Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public

NASPAA – The Global Standard in Public Service Education1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517

[email protected] • www.naspaa.org

journal of public affairs education

volu

me 21 n

o. 3

sum

mer 2015

Summer 2015The journal of NASPAA — The Global Standard in Public Service education

JPAEjourNAl of Public AffAirS educAtioN

volume 21 Number 3

Kristina Lambright Binghamton University SUNYLaura Langbein American University Ya Li Beijing Institute of Technology

Scott Lazenby City of Sandy, OregonSteven R. Maxwell Florida Southwestern State College

Barbara McCabe University of Texas-San AntonioLorenda A. Naylor University of Baltimore Ashley Nickels Rutgers University-Camden

Michael Popejoy Florida International University David Reingold Purdue University

Dahlia Remler Baruch College CUNYNadia Rubaii Binghamton University SUNY

Meghna Sabharwal University of Texas at Dallas Michelle Saint-Germain California State University, Long Beach

Jodi Sandfort University of MinnesotaRobert A. Schuhmann University of Wyoming

Patricia M. Shields Texas State UniversityJessica Sowa University of Colorado Denver

Kendra Stewart College of CharlestonGiovanni Valotti Università BocconiDavid Van Slyke Syracuse University

Karel Van der Molen Stellenbosch University, South AfricaBlue Wooldridge Virginia Commonwealth University

Firuz Demir Yasamıs American University in the Emirates

Archil Abashidze Ilia State University, Georgia Muhittin Acar Hacettepe University, TurkeyMohamad Alkadry Florida International UniversityBurt Barnow George Washington UniversityPeter J. Bergerson Florida Gulf Coast UniversityRajade Berry-James North Carolina State UniversityJohn Bohte University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeEspiridion Borrego University of Texas Pan AmericanLysa Burnier Ohio UniversityDouglas Carr Oakland University Barbara Crosby University of MinnesotaRobert B. Cunningham University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleDwight Denison University of KentuckyAnand Desai Ohio State UniversityJames W. Douglas University of North Carolina at CharlotteSusan Gooden Virginia Commonwealth UniversityCynthia Jackson-Elmoore Michigan State UniversityRichard Greggory Johnson III University of San FranciscoMeagan Jordan Old Dominion UniversityJ. Edward Kellough University of Georgia Don Kettl University of Maryland, College ParkJohn Kiefer The University of New OrleansWilliam Earle Klay Florida State UniversityChris Koliba University of Vermont

BOARD OF EDITORS

InFORmATIOn FOR ARTICLE SUBmISSIOnS

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE ) is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, and nonprofit administration. We work to improve teaching methods and individual courses as well as public affairs program design, management, and assessment.

The goal of JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in public affairs education throughout the world. Articles should be clear, accessible, and useful to those in the public affairs fields and subfields. The editors are particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative effectiveness of teaching methods, and (2) have international or comparative compon ents. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE must not already be submitted or published elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.

Submissions should be made online at www.edmgr.com/jpae. At the site, you will be instructed to create an account if you have not already done so or to log in under your existing account.

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the following JPAE guidelines:

• Not include author(s) names either on title page or in body of the manuscript in order to allow for anonymous peer review.

• Not exceed 30 pages in length, including notes, references, and tables.

• Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double spaced, with margins of no less than one inch on all sides.

• Use APA-style in-text citations and references. More information on APA style can be found at www.apastyle.org/.

Submitting authors will be asked for contact information, names of any additional authors, up to three subject classifications to which the manuscript relates, and an abstract of approximately 150 words. Additional instructions for registration in this system and submission of manuscripts can be found at www.edmgr.com/jpae or the JPAE website at www.naspaa.org/jpae. Authors will receive acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript and can follow its progress through the review process at www.edmgr.com/jpae.

All articles are given an initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE readers before they undergo external, double-blind peer review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until they conform to APA style and all of the authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about 5 lines).

Questions about the manuscript submission, review, and publication process may be addressed to the editorial team at [email protected].

Because of its mission, the Journal of Public Affairs Education allows educators to reproduce any JPAE material for classroom use, and authors may reproduce their own articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

nASPAA The Global Standard in Public Service Education

J. Edward Kellough, President C. Michelle Piskulich, Vice President

Ethel Hill Williams, Immediate Past PresidentLaurel McFarland, Executive Director

JPAE Oversight CommitteeJonathan Anderson, Jack Knott, Ed Jennings

David Schultz Co-Editor, Hamline University Marieka Klawitter Co-Editor, University of WashingtonAshley Sonoff Editorial Assistant, University of Washington

COPy EDITORS Connie Chaplan and Kyra Freestar, Tandem Editing LLC PUBLICATIOn LAyOUT AnD DESIgn Val Escher, Freestyle Communications

The Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by NASPAA, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration. Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit.

subscriPtion rAtEs: Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. JPAE articles can be accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. chAngE of AddrEss: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new addresses. Please allow four weeks for the change. PostmAstEr: Send address changes to JPAE, c/o NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517. EducAtors And coPy cEntErs: Copyright 2015. NASPAA. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only, without fee, and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce JPAE in all other instances. Please contact JPAE, c/o NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517, 202-628-8965, [email protected]. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is abstracted or indexed in JSTOR, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087–7789).

Edgar Ramirez Delacruz Center for Research andTeaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico

Charlene M. L. Roach University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus

CORRESPOnDEnTS

H. George Frederickson Founding Editor, University of KansasDanny L. Balfour Grand Valley State UniversityMarc Holzer Rutgers University-NewarkEdward T. Jennings University of Kentucky

James L. Perry Indiana University, BloomingtonMario A. Rivera University of New Mexico

Heather E. Campbell Claremont Graduate University

EDITORS’ COUnCIL

Journal of Public Affairs Education 299

Journal of Public Affairs Education

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) is the journal of NASPAA, the membership association of graduate education programs in public policy, public affairs, public administration, and public & nonprofit management. NASPAA’s 280 member schools are located across the U.S. and around the globe.

NASPAA is the global standard in public service education. Its Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation is the recognized accreditor of master’s degree programs in the field.

NASPAA has been a national and international resource since 1970, by ensuring excellence in education and training for public service, and by promoting the ideal of public service. It accomplishes its mission through direct services to its member institutions and by

• Developing standards for master’s programs in public affairs, and representing the objectives and needs of education in public affairs;

• Encouraging curriculum development and innovation and providing a forum for publication and discussion of education scholarship, practices, and issues;

• Building the authoritative source of data on public affairs education;

• Promoting public sector internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates;

• Partnering with practitioner professional organizations;

• Engaging globally with national and regional organizations involved with public affairs education.

Founded in 1995, JPAE was originally published as the Journal of Public Administration Education. H. George Frederickson was the journal’s founding editor. The journal is hosted and edited by the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, a NASPAA member school, selected through a competitive process. In addition to serving as NASPAA’s journal of record, JPAE is affiliated with the Section on Public Administration Education of the American Society for Public Administration.

300 Journal of Public Affairs Education

Editorial Perspectives

What Does the Journal of Public Affairs Education Publish? What Do Journal of Public Affairs Education Readers Look For?

Marieka Klawitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303

The Distinctiveness of Nonprofits and Their Role in Public Affairs Education

David Schultz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305

Symposium: Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors

Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors

Shelly Arsneault & Shannon K . Vaughan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

An Integrated Framework of Inter-Sectorality: Nonprofitness and Its Influence on Society and Public Administration Programs

Robbie Waters Robichau, Kandyce Fernandez & Patsy Kraeger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Nonprofit Management Education in Schools with Public Affairs Curricula: An Analysis of the Trend Toward Curriculum Integration

Judith R . Saidel & Steven Rathgeb Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337

A Core Issue: The Inseparable Relationship Between Nonprofits and Public Policy

Shannon K . Vaughan & Shelly Arsneault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .349

Seeing Clearly: Measuring Skill Sets That Address the “Blurred Boundaries” of Nonprofit Management Education

Tosha Cantrell-Bruce & Bob Blankenberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367

Teaching Social Entrepreneurship in Public Affairs Programs: A Review of Social Entrepreneurship Courses in the Top 30 U.S. Public Administration and Affairs Programs

Kimberly K . Wiley & Frances S . Berry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381

Collaborations and Partnerships Across Sectors: Preparing the Next Generation for Governance

Ruth Hoogland DeHoog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .401

Policymaking in the Global Context: Training Students to Build Effective Strategic Partnerships With Nongovernmental Organizations

Cristina M . Balboa & Maryam Z . Deloffre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .417

Contents


Articles of Current Interest

Cruel to Be Kind: A Neopragmatist Approach to Teaching Statistics for Public Administration Students

David Oliver Kasdan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .435

Labor-Management Relations in Public (and Business) Administration: A Textbook Case?

James S . Bowman & Jonathan P . West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .449

Book Reviews

Review of Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government

Reviewed by Wes Grooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .467

Review of An Introduction to the New Frontiers of Philanthropy and Social Investment

Reviewed by Dorothy Norris-Tirrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .469

Information for Article Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside back cover

Cover PhotoCherry Hall, located on the campus of Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, is named after the university’s founder and first president, Henry Hardin Cherry. The cupola on top of the building has become one of the iconic symbols of WKU. Photo credit: Clinton Lewis.

Cover and Interior DeslgnVal Escher

Book design property of NASPAA .


Table of Contents

About Us

The Journal of Public Affairs Education [JPAE ) is the journal of NASPAA, the membership association of graduate education programs in public policy, public affairs, public administration, and public & nonprofit management. More information about us is printed within this issue:

Subscription Information & Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .inside front cover

Reproduction Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .inside front cover

Mission Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 299

Information for Article Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside back cover

articles http://www.naspaa.org/initiatives/jpae/jpae.asp

abstracts JPAE is abstracted or indexed in JSTOR, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index.

ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087–7789)

Contact Us

Find articles and more online. Access free JPAE articles from NASPAA’s website or discover what is available at JPAE through independent sources:


What Does the Journal of Public Affairs Education Publish? What Do Journal of Public Affairs Education

Readers Look For? Marieka Klawitter

Co-Editor


JPAE 21 (3), 303–304

As an incoming co-editor in 2015, one of my first tasks was to understand what content JPAE was publishing and if that matched readers’ in-terest. We had data and the ability to analyze it!

We categorized every JPAE article published 2004–15 by main and sec ondary subject areas (Fig ure 1). We included current interest articles, symposium articles, and book reviews. We found the articles offered a great variety of content, with no category making up more than 7% of articles. Diversity topics were the most common with just under 7% of articles, followed by as-sess ment and curriculum topics, each of which composed over 5% of the total. None of the other

top 10 topics will surprise you, given the teach-ing and program development work in the field. Although we did not assess change over time in these topics, it looks like recent issues of JPAE have had more articles on comparative public admin istration and NASPAA standards.

