasenfeld, Y. (1983). Human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Hess, P., Mintun, G., Moelhman, A., & Pitts, G. (1992). The family connection center: An innovative visiting program. Child Welfare League of America, 71(1), 77-88.
• Kaplan, T. (2000). Wisconsin Works. In S. Liebschutz (Ed.)., Managing welfare reform in five states: The challenge of devolution (pp. 103-121). New York: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
• Kettner, P.M., & Martin, L.L. (1994). Purchase of service at 20: Are we using it well?Public Welfare, 52, 14-19.[Web of Science]
• Kettner, P.M., & Martin, L.L. (1996). The impact of declining resources and purchase of service contracting on private, nonprofit agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(3), 21-38.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kingsley, G.T., McNeely, J.B., & Gibson, J.O. (1997). Community building: Coming of age. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
• Kohm, A., La Piana, D., Vergara-Lobo, A., & Gowdy, H. (2000). Strategic restructuring: Findings from a study of integrations and alliances among nonprofit social service and cultural organizations in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children and Strategic Solutions.
• Kramer, R. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: "Dream or nightmare."Social Service Review, 68(1), 33-60.[Web of Science]
• Kramer, R., & Grossman, B. (1987). Contracting for social services: Process management and resource dependencies. Social Service Review, 61(1), 32-55.[Web of Science]
• Kramer, R., & Terrell, P. (1984). Social services contracting in the Bay Area. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies.
• La Piana, D. (1997). Beyond collaboration: Strategic restructuring of nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: The James Irvine Foundation and the National Center for Nonprofit Boards.
• La Piana, D. (2001). Real collaboration: A guide for grantmakers. New York: Ford Foundation.
• Liebschutz, S. (1992). Coping by nonprofit organizations during the Reagan years. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 363-380.[CrossRef]
• Liebschutz, S. (Ed.). (2000). Managing welfare reform in five states: The challenge of devolution. New York: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
• Light, P. (2000). Making nonprofits work: A report on the tides of nonprofit management reform. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute and the Brookings Institution Press.
• Lipsky, M., & Smith, S.R. (1989). Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 625-648.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Lurie, I. (2001). Changing welfare offices, Policy Brief No. 9. In Welfare reform and beyond. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Mann, E., McMillin, J., Rienzi, B., & Eviston, L. (1995). Implementation research on contracting for social services delivery: Testing some assumptions in a county substance abuse services program. Public Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 383-415.[CrossRef]
• Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations. (2000). Management innovation project technical assistance services. Baltimore, MD: Author.
• Mattessich, P.W., & Monsey, B.R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work?St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
• McMurtry, S., Netting, F., & Kettner, P. (1991). How nonprofits adapt to a stringent environment. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1, 235-252.[CrossRef]
• National Commission for Employment Policy. (1989). The long term employment implications of privatization: Evidence from selected U.S. cities and counties. Washington, DC: Author.
• Nightingale, D., & Pindus, N. (1997). Privatization of pubic social services. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
• O’Brien, J., & Collier, P. (1991). Merger problems for human service agencies: A case study. Administration in Social Work, 15(3), 19-31.[CrossRef]
• Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: An application to competing preconditions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 543-561.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Ostrander, S. (1987). Elite domination in private social agencies. In G. Domhoff & T. Dye (Eds.), Power elites and organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Peters, J.B., & Masaoka, J. (2000). A house divided: How nonprofits experience union drives. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(3), 305-317.[CrossRef]
• Powell, W.W., & DiMaggio, P.J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Prince, J., & Austin, M. (2001). Innovative programs and practices emerging from the implementation of welfare reform. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 1-14.
• Provan, K.G., & Milward, H.B. (1995). A preliminary theory of inter-organizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Reitan, T.C. (1998). Theories of inter-organizational relations in the human services. Social Service Review, 9, 285-309.
• Saidel, J. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543-553.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Saidel, J., & Harlan, S. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8(3), 243-259.[CrossRef]
• Salamon, L. (1987). Partners in public service. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Salamon, L. (1997). Private action/public good: Maryland’s nonprofit sector in a time of change. Baltimore: Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations and Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies.
• Sclar, E. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Scott, W., & Meyer, J. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108-140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Singer, M., & Yankey, J. (1991). Organization metamorphosis: A study of eighteen nonprofit mergers, acquisitions and consolidations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1(summer), 357-369.[CrossRef]
• Smith, S. (1989). The changing politics of child welfare services: New roles for the government and the nonprofit sectors. Child Welfare, 68(3), 289-299.[Web of Science]
• Smith, S.R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Non-profits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sosin, M.R. (1990, December). Decentralizing the social service system: A reassessment. Social Service Review, 64(4), 617-636.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Stein, D. (2000). Privatization of human services: Is it the best choice for children?. Washington, DC: National Association of Child Advocates.
• Stone, M.M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999, July). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration & Society, 31(3), 378-423.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Svihula, J., & Austin, M. (2001). Fostering neighborhood involvement in workforce development: The Alameda County neighborhood jobs pilot initiative. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 55-72.[CrossRef]
• Tuckman, H.P. (1998, Spring). Competition, commercialization, and the evolution of nonprofit organizational structures. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 17(2), 175-194.[CrossRef]
• U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. (1996). Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Conference report to accompany HR 3734 (Rep. No. 104-725). 104th Cong., 2nd sess., July 30, 1996.
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Child support enforcement: Early results on comparability of privatized and public offices (GAO/HEHS-97-4). Washington, DC: Author.
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997a). Managing for results: Analytic challenges in measuring performance (GAOHEHS/GGD-97-138). Washington DC: Author.
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997b). Privatization: Lessons learned by state and local governments (GAO/GGD-97-48). Washington, DC: Author.
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998a). Privatization: Questions state and local decision-makers used when considering privatization options (GAO/GGD-98-87). Washington, DC: Author.
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998b). Social service privatization: Expansion poses challenges in ensuring accountability for program results (report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives GAO/HEHS-98-6). Washington, DC: Author.
• Weil, M.O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41(5), 481-499.[Web of Science]
• Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: Foundation Center.
• Wynn, J. (2000). The role of local intermediary organizations in the youth development field. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall for Children, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
• Yates, J. (1997a). Managing the contracting process for results in welfare reform. Washington, DC: Welfare Information Network.
• Yates, J. (1997b). Performance management in human services. Washington, DC: Welfare Information Network.
• Yates, J. (1997c). Privatization and welfare reform. In Issue Notes (Vol. 1, pp. 1-3). Washington, DC: Welfare Information Network.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, 97-114 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0899764002250008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Trudeau Junior Partner or Empowered Community? The Role of Non-profit Social Service Providers amidst State Restructuring in the US Urban Stud, December 1, 2008; 45(13): 2805 - 2827. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. A. Graddy and B. Chen Influences on the Size and Scope of Networks for Social Service Delivery J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., October 1, 2006; 16(4): 533 - 552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Cho and D. F. Gillespie A Conceptual Model Exploring the Dynamics of Government-Nonprofit Service Delivery Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, September 1, 2006; 35(3): 493 - 509. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Austin, M. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?