Your time is valuable, and we expect you will only read articles that are likely to be helpful in your work and that are engaging and fun to read. To better understand which articles met those cri-teria, we looked at which JPAE articles on the NASPAA website were viewed most often dur-ing 2014 (Table 1). The themes we found in these articles are very similar to the top topics

figure 1.Most Frequently Covered Topics in JPAE

Percentage of total articles published om 2004 to 2015

Diversity

Assessment

Curriculum

Service learning

Research methodology

Social policy

Leadership

NASPAA standards

Techology

Comparative public administration

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%


Table 1.10 Most-Viewed JPAE Articles in 2014

Article title Author(s) Issue

1 Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research Methods

Anna Ya Ni Spring 2013

2 Social Class and Socioeconomic Status: Relevance and Inclusion in MPA-MPP Programs

Heather Wyatt-Nichol, Samuel Brown, and Warren Haynes

Spring 2011

3 Teaching Research Methods: Learning by Doing

N. Alexander Aguado Spring 2009

4 Balancing the Four E’s; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in Public Administration?

Kristen Norman-Major Spring 2011

5 Public Procurement: Public Administra-tion and Public Service Perspectives

Keith F. Snider and Rene G. Rendon Spring 2012

6 MPA vs. MPP: A Distinction Without a Difference?

Yongbeom Hur and Merl Hackbart Fall 2009

7 Knowledge and Skills for Policy Making: Stories from Local Public Managers in Florida

Yahong Zhang, Robert Lee, and Kaifeng Yang

Winter 2012

8 The Return of Public Relations to the Public Administration Curriculum?

Mordecai Lee Fall 2009

9 The Influence of Teaching Methodol-ogy on Student Social Interaction

Danielle Varda, Jessica Haxton Retrum, and Kerry Kuenzi

Fall 2012

10 Review of Diversity and Public Admin-istration: Theory, Issues, and Perspec-tives, 2nd ed., by Mitchell F. Rice

Laura C. Hand Fall 2010

abOuT THe cO-ediTOr

Marieka Klawitter is a faculty member at the Dan iel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Govern ance of the University of Washington. Her research focuses on public policies that affect family work and income, in cluding studies of welfare, family savings, and anti-discrimination policies for sexual orienta tion. Marieka teaches courses on public policy anal ysis, quantitative methods, program evaluation, and asset build-ing for low income families. She holds a Masters in Public Policy from the Univer sity of Michigan and a PhD in Economics from the University of Wisconsin.

— Marieka Klawitter Co-ediTor


dAniel J. eVAns sChool oF publiC poliCy And goVernAnCe uniVersiTy oF wAshingTon

[email protected] or [email protected]

publish ed over the last decade: diversity issues, curriculum, and online learning all have a num-ber of top 10 hits.

I hope you enjoy thinking about what these numbers are showing you. What do you think about the mix of JPAE content? What about writ ing styles and formats? We would love to have your input!

M . Klawitter



What is unique about the nonprofit sector? How do the missions, values, and management of these organizations contrast to those in the private and public sectors? And what role do these entities have in a public affairs curriculum? This is the subject of the special symposium and the majority of articles in this issue of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE).

For nearly 15 years, I taught in a graduate pro-gram that offered master’s degrees, and in some cases a doctoral degree, in business, nonprofit, or public sector management. I told my students that the world that was emerging was no longer the crisp, clear bounded world of modernity in which there were clear lines demarcating the three economic sectors and our public and pri-vate lives were distinct. We had entered a post-modern world of work that was character ized by a blurring of sector lines. We were increas-ingly living and acting in a world that was multisectoral, multicultural, and multinational.

Several of my classes emphasized that postmodern world of work. One class, with the awful title of Alternative Service Delivery, explored public-private and public-nonprofit collaborations in service delivery. My doctoral public policy course emphasized the role of the nonprofit sector in the implementation process. But it was in my Professional Ethics class that I specifically exam-ined the commonality and distinctiveness of ethics and values across the three sectors.

In seeking to isolate the distinctiveness of the nonprofit sector, the starting point is to con-

trast its values to the values of the private and public sectors.

The starting point for understanding the eth - ics of the private sector and the marketplace is self-interest. By that, Adam Smith and others assume that by people pursuing each their own self-interest, the public good will be achieved.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address our-selves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (Smith, 1937, p. 19)

He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By pre fer-ring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. (Smith, 1937, p. 335)

Self-interest, the desire for economic gain and profit maximization, can be described as the cor-nerstone of the marketplace (Smith, 1937, p. 335). More so than any other value, self-interest is viewed as critical to motivating individuals and to defining the ethics of the marketplace.

The Distinctiveness of Nonprofits and Their Role in Public Affairs Education

david SchultzCo-Editor

JPAE 21 (3), 305–310


The starting point in an understanding of pub-lic sector ethics, on the other hand, begins with different approaches to self-interest. Whereas in the private sector self-interest is celebrated and taken as the motivating or animating force, in the public sector, control of self-interest is critical. For example, in Federalist No . 10, James Madison (1937) describes the problem of self-interest as that it produces majority and min or-ity factions that come to threaten the public good or the rights of others. In seeking to develop a political system that can control self-interest, Madison describes quarrel some indiv-iduals divided over many issues. Eradicating these differences is impossible, accord ing to Madison, because they are “sewn in the nature of man” (p. 58).

The problem Madison thus confronts is that it is impossible to eliminate the causes of faction, and therefore it is the effects that must be con-trolled. While Madison, perhaps too quickly, dis-misses minority factions as readily addressed by the electoral process, the problem is clearly sta ted when it comes to addressing majority fac tions:

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. (Madison, 1937, pp. 57–58)

Madison thus seeks to devise a political system premised not upon the impossibility of era di-cating self-interest and faction, but upon the use of both to check one another. As stated in Federalist No . 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place” (Madison, 1937, p. 337). The Madisonian solution to checking interest and faction thus resides in a complex series of institutional mechanisms and values for check-ing tyranny and other abuses of power (Dahl,

1963). These include separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, bicameralism, and a representative system of government within an enlarged, heterogeneous society that would make it difficult for factions to form.

Madison’s Federalist No . 10 and No . 51 describe the constitutional structure of the United States: a system of limited government with the limits prescribed both in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. These limits define both certain ends that the government cannot substantively pursue (e.g., issue bills of attainder and limit free speech) and specific means or processes that must be respected (e.g., due process of law and equal protection). As David Rosenbloom (1971) once argued, the Consti tution and the Bill of Rights represent an ethi cal code for the public sector. Together they define limits on pub lic sector behavior, dictating that the govern ment must respect the rights of individuals—both as employees and as citizens. These limits con sti-tute what James Q. Wilson (2000) de scribes as constraints on governmen tal behavior.

Wilson argues that public sector managers face numerous constitutional and legal provisions at both federal and state levels that constrain their behavior. These texts define a set of values (i.e., respect for freedom, equality, non dis crim ination, and fairness in treatment), that struc ture the ethical world of the public sector. These values, along with other statutory and political princi-ples such as transparency, open ness, and ac-count ability, distinguish ethics in the public sector from those in the private sector. If private sector managers are driven by the bottom line of profit maximization (Wilson, 2000, p. 115), Wilson believes public sector managers are guid ed by a “top line” set of constraints that place a premium on favoring equity over effici-ency and on the protection of individual rights as a limit on the broad use of admin i strative discretion (Wilson, 2000, pp. 115, 131–32).

The nature of the nonprofit sector, which is neither based on market principles nor con-strained by the upholding of constitutional prin ci ples, makes it a sui generis economic and perhaps ethical actor.

D . Schultz


One trait is that the nonprofit sector is mission-driven (Carver, 1997). According to John Car-ver, the values of a nonprofit entity are defined by its mission statement. The mission statement defines the goals of the organization, specifying a social need it is seeking to meet or the good it is trying to achieve (Fischer, 2000, p. 22). Unlike the public or private sectors, which have missions more clearly defined in terms of serving the public good or maximizing profit, each nonprofit entity is relatively free to define its own mission, values, and purposes.

Second, the nonprofit sector is volunteer-based (Scott, 2001). Unlike the other sectors, which are based primarily upon paid or compensated labor, much of the nonprofit world is premised upon the voluntary activity of donors and individuals who freely give their money and time to help others. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville (1960) described Americans as unique in their propensity to form voluntary associations to address a variety of social ills and needs. These associations serve not only as ways of enhancing the social capital of individuals (Putnam, 2000), but also perform critical tasks in society that might not otherwise be secured if left to the marketplace.

Third, Marilyn Fischer (2000) describes the nonprofit sector as the gift economy (pp. 10–12). Unlike the market economy, which is based upon interest and an expectation of quid pro quo, the gift economy is different:

The most important feature is that the exchange is not quid pro quo, and while reciprocity is expected, the return is not given directly to the original giver…The gift, or another item in its place, is to be passed on to a third person, and then on to another so that the gift circulates wide ly. (Fischer, 2000, pp. 11–12)

Fischer (2000) invokes the Maori word hau to underscore the gift as having a magical or spiritual capacity to transform humans. These gifts serve to bind people, to build communities, and to forge a sense of interdependence and connectedness (p. 12).

One of the magical or transformative properties of the gift economy is that gift-giving inculcates specific virtues within the givers, such as sym-pathetic understanding, empathy, and charity (Fischer, 2000, p. 6). To give out of love and not interest makes people better; it morally develops humans in ways that mere market exchanges cannot. The “gift relationship,” as an alternative to the commodified activity of the marketplace, encourages behavior not found elsewhere, thereby forging social as opposed to economic bonds among people, even strangers (Titmuss, 1971). The gift economy encourages people to act from altruistic motives and not simply economic self-interest.

The values of sympathy, virtue, compassion, and voluntarism define the nonprofit sector. The critical difference between the profit and nonprofit sectors is that while the former seeks to fulfill a mission in order to make a profit, the latter makes a profit or engages in revenue generation to fulfill some mission. While the public sector is premised upon constitutional or legal limits that respect the rights of in-dividuals, the nonprofit sector respects rights in a Kantian or moral sense of treating people as ends and not means. Moreover, while open ness and transparency are constitutional man dates of the public sector, Carver (1997) and others have argued that a board-driven non profit organization must be accountable to all of its stakeholders, including donors and clients. The nonprofit’s demand for account ability comes from its need to maintain a sense of connectedness to all interested parties as efforts are made to redefine social relations along a noncommodified set of social relations.

So if one can make the case that there is some-thing unique about the nonprofit sector, then how does one teach it and relate it to the rest of the curriculum in a public affairs pro gram? Given the increased role that non profits occupy in the policy-making and deli very process, ig-noring them makes no sense. The question is how to teach the relationship and role of non-profits in public affairs programs. This is the subject of this issue’s symposium.



Guest editors Shelly Arsneault and Shannon K. Vaughan introduce the symposium, “Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors.” Their introduction summarizes the state of the knowledge about teaching the nonprofit sector, while also setting up the major issues that the symposium articles address.

In an integrated world where the public, pri-vate, and nonprofit sectors converge, what does it mean to be a nonprofit? Are there degrees of “nonprofitness” that can be measured and described? Robbie Waters Robichau, Kandyce Fernandez, and Patsy Kraeger undertake this task in “An Integrated Framework of Inter-Sectorality: Nonprofitness and Its Influence on Society and Public Administration Programs.” The value of this article resides in its categor-ization of organizations and its effort to provide critical distinctions that are analyti cally useful to students in understanding the contrasts of entities across the different sectors.

Nonprofits have been at least nominally part of public affairs curricula for nearly a generation. But how well are they integrated and what does this integration look like? This is the subject of “Nonprofit Management Education in Schools With Public Affairs Curricula: An Analysis of the Trend Toward Curriculum Integration,” by Judith Saidel and Steven Rathgeb Smith. They review nonprofit management education in universities that offer master’s-level graduate programs in public affairs. Using a four-level curriculum integration model that measures and describes curriculum development, they find that over half of the sample schools remain in a pre-integration stage of curriculum devel op ment. In effect, even today, nonprofits are not well integrated into public affairs curricula.

Nonprofits are major players in the policy process. They are recipients of billions of dollars at the federal and state levels, to deliver a host of services and programs ranging from health care, housing, and workforce training to rehab-ilitation services. Nonprofits also perform social

services that supplement those provided by the government. Yet to what extent is their role discussed or examined in policy and public affairs classes? This is the subject of Shannon K. Vaughan and Shelly Arsneault’s article “A Core Issue: The Inseparable Relationship Between Non profits and Public Policy.” To assess the role of nonprofits in the policy curriculum, they examined textbooks and syllabi from graduate-level public policy courses taught at NASPAA-accredited programs. They found that 11 of the 12 policy textbooks reviewed and nearly 70% of the syllabi studied failed to mention key words related to nonprofits. The authors conclude that this oversight, failing to provide students with a full picture of either the policy process or what nonprofits do, is a major problem.

Are there unique skills essential to employment in the nonprofit sector? More specifically, would training or education in a typical business or public administration program be adequate or sufficient to prepare students for employment in the nonprofit sector? This is what “Seeing Clearly: Measuring Skill Sets that Address the ‘Blurred Boundaries’ of Nonprofit Management Education,” by Tosha Cantrell-Bruce and Bob Blankenberger, investigates. After providing a brief history of the evolution of the nonprofit sector, the authors propose several specific skill sets needed by those who aim to become non profit leaders, then discuss how these skills might be integrated into Master of Public Ad min istration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) curricula and assessment. Their article also provides an important dis cussion of how these skills fit into a specific or an over-all curriculum.

Members of the millennial generation are dis-tinct in their commitment to combine doing good with making money. An example of this is seen in the growth of public benefit corp or-ations, which combine the strengths of private corporation investment and money-making strategies with the power and allure of nonprofit commitments to helping others. There is per-haps no trend more popular right now than the idea of social entrepreneurship. But what ex-

D . Schultz


actly is social entrepreneurship and how is it taught? Kim K. Wiley and Frances S. Berry re-search this in “Teaching Social Entre pre neur-ship in Public Affairs Programs: A Review of Social Entrepreneurship Courses in the Top 30 U.S. Public Administration and Affairs Pro-grams.” Their article offers an outstanding cat-alog and synthesis of what current scholarship on social entrepreneurship is, how it is taught, and what skill sets are involved.

Ruth Hoogland DeHoog’s “Collaborations and Partnerships Across Sectors: Preparing the Next Generation for Governance” uses the present to look to the future. Specifically, her article examines how agencies or organizations from multiple sectors—government, nonprofit, business, and academic institutions, and per-haps associations formed for civic or faith-based purposes as well—work together. Her interest is in understanding the nature of these collaborations as paradigms for the future, and also in abstracting from them a catalog of skills that students will need to be prepared to work in this environment.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are major players around the world and in the international scene. Many students, from the United States, from abroad studying in Amer-ica, and in programs around the world, aspire to work in NGOs. But what exactly do these organizations do and how do they operate as policy players? In “Policy Making in the Global Context: Training Students to Build Ef fective Strategic Partnerships With Non govern mental Organizations,” the authors Cristina M. Balboa and Maryam Z. Deloffre develop a terrific case study to answer this question. They employ the most recent Ebola crisis in West Africa to show how the ways that NGOs today engage in global issues lead to the need for different skill sets in all three sectors—government, business, and nonprofit. Their article concludes with ideas and discussion regarding how to think about NGOs and non-state actors in MPA and MPP curricula.

Related to this symposium, a review of Lester M. Salamon’s An Introduction to the New Fron-

tiers of Philanthropy and Social Invest ment, by Dorothy Norris-Tirrell, is found at the end of this issue. As the reviewer notes, Salamon’s latest book explores the new ways that the nonprofit sector and its new generation of leaders have found to combine doing good with making money. This review perfectly captures the theme of this issue of JPAE in again showing the ways in which the lines are blurring across sectors.

This issue additionally contains several articles of current interest. Few public affairs students like statistics and research methods, yet the subject is hugely important both academically and for their careers. In “Cruel to Be Kind: A Neopragmatist Approach to Teaching Statistics for Public Administration Students,” David Oliver Kas dan draws upon the philosophical approaches of John Dewey and Richard Rorty to offer a neopragmatic approach to teaching statistics. Kasdan sees statistics as a language, and he offers a discussion of how to set context for teaching the subject that allows students to see how events around the world can be trans-lated or expressed mathematically. For all faculty who have taught statistics and encountered math phobia among their students, Kasdan provides several wonderful suggestions and insights that will help in the classroom.

While labor unions in the private sector may be decreasing in size and political clout, that is not necessarily the case in the public sector. Unions are major players in government, and labor-management issues are important factors across several dimensions of the public sector. Yet what type of training or discussion on unions is found in public affairs programs? The simple answer is, not much, according to Jim S. Bowman and Jonathan P. West’s article “Labor-Management Relations in Public (and Business) Administration: A Text book Case?” This piece analyses the extent to which unions and labor-management rela tions in general are discussed in the textbooks used for public administration courses. Bow man and West find that modest attention, at best, is given to labor unions, and



that the role of unions and how to work with them is also largely ignored.

Finally, Wes Grooms reviews Susan T. Gooden’s new book, Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. As Grooms notes, this is a critical book in the growing body of literature that examines diversity; it provides important insights into, as the title indicates, why so many are nervous when it comes to discussions of race. Grooms concludes by declaring of the book, “It is a must-read for practicing public administrators and public administration edu-cators wishing to enhance understanding of the causes and results of structural inequity within public sector organizations.”

I hope this issue of JPAE stimulates your creativity and gives you some new ideas about how to teach or think about public policy and public affairs. But I encourage all of you as always to think of this journal as an outlet for your scholarship, and to contact me if you have ideas for what you would like to see in JPAE.

refereNceS

Carver, J. (1997). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dahl, R. (1963). A preface to democratic theory . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

— David Schultz Co-ediTor


hAMline uniVersiTy

[email protected]

de Tocqueville, A. (1960). Democracy in America. (H. Reeve, Trans.). New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Fischer, M. (2000). Ethical decision making in fund raising . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Madison, J. (1937). The Federalist. New York, NY: Modern Library.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rosenbloom, D. H. (1971). Federal service and the Con-stitution: The development of the public employment relationship . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Scott, J. T. (1998). Voluntary sector. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 40–56). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York, NY: P. F. Collier & Sons. (Original work published 1776)

Titmuss, R. M. (1971). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy . New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Wilson, J. Q. (2000). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.

abOuT THe cO-ediTOr

david Schultz is Hamline University professor in political science and School of Law. Professor Schultz is a two-time Fulbright Scholar and the author of more than 25 books and 100+ articles on various aspects of American politics, election law, and the media and pol itics. He is regularly interviewed and quoted on these subjects in local, national, and international media, in clud ing the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist, and National Public Rad io. His most recent book is Election Law and Demo-cratic Theory (Ashgate Publish ing, 2014).

D . Schultz


This symposium of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE), “Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors,” is the result of on going conversations about the role of the nonprofit sec tor in identifying public policy problems, for mulating policy solutions, and implementing public programs. In Managing Nonprofit Organ i-zations in a Policy World (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2014), we took up the issue of blurred lines in the final chapter, “Looking Forward.” Due to fac tors such as the dramatic growth in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector, the expanding emphasis on social responsibility within the for-profit sector, and the increasing reliance on these two sectors by government agencies, the lines between the sectors have increasingly blur-red. In “Looking Forward” we explored the rise in social enterprise and venture philanthropy that blurs the lines between nonprofit and for-profit endeavors, as well as the growing use of nonprofit organizations to fill public sector gaps in areas as diverse as education, state parks, and information technology for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

While pedagogy and public affairs curriculum were not part of our conversations at the time we wrote Managing Nonprofit Organizations in a Policy World, it was not long before we began

to discuss the importance of providing our students with a more thorough understanding of the complexity that inter-sectorality imposes on the provision of public goods and services. We wondered: How should the roles of both nonprofit and for-profit sectors be included in today’s Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) curriculum? Nonprofit content in MPA/MPP pro grams has certainly grown over the past few decades, but might it be more useful to students if that infor-mation was integrated into core courses? Are faculty who teach in MPA/MPP programs doing enough to prepare students for what Horne and Paris (2010) call the new normal of cross-sector collaboration in the public sector workplace?

Our first public conversation about these ques-tions occurred in Washington, DC, during the 2013 Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) meetings at a panel we convened, titled “Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors.” In 2014, Kathleen Hale convened a second NASPAA panel—“Blurred Sector Boundaries: New Ques-tions and New Challenges”—at which we kept this conversation going. In the meantime, we decided to open these questions to the com-munities of scholars associated with NASPAA

Symposium Introduction

Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public,

Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors

Shelly arsneaultCalifornia State University, Fullerton

Shannon K. VaughanWestern Kentucky University

JPAE 21 (3), 311–314


Tracing scholarly calls for public affairs faculty to integrate the nonprofit sector into their curriculum back to the mid-1990s, Saidel and Smith conduct an empirical examination of data from 43 schools to document current trends in curricular integration. They argue that an integrated curriculum remains relevant for a variety of reasons, including the growing interdependence between the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors and the growth of pro-fessionalism in nonprofit organizations. To analyze the development of an integrated curr-iculum over time, Saidel and Smith posit a model with four levels of curricular integration that moves from simply having nonprofit course offerings, in a level called Curriculum Expan-sion, to Pre-Integration, to Core Inte gra tion and eventually to what they call Institutional Integration, in which there is an “assimilation of the nonprofit program into the broader university academic and cocurricular environ-ments” (p. 343). Although moving beyond the pre-integration level appears to be difficult, a number of schools in their study have moved to the final level of institutional integration. Said-el and Smith argue that this success and the realities of today’s public sector are important reasons for programs to continue to move toward curricular integration.

Vaughan and Arsneault look specifically at integration of the nonprofit sector in the cur-riculum of public policy classes in NASPAA-accredited MPA/MPP programs. They find that coverage of nonprofits is lacking in the course content analyzed, particularly in policy textbooks and core or required policy courses. Because it is difficult to understand public policy without understanding the role played by nonprofit organizations in every facet of policy—from problem recognition to policy formulation and implementation to program evaluation—they find the absence of the nonprofit sector in policy courses to be troubling. This article explores one explanation for this finding—that public policy texts and faculty tend to view nonprofit organizations as interest groups rather than policy partners—and argues that characterizing the nonprofit sector in this manner is too limiting. Nonprofits that fit the typical organized interest profile constitute only 15% of today’s nonprofit sector.

and the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) by making an open call for papers on the “blurred lines” for this symposium issue of JPAE.

Our intention with this collection of articles was, first, to advance a discussion about the im portance of incorporating nonprofit organ-izations more fully into the core curriculum in MPA/MPP programs, and, further, to explore the courses, curriculum, and practices best suited to preparing students for work in and across the blurred boundaries of public, non-profit, and for-profit organizations. We are delighted with the breadth and depth of articles submitted for the symposium and provide an overview of them below. We conclude with a brief discussion of the direction in which public affairs curriculum is headed and the questions that remain about the blurred boundaries.

SuMMarY Of SYMPOSiuM cONTribuTiONSOverall, the seven articles in the symposium favor integration of cross-sector curriculum. The articles included here range from a frame work for inter-sectorality, to calls for greater curricular integration, to identification of skill sets that better prepare MPA/MPP students for the complexities of inter-sectoral public service—both domestically and inter nationally. Each article provides a piece of a very important puzzle for public affairs faculty.

The Robichau, Fernandez, and Kraeger article fits perfectly into this symposium, as they pro-pose a framework for inter-sectorality that incorporates the dimensions of organizational nonprofitness into the traditional publicness-privateness continuum. They argue that greater clarity is needed about what makes nonprofits dis tinct, basing their assessment of nonprofit ness on two elements of nonprofit organizations: their purpose-based moral authority and their expressive or instrumental value systems. Robi-chau and colleagues envision the three sectors as permeable, and they make a compelling case for what they call an inter-sectorality frame work. They conclude this piece by making valuable recommendations of strategies with which pub-lic and nonprofit management programs can prepare students for their work in the inter-sectoral world of contemporary public service.

S . Arsneault & S . K . Vaughan


To better prepare MPA/MPP students for public service, the complex role of nonprofits in public policy must be integrated throughout the policy curriculum in policy textbooks and other course material.

Following the Saidel and Smith and Vaughan and Arsneault calls for greater curricular in-tegration, Cantrell-Bruce and Blankenberger provide faculty with a practical approach for integrating a set of nonprofit management skill competencies into MPA/MPP programs. Using a number of recent studies on nonprofit skills and a review of nonprofit syllabi, they generate a core list of four essential skills for those work ing in the nonprofit sector. Noting that their list is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, they make an important contri bu tion to this symposium by providing an outline of proce-dures that faculty could use to integrate the four skills into program assess ment. Borrowing from NASPAA competencies and Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) guidelines for their MPA and non profit management pro-gram competency frame work, Cantrell-Bruce and Blankenberger make a number of sugges-tions for faculty regarding assessment of student learning outcomes. Im portantly, the process proposed in this article could be used for internal assessment as well as for NASPAA or other external accreditation pur poses.

The piece by Wiley and Berry examines an emergent field for public affairs programs: social entrepreneurship. While the subject has been taught in business schools since the late 1990s, Wiley and Berry’s research finds that most courses in MPA/MPP programs are five years old or less. As with any new field of study, definitions vary, but social entrepreneurship is described here as using both innovative organ-izations and innovative funding mechanisms to create social value and solve social or environ-mental problems. Wiley and Berry use a summative content analysis of syllabi, primarily from the top 30 U.S. MPA/MPP programs as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, to de-scribe the content of social entrepreneurship courses and how they are being structured by public affairs faculty. The authors find several common MPA/MPP topics in these classes that are presented within the social enterprise con-

text, as well as several uncommon topics, such as business plans. Important to faculty wishing to create a class or concentration on social entrepreneurship, Wiley and Berry describe a number of different approaches that programs across the country have pursued.

DeHoog’s piece on collaborative governance re-views the literature on inter- and multi-sectoral collaborations and partnerships and acknow-ledges the difficulty that these projects present for public administrators. Multiple stake holders, competing interests, differing time horizons, and conflicting organizational values are among the challenges of successfully managing colla-borations. DeHoog argues that given new organ izational forms, even the basic under-standings that faculty and scholars have about the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors do not go far enough in helping MPA/MPP students understand today’s complex govern-ance processes. Through focus groups with MPA program alumni and discussions with public affairs faculty, DeHoog offers valuable insights into ways in which MPA/MPP programs and faculty can move beyond good management strategies to begin to infuse the curriculum with experiences that prepare stu-dents for collaborative governance. DeHoog’s excellent, practical suggestions include recruit-ing students with varied organizational ex-periences, making themes of collaboration part of program expectations, and allowing students to take courses in programs such as business or public health in which they will meet people with whom they might one day work as part of a collaborative partnership.

Finally, the Balboa and Deloffre article, with its look at the growth in the numbers and importance of transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in international policy over the past 25 years, is an excellent addition to this symposium. Using a typology of pol-itical, administrative, and technical capa ci ties at the local, national, and international levels, the authors examine the global response to the recent Ebola crisis. With this example, Balboa and Deloffre make a clear case for incorporating course content that identifies NGOs as im por-tant policy actors—both as partners to gov ern-ments and as independent actors in a sys tem

Symposium Introduction


without a global government. They examine 48 MPA/MPP programs with inter na tional or global specializations to see how well NGOs are inte-grated into the core curriculum. The find ings indicate that, although many faculty mem bers’ research includes international non profits, few programs have core courses dedi cated to NGOs.

THe fuTure Of blurred liNeSIt is clear from the interest of our fourteen symposium authors, and the variety offered by the seven articles they contributed, that blurred boundaries, hybridization, or sector bending is an important concern for public affairs faculty. There is general agreement that the importance of the nonprofit sector as a partner in gov ern-ance needs to be more prominently integrated into MPA/MPP curricula, and there is also growing recognition of the role played by for-profit organizations in serving the public. Although public affairs faculty continue to grapple with ways to best prepare our students for the increasingly complex world of modern governance, several of the articles presented here, including Robichau, Fernandez, and Krae ger; Berry and Wiley; and DeHoog provide a number of practical strategies for the classroom. For those who may face faculty resistance to incorporat-ing discussions of the blurred boundaries, the articles by Robichau, Fernandez, and Kraeger; Saidel and Smith; Vaughan and Arsneault; and Balboa and Deloffre should provide ample evi-dence that the collaborations and partner ships that constitute contemporary public service must be addressed in today’s MPA/MPP programs.

We are pleased with this symposium but know that there is still much work to do on the topic of blurred lines. For example, the definition of social enterprise needs further refinement, and scholars will continue to debate the parameters of “nonprofitness.” We recognize that we, as faculty seeking greater curricular integration in core courses, must be mindful not to lose important elements of a distinct nonprofit curriculum (see Gelles, in press; forthcoming in JPAE). Finally, research should be done to find the answer to a question that recurs among public affairs faculty in conversations about blurred sector lines: How much attention are scholars of the for-profit sector paying to these

important new organizational forms and their implications for society?

refereNceS

Gelles, E. (in press). Perhaps easier said than done: Is there a downside to integrating nonprofit substance into the MPA core? Journal of Public Affairs Education .

Horne, C. S., & Paris, T. V. (2010). Preparing MPA students to succeed in government-nonprofit colla-boration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(1), 13–30.

Vaughan, S. K., & Arsneault, S. (2014). Managing non-profit organizations in a policy world . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

Shelly arsneault is professor in the Division of Politics, Administration, and Justice at California State University, Fullerton, and recently served as the coordinator/advisor for the MPA pro gram. Her research focuses primarily on social welfare policies in the arenas of education, poverty, wel-fare, and health policy. Among her published work are articles in State and Local Government Review, The American Review of Public Adminis-tration, The Social Policy Journal, and Review of Policy Research.

Shannon K. Vaughan is assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Western Ken-tucky University, where she teaches primarily in the MPA program. Her research interests in-clude the impact of nonprofits on public policy, nonprofit funding issues, and ethics. Among her published work are articles in Public Integrity, Review of Policy Research, and the Journal of Health and Human Services Administration. She and Shelly Arsneault are the authors of Manag-ing Nonprofit Organiza tions in a Policy World, published by CQ Press.

S . Arsneault & S . K . Vaughan


As an academic discipline, public administration has long recognized and asserted the distinctions between the public, private, and, more recently, nonprofit sectors (Weisbrod, 1997). Over time, organizations traditionally attributed to a particular sector (i.e., market, state, nonprofit) have fused practices to carry out their work in response to pressure for greater efficiency and effectiveness with fewer resources. Fused practices have essentially blurred the lines of

demarcation between the sectors. Organizations are expected to compete, partner, or adapt to survive among a growing pool of organizational types with competing, comparable, or hybrid institutional practices (Smith, 2010).

This competition often challenges the perceived and realized sectoral advantages, motivating organizations to incorporate differing institu-tional logics (Knutsen, 2012) and thus replicate

An Integrated Framework of Inter-Sectorality: Nonprofitness and

Its Influence on Society and Public Administration Programs

robbie Waters robichauGeorgia Southern University

Kandyce fernandezThe University of Texas at San Antonio

Patsy KraegerGeorgia Southern University

abSTracT

Cross-sector interactions have long occurred in the public delivery of goods, services, and interests. While scholars have often addressed cross-sector interactions using the dimensions of publicness (state) and privateness (market), an intersectoral framework necessitates the understanding and incorporation of nonprofitness to account for the dimensions of nonprofits along the public-private continuum. This article proposes a framework for identifying the dimensions of nonprofits in an intersectoral world and draws on relevant examples to illustrate the presence and influence of nonprofitness. The article then focuses on the future of education in the field of public administration and, in light of the proposed framework, makes and considers recommendations to help educational programs better equip students to appreciate work across sectors.

KeYWOrdSNonprofitness, inter-sectorality, publicness, values

JPAE 21 (3), 315–336


characteristics of other sectors (Pache & Santos, 2012). These characteristics may also include what Jacobs (1992) refers to as the creation of “moral hybrids” (p. 80), where organizations driven predominantly by “the guardian moral syndrome” (i.e., preservers of the collective good) may be adopting the values of “the com-mercial moral syndrome” (i.e., capitalist virtues of voluntary exchange). As a result, organi-zations are now operating in an intersectoral en-vironment where public and nonprofit admin-istrators, as well as business leaders, coexist, interact, compete, and, at times, share similar organizational values or structures to solve complex social problems.

While scholars recognize the emerging organ-izational phenomenon of inter-sectorality (of three sectors) in theory (Berry & Brower, 2005), it is also highly relevant for practice. Profes-sionals need knowledge of inter-sectorality to develop an orientation that benefits their work in government, for or with nonprofits (Najam, 2000), and even in hybrid firms that fall in be-tween and combine elements from more than one sector (Minkoff, 2002; Pache & Santos, 2012). It is here that we aim to contribute to scholarship, education, and the practice of operating in an intersectoral world. We focus in particular on the U.S. nonprofit sector (or third sector) that falls in between and often reflects characteristics of both public and priv ate work (Van Til, 1987). As academic programs in the United States increasingly integrate nonprofit management degrees, specializations, and certifications that characterize the third sector as part of public service (with a private orientation), we argue for greater clarity in what makes nonprofit organizations distinct from the work of government or market organizations. At the same time, we suggest that such distin-ctions contribute to the hybridity of organiza-tions in the sectors as both governmental agen-cies and market organiza tions adopt di mensions of nonprofits.

This article first articulates a theoretical back-ground on the blurring of the sectors and the institutional logics perspective of organizations. Then, drawing on the integrative publicness

literature, we develop a theory of nonprofitness based on the dimensions of moral authority and values of nonprofit organ izations. Next, we propose a framework for intersec torality that considers the degree to which organizations are in fluenced by publicness, privateness, and non-profitness . We then illustrate how nonpro fit-ness has manifested at the organizational level in other sectors as they have borrowed from, been influenced by, and extended dimensions of what has traditionally been ascribed to organ izations in the nonprofit sector. And finally we turn to the individual level, to exam ine what the future holds for those who educate public and non-profit professionals trying to balance survival and relevance with mission focus and compar-ative organizational and sectoral differences.

As the sectors experience hybridization, being able to identify the mix of sectoral dimensions contributing to the structure and behaviors of organizations will help professionals cultivate greater responsiveness as they carry out their work. We therefore consider the knowledge and skills necessary for operating across sectors. By doing so, we contribute to the discussion on how to educate professionals in public ad-ministration, public affairs, and public policy programs given the amount of sector switch - ing that current and future generations of pro - fes sionals are expected to undertake (Su & Bozeman, 2009).

THeOreTical bacKgrOuNdThe worldwide movement of new public man-agement (Kettl, 2005) encouraged governments to reinvent themselves by embracing a greater market orientation (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992) and privatizing services to businesses and nonprofit organizations (Savas, 2000). With the steady rise in the number of nonprofit organizations that has occurred with priva-tization (Boris & Steuerle, 2006), nonprofits have experienced pressures to become more professional and commercialized in their prac-tices as well as to adopt marketlike values and norms (Dart, 2004; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Weisbrod, 1997). At the same time, scholars note a trend in that as nonprofits become more governmentlike, they create problems of

R . W . Robichau, K . Fernandez & P . Kraeger


vendorism and bureaucratization (Frumkin, 2005; Salamon, 1995). Such observations have supported conclusions that the borders between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors are vanishing, blurring, and blending (Hammack & Young, 1993; Weisbrod, 1997), and that the relationships between the sectors cannot exist in isolation because they are “multiply em-bedded” (O’Riain, 2000, p. 191).

The institutional logics perspective, nonethe-less, provides a different approach to thinking about the role of organizations and the sectors in society more broadly. Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) argue there are seven ideal types of institutional logics (i.e., family, com-munity, religion, state, market, profession, and corporation), with nine divergent categories that explain various logics of behaviors. While we do not cover all of the categories and logics in this work, a few areas that distinguish the institutional types of the state and the market should be noted. For example, the market’s sources of authority are from shareholder activism, the basis of norms is self-interest, the basis of strategy is to increase efficiency and profits, and the economic system is market capitalism (Thornton et al., 2012, p.73). Thornton and colleagues (2012) differentiate the state in these same categories as receiving authority from bureaucratic domination, its norms from citizenship, its basis of strategy as to increase community good, and its economic system as welfare capitalism (p. 73). Given that these are ideal types, organizations adapt and use these logics (or parts thereof ) as needed.

As part of their institutional logics, nonprofits often combine elements of both the state (democracy) and the market (capitalism) de-pending on their work and mission. Though Thornton and colleagues (2012) do not refer to nonprofits specifically, their logic for the com munity institution captures several impor-tant categories of these organizations. For ex-ample, their source of legitimacy comes from unity of will (i.e., belief in trust and recipro-city), their authority derives from commit ment to community values and ideology, their norms are based on group membership, and their

eco nomic system is cooperative capitalism (Thorn ton et al., 2012, p. 73). Accordingly, Knutsen (2012) notes that nonprofits may embody anywhere from one to six of the following institutional logics that shape their behaviors: the state, the market, democracy, religion, family, and profession.

That is, through their expressive and instru-mental dimensions (Frumkin, 2005), nonprofit organizations may adopt competing institu-tional logics in order to fulfill their mission and purposes (Knutsen, 2012). In fact, nonprofits may combine multiple logics, placing them some where in the middle of the state and mar ket on the public-private continuum. However, Knutsen and Brock (2014) contend that “theories that are developed primarily to account for one kind of institutional logic of organizations should not be considered as a principal theory for all organizations [i.e., nonprofits] in the space” (p. 1116). This has led some to argue that nonprofits should maintain a balance between the “distinctiveness imper-

ative” (i.e., the characteristics or combination of logics that make them unique) with the “sur vival imperative” (i.e., the behaviors or logics needed to survive; see Salamon, 2002, p. 80). We build upon this argument and suggest that nonprofit organizations possess distinctive dimen sions that set them apart from both public organizations and private, for-profit organizations.

In considering this point, a well-developed theory in the public administration literature describing the degrees to which organizations are public or private comes from Bozeman’s (1987) construct of publicness. Given contem-porary manifestations of sectoral relationships and combining of institutional logics (Skelcher & Smith, 2014), a framework for understand-ing the organizational theories of publicness and privateness as well as nonprofitness is essential. The theoretical understanding of publicness to date has been explored and expanded in rela-tion to its implicit opposite, privateness. Therefore, we elaborate upon this construct to develop a framework for inter-sectorality that includes nonprofitness.

An Integrated Framework of Inter-Sectorality


PublicNeSS THeOrYPublicness theory and its opposite, privateness, represent the degree to which an institution is influ enced by “political authority…[and/or] market authority constraints and endowments”; therefore, an organization may be “more private or more public” (Bozeman & Moulton, 2011, p. i365) given this mix. Scholars have empir-ically operationalized publicness as funding, own ership, and control and have used these dimensions to understand organizational and managerial behaviors and outcomes for public and private agencies (Andrews, Boyne & Walker, 2011; Coursey & Bozeman, 1990). Researchers using the publicness framework have often focused on comparisons between public and for-profit organizations (Andrews et al., 2011; Coursey & Bozeman, 1990; Haque, 2001; Moulton, 2009) rather than nonprofit organ-izations. Some authors have studied the publicness of funding relationships between nonprofits and government (e.g., Isett & Provan, 2005), but this provides a limited perspective on nonprofit activity. Pesch (2008) claims that the history of the public administration field teaches us that, even though publicness can be conceptually ambiguous at times, the dimen-sional approach is most useful based on two imperatives that distinguish public and private organizations: the publicness of public goods and the publicness of public interest. As such, public organizations focus on the production of public goods and services in the name of the public’s interest or needs while private organ-izations seek to maximize profit for market goods and services and may lack a public interest focus. Nonprofits, in turn, may focus on the public’s interest and/or the production of public or private goods and services.

Recognizing the need to broaden his dimen-sional framework, Bozeman (2007) argues for incorporating normative or values-based as-pects of publicness that are also responsible for shaping institutions and policies. Normative publicness accounts for the extent to which an organization is influenced by, or provides services of, particular public value such as integrity, citizen involvement, human dignity, openness, secrecy, and compromise in the

desire to meet the public’s interest (Bozeman, 2007; Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). A more recent theoretical development in the literature calls for combining empirical and normative publicness into an “integrative publicness” that accounts for a mix of political, public, and market values impacting organizational behavior (Bozeman & Moulton, 2011).

Some of the values attributed to the private sector include self-interest, industriousness, profit maximization, profitability, and thrift-iness (Schultz, 2004, p. 284). Therefore, a more accurate portrayal of organizational behavior and management may be informed by a com-bination of both values and degrees to which an institution can be characterized as more private or public. As Bozeman and Moulton (2011) suggest, scholars need to refine and expand integrative publicness to consider diverse and hybrid organizations and the various values that mold institutional environments.

Nonprofits, for the most part, have public and private dimensions as well as value or moral dimensions that contribute to different degrees of publicness and privateness depending on the type of nonprofit (e.g., social service organ-ization vs. membership association vs. private foundation). This however tends to overlook the idea that, in general, nonprofits themselves have a specific domain comprising values that in turn influence governmental and business behaviors. Therefore, our theory of non profit-ness contributes to an expanding dialogue in this area (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990; Knutsen & Brock, 2014), as the question of nonprofit organizations’ influence on public and private organizations is both timely and informative. Therefore, we argue that organi za tions are distinguished by the degree of public and private dimensions, as well as by the presence and degree of nonprofit dimensions.

a THeOrY Of NONPrOfiTNeSSThere are two key considerations that must be addressed for a concept of nonprofitness to be useful. First, if market and political authority can help determine an organization’s level of publicness or privateness, then to what type of



authority are nonprofits subject? While some may suggest nonprofits are subject to govern-mental authority through regulation, financial support, or tax law, we suggest that their expressive and instrumental dimensions serve as the basis for being shaped by moral authority. The expressive function states that nonprofits derive their value from commitments or beliefs that motivate efforts to address social problems, while the instrumental function notes that nonprofits often meet needs unmet by the state or market and may rely on creative endeavors to do so (Frumkin, 2005).

Salamon (2012, p. 19) notes that this expressive function captures “a variety of other sentiments and impulses” separate from the public sector, which serves to constrain and endow the sector with its capabilities and structural advantages. These expressions may include “artistic, religious, cultural, social, economic and recreational” aspects that make it a viable partner or leader among other sectors. Second, as leaders, non-profits serve as “value guardians in American Society” (Salamon, 2012, p. 23–24). They have an implicit social contract with society to uphold public trust and goodwill, promote core values and public good, and offer services or resources to those in need (Jeavons, 2010). Nonprofits therefore rely on their mission, community, volunteers, donors, and clients to legitimize their expressive and instrumental dimensions. As a result, nonprofit organizations are constrained and endowed with resources given their values, value expressions, and subsequent stakeholder support. From an integrated publicness perspective, nonprofitness should then be considered as the degree to which an organization is affected by moral authority and nonprofit values.

The moral authority with which nonprofit organizations are endowed is illustrated by the roles they play in American society. Nonprofits are mission-driven and are thus guided by various causes, social purposes, goals, institu-tional logics, and public or private benefits. Herein, the social and civic essence of these organizations, along with their diversity and international nature, has led them to be de-

scribed and labeled in numerous ways without one agreed-upon term. Such terms include the civil sector, third or independent sector, charitable sector, social sector, voluntary sector, philanthropic sector, and nongovernmental sector (LeRoux & Feeney, 2015). In their review of the literature, Moulton and Eckerd (2012) find support for a Nonprofit Sector Public Role Index based on six unique expressive and instrumental roles for nonprofit organizations: service provision, citizen engagement (democratization), social capital, political advocacy, individual expres sion, and innovation. They conclude that these purposes are distinctive and support the broader public value that nonprofits offer society.

From a normative institutional perspective, the basis of legitimacy for organizations such as nonprofits is that they are “morally governed” and thus their behavior “is guided by a sense of what is appropriate, by one’s social obligation to others, by a commitment to common values” (Scott & Davis, 2007, pp. 260–261). Fisher (2000) argues that philanthropy is based on a “gift economy” where the “exchange is not quid pro quo” (p.11); rather, the focus is on “creating and sustaining communities” (p. 10) that keep the gift economy alive by way of nonprofits that have public-serving missions and rely on volun-teers (p. 189). Some have even warned that if we underappreciate the gift economy and the social role of nonprofits, such as their charit-ableness, caring for others, and moral con sider-ations in place of pursuits of econo m ic interests, then “civil society [may become] mor ally vacant” (Mirabella, 2013, p. 92). Consequently, from a publicness perspective, nonprofits must be morally accountable for how and where they seek and receive funding, and the extent to which they are directed by their missions, accountable to their board members, and embraced by their broader communities.

The second dimension of nonprofitness, which aligns to the moral authority function, is the value system driving nonprofit behavior that also influences public and for-profit institutions. As Schultz (2004) argues, “the ethical values and norms of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors are different” (p. 287), but in a



postmodern world these ethical boundaries are being blurred. On their own, nonprofit organi-ations “come into being and exist primarily to give expression to social, philosophical, moral, or religious values of their founders and supporters” (Jeavons, 1992, pp. 403–404). In a recent report, Salamon, Geller, and Newhouse (2012, p. 1) conducted a stratified sample of over 730 nonprofit organizations to answer the question “What do nonprofits stand for?” They were able to identify seven core values of the nonprofit sector (i.e., productive, empowering, effective, enriching, reliable, responsive, and caring) and examine to what extent professionals recognize these areas as important drivers.

One of their key findings is that there is considerable doubt by nonprofit professionals about “the success with which the sector is articulating and communicating its core values, and hence about whether key stakeholders—in particular the general public and government officials—truly credit nonprofits with these values” (Salamon et al., 2012, p. 15). These findings suggest a need for a nonprofitness construct to inform theory, practice, and the overall preservation of the sector. As Geller and Salamon (2008) argue, “the real competitive advantage of nonprofits is not selling a loca - tion but selling a workplace infused with special values [emphasis added]” (p. 2). These special values further contribute to the distinc-tive dimensions of nonprofits, which include trust, advocacy, representation, phil anthropy, charitableness, beliefs, commitment, and care (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Frumkin, 2005; Mirabella, 2013).

There are several examples that illustrate the degree to which the nonprofitness dimensions of moral authority and values are influencing business, government, and emerging nonprofit structures. For example, Marquis, Glynn, and Davis (2007) observe how the level of corporate social action in a locality can be attributed to the level of social and normative institutions (i.e., community isomorphism around giving and philanthropy). They suggest that a norm for corporate social action “arises from a moral base—‘what is right to do around here’” (p. 934)

and that this stems from the “connectivity among corporations and nonprofits…[and] institu tional infrastructure, particularly com munity found-ations and elite involvement groups” (p. 936). Additionally, government awards grants or con tracts to nonprofits for numerous reasons including their ability to provide goods and services that may not be found in the market or public spaces, their desire to produce high-quality or innovative offerings to clients and communities by working within communities, and their lack of a profit motive and perceiv - ed trustworthiness.

In another example, Robichau (2013) extends the moral authority dimension of nonprofitness by examining the extent to which nonprofit child welfare managers identify with the various roles of the nonprofit sector and whether ad-herence to these purposes influences manage-ment practices. Her research suggests that high-er levels of identification with nonprofit roles increases collaboration with other nonprofits as well as positively influencing managerial priorities to achieve mission, serve clients, and be financially strategic. Membership associa-tions and advocacy nonprofits likewise share a space in the nonprofit sector where individual and group values are negotiated and expressed in broader society (Frumkin, 2005). Bringing these dimensions together, we argue that nonprofitness may be considered the degree to which an organization is affected by moral authority and nonprofit values.

a fraMeWOrK Of iNTer-SecTOraliTYA framework of inter-sectorality helps to ad vance theory and practice because it acknowledges that varying degrees of publicness, privateness, and nonprofitness shape organizations of all types. By incorporating nonprofitness into the publicness-privateness discussion, we intend to provide a richer avenue to explore an organization’s behavior—through a theoretical lens that recognizes the fluidity between state–market–civil society interactions. At the same time, we contend that organizations within each sector may emphasize different values and institutional logics for which some are, and some are not, mutually exclusive.



These differing values and institutional logics are developed extensively in the literature (Alexander & Weiner, 1998; Bozeman, 2007; Desai & Snavely, 2012; Schultz, 2004; Skel-cher & Smith, 2014; Thornton et al., 2012). There fore, to articulate a framework for intersec torality, we draw upon the institutional logic and values literatures and follow the research tradition of drawing on an open systems per-spective (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Scott & Davis, 2007). A central premise of this perspective is that to understand organizations and their behaviors, one must acknowledge that organi za tions are shaped by their social environments, con-texts, and ideas, and therefore, “organiza tions are viewed as a system of interdependent activities” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 31).

In the model depicted in Figure 1, an organi -za tion may fall closer to any one end of the triangular spectrum: it is by degrees that we

observe publicness, privateness, and nonprofit-ness. In addition, an institution’s position could move to the middle or even another extreme of the publicness-nonprofitness-privateness cont-inuum depending on its primary constraints, endowments, and motivations.

By showing organizations and sectors as perm-eable, this model propels us forward in think-ing about the institutional forces that pressure organizations to act in ways that may or may not align with their traditionally considered professional norms or institutional logics. The circle in the middle reflects an organization that is fluid and on certain dimensions may re-flect more publicness, privateness, or non pro fit-ness at any point in time. Inter-sectorality, as depicted in the movement of the organization, arises where organizations: (a) take on attributes that are readily associated with another sector, (b) behave more similarly to each other (act alike),

figure 1Model of a Framework of inter-sectorality

PUBLIC SECTOR(political authority)

Publ

icne

ssPr

ivat

enes

s

PRIVATE SECTOR(market authority)

NONPROFIT SECTOR(moral authority)

Nonprofitness

Privateness

Nonprofitness

Publicness



(c) operate in the same realms (provide similar services or roles), or (d) all three. In an effort to demonstrate the specific nonprofit in fluence on inter-sectorality, several examples that char ac-terize the manifestations of non pro fit ness are provided in the following sections.

cONTeMPOrarY MaNifeSTaTiONS Of NONPrOfiTNeSSIn turning to nonprofitness specifically, we argue that other organizations are borrowing value char acteristics from nonprofits to enhance their work and role while drawing on the moral authority conferred on the nonprofit sector. We also identify areas where the values and orient-ations of the nonprofit sector are influencing other organizations and extending the nonprofit ethos into newer and emerging organizational types. While organizations can, and perhaps should, adopt the dimensions of organizations from other sectors, appreciating the elements of sectoral distinctiveness proves beneficial for understanding and equipping individuals to oper ate within organizations beyond the struct-ures, authorities, and values of a particular sector. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the contemporary mani fest ations of non-profitness that are seen across organizations embracing inter-sectorality.

borrowing from NonprofitsOrganizations often look to other organizations for a basis of comparison, contrast, and bench-mark. Likewise, organizations may draw from other types of organizations within and across sectors for new ideas, processes, or practices to improve or enhance existing work (Myers & Sacks, 2003). When organizations look across sectors for innovations, ideas, or values while still maintaining their existing structures, they are borrowing features or specific dimensions of other sectors. In considering the ways in which traditionally ascribed organizations in the governmental and market sectors have borrowed from the nonprofit sector we con-textualize nonprofitness within government- supporting foundations and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

One newer type of organizational form is the affiliated foundation, which is a nonprofit

organ i zation set up to provide funding to a governmental entity (Smith, 2010). Whereas nonprofits are typically contracted by govern-ment to provide a service or program and therefore gain funding and support from gov-ernment contracts, affiliated foundations serve a charitable role as government-sup porting nonprofits (Gazley, 2013). To that end, affil-iated foundations are seen as a tool to conduct organization-specific fund-raising, to provide a legal mechanism for attracting charitable donations, and to give tax-deductible dollars to public organizations.

In practice, affiliated foundations are 501(c)(3) nonprofits focused on resource generation for a parent organization rather than on service pro vision (Smith, 2010). The parent organi-zation of an affiliated foundation tends to be a governmental entity that lacks the legal mechanism to accept tax-exempt donations and/or the goodwill and trust of those interest-ed in providing additional resources (Smith, 2010). As government-supporting charities, they therefore draw on the moral authority and trust bestowed upon a nonprofit organization; both of which are typically not attributed to the parent organization or governmental entity in its own right. A useful example of the gov-ernment-supporting foundation is found in local education foundations (LEFs), which are charitable entities set up to support or equip the fund-raising efforts of local school districts.

Like most nonprofits, LEFs were established because of a perceived need within public edu-cation for additional resources and community support for public schools (Addonizio, 2000; De Luna, 1998). Many LEFs were started in the 1980s, when public schools were faced with budget shortfalls at a time when overall public education was characterized by a decline in school quality (Bartlett, Frederick, Gulbrand-sen, & Murillo, 2002; De Luna, 1998). As LEFs are conduits for business and community engagement through private resources in public education, they are often created and admin-istered at the local level by those in the immediate community (Brent & Pijanowski, 2003; Merz & Frankel, 1995). Through local



con nections, LEFs draw on the community for their board membership, accountability, and values.

While LEFs may be created to serve one or several schools within a district, most LEFs are created to serve an entire school district (Else, 2013) by distributing funds throughout the community in which the school district resides. LEFs facilitate broader community engagement and charitable support for the school district. In this, school districts draw on nonprofitness to legitimize their fund-raising efforts within the community and provide additional re-sources and support for students and teachers.

In a similar vein, corporations likewise borrow elements of nonprofitness through CSR and corporate citizenship (Waddell, 2000). CSR refers to the charitable aspirations of corpor-ations within their immediate impact area or region to make a social impact in addition to traditional economic gains (Husted, 2003). The notion that businesses should use a CSR model is based on four dimensions that account for government and civil society inclinations: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1991). As a result, businesses are “required” to adhere to economic and legal responsibilities, “expected” to be ethical, and “desired” to adhere to responsi-bilities of philanthropy (Carroll & Shabana, 2010, p. 90). In doing so, Husted (2003) argues that corporations can choose different gov-ernance structures to engage in CSR. These include making contributions to charities by outsourcing, internalizing charitable efforts through philanthropy, or collaborating using both internal and external charitable efforts.

But, where does this desire to be socially re-sponsible and philanthropic stem from? Batson and Coke (1983) and Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, and Fultz (1987) argue that feelings of giving and philanthropy stem from empathy and the desire to help the needy. Cialdini and colleagues (1987) also note that some CSR is not altruistically motivated, but rather, while corporations (or their leaders) want to avoid feeling bad for not helping,

business decisions and management are shaped by influences and motivations beyond the market.

As CSR has given way to corporate citizenship, market-based organizations have demonstrated a moral and values-driven orientation more commonly attributed to the nonprofit sector. Waddell (2000) argues that corporate citi zen-ship is an emerging framework that captures the “systems” perspective of “increasing recog nition of the need to engage other com mun i ties…[and] to protect and further corporate interest” through a focus on partnerships between corporations and society (p. 110). We argue, therefore, that market-based organizations are likewise borrowing from the nonprofit charitable sector as they seek to advance their place in society through charitable functions of private corporations (File & Prince, 1998). Moreover, corporate philanthropy in parti -cular embraces a similar focus to nonprofit organizations, as it tends to emphasize em-ployee support within the immediate community (Marx, 1999). Where charitable efforts are defined as social responsibility and citizenship, corporations are not only borrow-ing elements of moral functions from the nonprofit sector, but also demonstrating their interest in re flecting similar nonprofit values. Once again, such values include responsiveness, empowerment, effectiveness, and care (Salamon et al., 2012).

At the same time that organizations borrow elements from the nonprofit sector, both government and market sectors are increasingly influenced by nonprofits, as they too demonstrate characteristics of nonprofitness.

Nonprofits influencing Other OrganizationsDiMaggio and Powell’s (1991) prominent the-ory of isomorphism describes how organi za-tions have the tendency to become more homogeneous to one another. They hypothesize that isomorphic changes occur as agencies interact more with one another, depend on other organizations for their resources, professionalize their field, and rely on a specific relationship or funding source. Given iso mor-



phic tendencies, the influence of nonprofit - ness can be seen through the expan sion of grantmaking within the federal govern ment and through corporations as they respond to nonprofit values and influence.

Nonprofits are often characterized as taking up what are considered the best practices of organ-izations within other sectors, including those in the market and governmental sectors (Desai & Snavely, 2012). Their public role alongside government and markets forces non profits to balance their purpose as trustworthy service providers, advocates, or innovators, while also conforming to an environment that increasingly moves them toward being com petitive and per formance-driven (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). However, nonprofit organizations are not without their influence on organizations within other sectors.

Alongside government, nonprofits readily assert their roles as “mediating structures” between government and individuals (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977). As organizations that stand between the state and individual, private lives, nonprofits have acted to translate and assert the values of individuals and groups throughout society. As nonprofits act as organizers of community and collective thoughts, non profitness has in flu enc-ed the ways in which government ap proaches critical public issues and broader so cial and racial challenges (Bryce, 2012). Given that nonprofits have asserted their role as arbiters of morals and values (Frumkin, 2005), nonprofits “create networks and relationships that connect people to each other and to insti tutions quite apart from the organization’s pri mary purpose” (Boris, 1999, p. 18).

Take, for example, community development corp or ations that engage in networking, out-reach, partnerships, and political advocacy on behalf of underserved communities (Glick man & Servon, 2003). In this way they build social capital by engaging stakeholders in working to-ward mutual or collective goals (Young, 1999) and encouraging “boundary spanners” among nonprofit staff within interorganizational net-works (Agranoff, 2007). A by-product of this is

that nonprofits, through staff and volunteers, encourage civic engage ment and awareness of community needs within the populations they interact with (Boris, 1999).

Further, nonprofits often build social capital alongside government in the form of research, advocacy, and financial donations for alternative programs addressing societal problems. Through these types of efforts, nonprofits are often touted for providing local solutions to societal problems as a “powerful alternative to the ongoing search for uniform national solutions to public problems” (Frumkin, 2005, p. 19). This is likewise seen at the federal government level, where agencies have readily increased their grantmaking to state and local entities, as well as to nonprofit organizations and com-munity groups, in an effort to be responsive and effective in addressing local challenges (Dilulio, 2003; Minow, 2002).

Through the reliance on “government by proxy” and extensive federal grantmaking (Dilulio, 2003, p. 1271), the government has taken on a philanthropic role by combining both values and responsiveness in attempting to place resources closer to the organizations and entities who can best help those in need. As a result, the influence of nonprofits extends beyond the roles and activities of grantmaking to include feedback loops that connect nonprofit organ-izations and government in an information exchange that includes advocacy, awareness, and organizational change (Senge, 1990; Van Slyke & Roch, 2004). In all, nonprofitness provides multiple benefits to governmental entities through problem identification, values responsiveness, and facilitating different forms of public and private interaction (Gazley, 2008; Gazley & Brudney, 2007).

Nonprofitness influences not only the government sector, but also the market sector, where corporations that work alongside non-profits may adapt their work and role as a result of nonprofit interactions. Arya and Salk (2006) found evidence that through cross-sector al-liances between nonprofits (nongovernmental organizations or NGOs) and corporations, the



multinational corporations in the study were compelled “to adopt or even create voluntary codes of conduct and infuse the firm with the knowledge, know-how and incentives to behave in ways that will make a genuine difference in sustainable development” (p. 211). Through longer, sustained interactions between corpor-ations and NGOs, it is possible to see how understanding stakeholder interests and values encourage corporations to act with greater responsibility and effectiveness within the broader communities in which they carry out their work.

extending the Nonprofit ethosScholars and practitioners are currently being challenged to think about a maturing paradigm that focuses on “private resources for public good” (Bernholz, 2013, p. 2) by combining both social and economic dimensions (Skelcher & Smith, 2014; Van Til, 2008). In turn, research has begun to look more closely at how the sectors are blurring and specifically how the growth of new private sector organizations seeks to harness private resources for the public’s benefit through hybridity (Van Til, 2008). Hybridity shifts the single-sector perspective away from the traditional exclusive government-nonprofit and funder-nonprofit models toward a more inclusive model of the delivery of public or community goods, services, and activities. Practices associated with social entrepreneurship are emerging, as both social enterprise and innovation demonstrate how nonprofitness extends to organizational behavior and structure inside and outside the traditionally conceived nonprofit sector.

Given the popularity of the social entrepre neur-ship and enterprise frameworks, new organiza-tional structures that blend the institutional logics of the state (e.g., democracy) and the market (e.g., capitalism) represent an evolving, paradigmatic shift in community. This shift may be characterized by traditional notions of government and/or of nonprofit and philan-thropic institutions handing ownership of what’s considered the public good over to broader civic interests characterized by the need to include a social purpose and a meaningful

workplace as an organizational value. Social businesses allow for a dual bottom line, production of profit, and the creation of societal good (Hurst, 2014; Kanter, 2011).

The new hybrid firms, also known as socially re-spon sible businesses, include the moral and value considerations typically associated with non-profitness (Hurst, 2014). Kanter (2011) posits that companies can be vehicles for accom plish-ing societal goals and providing pur pose to owners and workers while making a profit. For example, in the past five years, we have seen new legislation across the United States allowing for hybrid companies that capture the essence of nonprofitness while keeping a private form to allow for profit making.

The benefit corporation (or B Corporation) requires that corporate shareholders agree to some types of social benefit as the corporate overlay (i.e., general or specific purpose). In addition to the B Corporation legislation, a nonprofit organi-zation called B Lab has shaped the B Corpora-tion movement as it gains some traction across the United States.1 B Corporation shareholders are tasked with considering the voice of stakeholders in developing the corporate public benefit within the purpose statement. For example, the B Corporation may specifically seek to make changes in health care dealing with catastrophic health concerns, reduce poverty with service to low-income individuals through products and services, support econ omic op-por tunity through job creation, engage in the protection and restoration of the environment, or promote arts and sciences and the advance-ment of knowledge (Murray, 2012).

Hybrid corporations or social enterprises are co-creators of profit and social value driven by considerations for public interest and social good. They are organizations that may or may not take a lower return on financial investment in order to produce on social mission (Sabeti, 2011). Beyond nonprofits that informally char-acterize their work as social entre pre neur ship, hybrids are quickly being formally institu tion-alized and legalized as legitimate organizations that have nonprofit-type purposes and mar ket-



like structures (Bernholz, 2013; Hurst, 2014; Sabeti, 2011).

Another example of hybrid organizations can be seen with the low-profit limited liability company (L3C). The L3C is a hybrid between nonprofit and for-profit firms. The firm has a double bottom line: it is a profit-seeking, not profit-maximizing, firm that has a social orient-ation. In other words, it is an organization that combines or supports a social mission with market-oriented methods (i.e., social enterprises that are organized as an L3C do not maximize profit). Instead, these firms reduce the profit received and take a lower profit return on the investment while allocating the remaining return of the total profit to invest in social good (Murray, 2012). New organizational models like the L3C may achieve lasting social benefit and environmental well-being alongside economic prosperity because they capture the essence of nonprofitness at the corporate formation to either produce a social benefit or divert profit to a social good.

An interesting example of an L3C is MOOMilk (Maine’s Own Organic Milk), an organic milk cooperative of dairy farmers set up between farmers as a L3C to produce local organic quality milk and sell to retailers who prefer to buy locally. The objective was to capitalize on the L3C model, which would allow the coop-erative to be sustainable and eligible for loans and grants initially, and then sales would allow for long-term sustainability. However, MOO-Milk closed in 2014 due to soft demand for the product and capital expenses that did not allow for the viability of the cooperative.2

As social enterprise and entrepreneurship become institutionalized and commonplace, hybrid organizations in such forms as B Corporations and L3Cs have the potential to gain greater legitimacy. Since such organizations are neither exclusively nonprofit nor for-profit, taken together, these types of hybrid enterprises generate their own resources and co-create social good to meet organizational mission and values. Socially minded business people as well as legislative bodies becoming may well become

more interested in the co-creation of financial return and societal good. While Sisodia, Wolfe, and Sheth (2007) disagree with the hybrid classification and claim firms may indeed have a heart to pursue a social mission and profits simultaneously, the trajectory of various for-profit and nonprofit models allows for the creation of new norms or social values beyond the traditional nonprofit sector. Here the constraints and endowments of moral authority and values can be observed as nonprofitness extends into emerging organizational forms.

Through the pursuit of developing opportunities and continuing organizational adaptation and learning, a new accountability is created for the production of social outcomes outside trad i tion-al government, market, and nonprofit structures. Such organizational structures are on the rise as socially driven organizations seek to overcome survivability issues by being able to seek and receive venture capital from donors, private investors, and philanthropic foundations when and where program investments or missions align. A challenge to these types of organizational structures is that new ventures need adequate resources to not only be sustainable, but thrive and succeed (Mollick, 2014).

In addition to formal organizational models, other vehicles such as crowdfunding and social impact bonds are also advancing the creation of social good through a similar model of gen er-ating private resources (Belleflammea, Lambert, & Schwienbacherd, 2014; Bernholz, 2013; Liebman, 2011; Mollick, 2014). These include individuals, companies, and agencies forming public-private partnerships and other arrange-ments to support social change. These joint ventures, such as public-private partnerships, sometimes operate with or without the influ-ence of nonprofitness, including: moral authority and other expressive values, which give structure and shape to such efforts. Given the context of emerging structures and vehicles for social good, public administration and public policy programs will need to consider the wide array of tools through which social value and change are being delivered.



Looking ahead, we next provide recom mend-ations for programs to provide an integrated curriculum that captures the reality of public-ness and privateness, as well as nonprofitness.

educaTiNg STudeNTS iN aN iNTerSecTOral WOrldTo this point, a framework for inter-sectorality proposes using an expanded publicness-private-ness theory to include a distinct context for non profitness. These distinctions are illustrated in the previous section, which discusses the pre-sence of nonprofitness in the governmental and market sectors as organizations are influ enced by the moral authority and values that endow and constrain nonprofits.

In turning to the individuals who work across sectors, organizations, and hybrid environ ments, we contend that the intersectoral nature of their work is not likely to change in the near future. Professionals from the three sectors often do and can expect to continue to cross boundaries as they carry out their work in a context that includes organizations with varying institutional logics, structures, and missions (Knutsen, 2012). Accepting the assumption that the extension of practices and attributes within sectors has practical implications as they are applied across sectors, we encourage an expanded conversation on how to continually develop education for students of public administration. Drawing on the significance of inter-sectorality, we continue our discussion on the implications of the borrowing of elements from nonprofits, the normative influence of nonprofits on other sectors, and the extension of the dimensions of the nonprofit sector to other organizational structures and forms.

Schools of public affairs, public administration, and public policy help build the capacity of public organizations by educating and training the professionals who are the pre-service and current workforce or management. Given the degree to which organizations are borrowing the legal, political, market, and moral/value-driven domains of different sectors, we encour-age developing the civic capacity of professionals more broadly to encompass socially oriented

activities across institutions, communities, or-ganizations, groups, and indiv iduals. So whether or not a professional serves as the executive dir ector of a foundation affil iated with a govern-mental entity, or a private foundation origin a-ting from a corporation, that professional will have the knowledge to operate in a nonprofit organization within a public or private context.

The basis of this orientation already exists as part of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) accred-itation process, which requires that programs instill public service values in five core com pe-tencies. However, the competencies encourage schools to impart skills that enable students to operate in the public governance realm by embodying a public service perspective as well as acknowledging the importance of public policy and citizen engagement more broadly. While NASPAA is not definitive on the relationship between public and nonprofit organizations, these domains are equally applicable to nonprofit professionals as well as to other boundary-spanning individuals who may work with or for different organizations.

In a similar vein, the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC)—a nonprofit schools member organization—has developed its own curricular guidelines for graduate and under-graduate programs in the areas of nonprofit leadership, the nonprofit sector, and philan-thropy.3 NACC’s curricular guidelines are not only relevant to specific nonprofit programs, but also serve as a guide for other disciplines seeking to introduce and offer specializations in nonprofit studies.

For their part, NACC proposes 16 core guide-lines with multiple subsections germane to schools of public administration and public policy. For example, some guidelines high lighting the values and practices of the sector include “History and theories of the nonprofit sector, voluntary action, and philanthropy; Ethics and values; Public policy, advocacy and social change; Leadership, organization, and management; [and] Assess-ment, evaluation and decision-making methods”



(Non profit Academic Centers Council, 2007, pp. 7–12). These guidelines acknowledge the accepted practice of regular interaction between government and nonprofits. Topics include how and why the nonprofit sector emerged, non-profit advocacy for social change in the political process, and the promotion of values of volun-tary action such as service, civic engagement, social justice, or freedom of association. Know-ledge in these curricular domains is essential for professionals to carry out their work regardless of sector.

Moving past general knowledge, professionals are experiencing the daily influences of inter-sectorality and thus need tangible skill sets that enable them to navigate the complex world of cross-sector organizational interactions. Where nonprofits influence the way the public sector approaches and addresses complex social issues, nonprofit professionals benefit from the research being done within nonprofit and interdisci-plinary scholarship. Bennis and O’Toole (2005) once criticized top Master of Business Admin-istration programs and their faculties for being out of touch with American businesses and losing their multidisciplinary approach. Similarly, O’Neill (2007, p. 175s) argued in his keynote address to nonprofit leaders and scholars that professionals’ roles and experiences in society should be “the driving force, the ultimate test, the touchstone of excellence and relevance” that spurs university educational systems, rather than the narrow research interests of faculty or academic traditions.

Recognizing that public administration, public policy, and nonprofit scholarship give shape to the discussion on inter-sectorality, we should nevertheless make this scholarship relevant to professionals in our programs. Through cases, classroom or community-wide simulations, com munity service projects, and other exper-iential learning techniques, professionals can develop perspectives on the ways nonprofit organizations influence the work of government and the private sector and vice versa. Profes-sionals can also experience how to respond and make decisions in using specific details in myriad situations.

In the field of public administration and policy, several free resources give educators pedagogical sources for their classrooms. These sources include Rutgers University’s online database of over 1,000 cases and simulations and Syracuse University’s website, which emphasizes colla-boration and network governance.4 What is increasingly valuable about these and other similar resources (e.g., the Electronic Hallway at the University of Washington) is that they are moving public affairs education beyond single-sector thinking and framing the multi sector approach to solving complex “public” problems. They also provide relevant and timely ways to think about the shape and impact of intersec-toral responses to social issues, such as en vi ron-mental change, community development, and marginalized populations in both domestic and international contexts. In essence, cases and simulations open up a space for professionals to discuss and acknowledge current organiza-tional realities that are influencing the values, behaviors, and standards of practice occurring in the field.

As a way to ensure that professionals engage with inter-sectorality in coursework, seminars are useful for stimulating interest and expertise in specific topics affecting nonprofit organiza-tions. Given the existing extension of nonprofit values and activities through emerging organi za-tional forms, it is important for professionals to learn about managing mixed financial resources stemming from government contracts (e.g., pay for success programs), private sector donors (e.g., social impact bonds), and other nonprofit and philanthropic grants (e.g., social value creation). Organizations driven by social value propositions need to define and articulate performance goals while reporting on the financial and social bottom lines that satisfy corporate rules and regulations, as well as society’s expectations for moral and value considerations.

Such seminars on financial management, when combined with more traditional courses on pro-gram evaluation that target cost-benefit analyses and impact evaluations, may do well to educate professionals. Another seminar topic may in clude an introduction to public-private partnerships,



which broadly encompasses the areas of account-ability and collaboration in contracting out for goods and services. Where expertise is necessary or desired, advanced contracts and procurement seminars can complement courses on partner-ships, especially where students are interested in pursuing careers in procurement at the federal, state, or local levels or careers as grants managers within philanthropic or community foundations. A seminar focusing on the spirit of social entre-preneurship, where professionals can refine their interests in private action for public good, may complement courses in nonprofit manage-ment and civil society.

While social entrepreneurs are often held out as change agents seeking to create and sustain large-scale social value through their work (Dees, 2004), professionals must be encouraged to engage with others most affected by the social issues they intend to address in their professional work. Classes focusing on practicing democracy, citizen engagement, participatory governance, and advocacy—and including new forms of government including e-government (e.g., electronic town halls), participatory budgeting, and co-governance structures—will allow pro-fes sionals to understand that citizens have a voice in the social sector that can be encouraged through new models of participatory governance.

In considering the ways that nonprofitness is extending nonprofit values and activities in civil society (e.g., through social entre pre neurship, L3Cs, and B Corporations), it is also important for professionals to learn how to implement an environmental scan. An environmental scan allows individuals to identify areas of overlap or opportunity before creating their own nonprofit or hybrid organization. In-class projects, service learning, and internships will help students look at current organizations that are working in their field of interest (Simon, Yack, & Ott, 2013) and determine where gaps exist across sectors. However, as this field of study continues to develop alongside a dynamic environment characterized by change, innovation, and social need, faculty must continue to complement course offerings by facilitating regular inter-action with actors in the field.

One way of identifying the skills necessary to long-serving professionals is to invite speakers who engage in intersectoral work through colla-boration or partnership, CSR and com mun ity development, or contracting out between the sectors. Current professionals may provide students with a foundation for thinking about how they approach their work and recommend what does or does not work within cross-sector relationships. Further, guest speakers can act as conduits for storytelling and appreciative in-quiry to better inform emerging professionals.

Cunningham, Riverstone, and Roberts (2005) maintain that stories speak to all because they stimulate listeners’ brains and emotions, and there fore can encourage students to actively en-gage in the learning process themselves—what Cunningham and colleagues call “direct[ing] learners to the fish in the water” (2005, p. 47) versus studying the dead fish in the lab. As suggested in research on the “classroom-as-organization” (see Putzel, 1992), students want to engage in learning materials as if it they are alive and even take an active role in creating the learning environment. This may involve moving outside the classroom to engage in the locations of nonprofit organizations and their respective meeting places (e.g., the offices of community foundations, local nonprofit membership organ izations, or nonprofit associations).

At the same time as educators meet professionals in the classroom and begin the task of trans-lating inter-sectorality into its practical realities, we suggest that normative conversations about organizational structures, logics, authorities, and values are significant to connecting theory and practice. Researchers from other academic fields have argued that perhaps educators should also focus on developing communities of practice, where the focus is on common purposes rather than organizational forms (Agranoff, 2006; Dees & Anderson, 2003; Paton, Mordaunt, & Cornforth, 2007). Professionals who work within or across sectors should become familiar with the expectations of employees in public, private, or nonprofit sector organizations, in where they differ or are similar as well as in where



they conflict. No two sectors act the same in how they treat or perceive professional behav-iors, and educators would do well to highlight the values that are imposed differently across organizations or individuals within different sectors (Schultz, 2004, p. 292).

Through our recommendation to shape public administration programs with an intersectoral framework, we encourage professionals to con-sider all possible means through which social change and innovation are carried out. Whereas the instrumental dimensions (e.g., adapting organ izational structures to make task accom-plishment easier and more efficient) and the expressive dimensions (e.g., the moral authority and values that underlie a normative nonprofit ethic) of nonprofits play out across the organ-izations’ work, both roles are also increasingly found in governmental and market contexts. Supporting the development of professionals who appreciate and integrate organizational dimensions from different sectors helps contri-bute to a vibrant and effectual civic orientation.

cONcluSiONGiven the ongoing presence of hybridity and complexity across the organizational fields, it is increasingly important that scholars and students examine organizations as they exist along the publicness-privateness continuum in order to understand how these agencies are “interacting to produce public and private outcomes” (Wise, 2010, p. s166). However, it is also valuable for scholars and students to recognize the extent to which nonprofit and civil society organizations interact with and move beyond the traditional market and government paradigms. In this article we argue there is a growing level of inter-sectorality among organizations; we therefore focus on the distinctiveness of nonprofitness as a theoretical construct and central theme. This emphasis leads to varying implications for theory, education, and professional practice.

We first acknowledge that the nonprofit sector continues to diversify and connect with the government and market sectors in the delivery of goods and services. We contribute to the

literature by building on the integrative public-ness framework (Bozeman & Moulton, 2011) to incorporate a nonprofitness component. While some scholars have referred to the term nonprofitness broadly (Dekker, 2001; Knutsen & Brock, 2014), we extend their work by aiming to conceptualize and construct a theory of nonprofitness that draws upon the degree to which nonprofit organizations are affected by moral authority based on their purpose(s) and expressive or instrumental dimension orienta-tions (Frumkin, 2005; Salamon, 2012). We maintain that nonprofitness is a critical part of the larger conversation regarding intersector-ality and the degree to which organizations are shaped by various aspects of publicness, private ness, and nonprofitness.

Through the literature and examples, we suggest that public and private organizations are bor-row ing from, being shaped by, and extending traditional nonprofit structures and behaviors in order to accomplish their purposes. Thus, we argue that given contemporary manifestations of nonprofitness, our public (and nonprofit) administration and public policy programs must prepare students for success in an intersectoral world. Teaching today’s professionals about non-profit organi zations and the value propos tions that form the basis of these organizations allows students of public (and nonprofit) administration to navigate the blurred intersectoral lines. Whether students pursue careers in professional or academic settings, their ability to recognize and appreciate the differences across public, private, and nonprofit organizations is para-mount to avoiding the perception and reality of insignificance for sectors that are blending, blurring, and bending (Waddell, 2000).

We encourage future research that continues to examine how nonprofitness crosses intersectoral boundaries in theory and practice. Future work should build and expand this discussion as well as allow for empirical testing of the nonprofit-ness construct across organizations and organi-zational fields. Given the varying institutional logics and values that nonprofits adopt, an interdisciplinary approach to studying and



teaching inter-sectorality is needed to both acknowledge the existence of organizations at both the extremes and in the middle of the pub licness-privateness-nonprofitness continuum.

NOTeS

1 Information on states with enacted benefit corporation legislation can be found at http://benefitcorp.net/.

2 They called themselves a cooperative but used the L3C organizational structure. For more on the closure of MOOMilk, see http://bangordailynews.com/2014/05/16/business/maine-organic-milk-producer-moo-milk-to-close/.

3 NASPAA’s 2009 “Standard by Standard Guidance” resources can be found at http://accreditation.naspaa.org/resources/standard-by-standard-guidance/ and NACC’s 2007 Curricular Guidelines for Graduate Study in Nonprofit Leadership, the Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy are located at http://www.urban.csuohio.edu/nacc/documents/GradCG07.pdf.

4 See Rutgers University at https://pagateway.newark.rutgers.edu/about and see Syracuse University at https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/parcc_eparcc.aspx.

refereNceS

Addonizio, M. F. (2000). Private funds for public schools. The Clearing House, 74(2), 70–74.

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66 (s1), 56–65.

Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations . Washington, DC: George town University Press.

Alexander, J. A., & Weiner, B. J. (1998). The adoption of the corporate governance model by nonprofit

organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leader-ship, 8 (3), 223–242.

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational per-formance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 3), i301-i319.

Arya, B., & Salk, J. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16 (2) 211–234.

Bartlett, L., Frederick, M., Gulbrandsen, T., & Murillo, E. (2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33 (1), 5–29.

Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. (1983). Empathic moti-vation for helping behavior. In J. T. Caccioppo and R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology (pp. 417–433). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Belleflammea, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacherd, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (5), 585–609.

Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83 (5), 96–104.

Berger, P., & Neuhaus, R. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy . Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Bernholz, L. (2013). Philanthropy and the new social economy: Blueprint 2013 . New York, NY: The Foundation Center/GrantCraft. Retrieved from http://www.grantcraft.org/guides/philanthropy-and-the-social-economy-blueprint-2013.

Berry, F. S., & Brower, R. S. (2005). Intergovernmental and intersectoral management: Weaving networking, contracting out, and management roles into third party government. Public Performance & Management Review, 29 (1), 7–17.

Boris, E. T. (1999). Nonprofit organizations in a demo-cracy: Varied roles and responsbilities. In E. T. Boris & E. C. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 3–29). Washington, DC: The Urban Insitute.



Boris, E. T., & Steuerle, C. E. (Eds.). (2006). Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Bowman, L. N., & Thompson, J. R. (2013). Depart-ments of public administration and colleges of business administration: Allies or aliens? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19 (2), 239–261.

Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridg-ing public and private organizational theories (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative public-ness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Suppl. 3), i363–i380.

Brent, B. O., & Pijanowski, J. C. (2003). Shaking the tree: The benefits (and costs) of district education foundations. School Business Affairs, 69 (5), 6–10.

Bryce, H. J. (2012). Players in the public policy process: Nonprofits as social capital and agents . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 85–105.

Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., & Fultz, J. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (4), 749–758.

Coursey, D., & Bozeman, B. (1990). Decision making in the public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of “publicness.” Public Admin-istration Review, 50 (5), 525–534.

Cunningham, B., Riverstone, L., & Roberts, S. (2005). Scholars, teachers, practitioners, and students: Learn-ing by fishing, storytelling, and appreciative inquiry. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 45–52.

Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (2), 290–310.

Dees, J. G. (2004, Fall). Social entrepreneurship is about innovation and impact, not income. CASEconnection Newsletter. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua. duke.edu/case/knowledge_items/social-entre preneurship-is-about-innovation-and-impact-not-income/.

Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40 (4), 16–27.

Dekker, P. (2001). What crises, what challenges? When nonprofitness makes no difference. In H. K. An heier & J. Kendall (Eds.), Third sector policy at the crossroads: An international nonprofit analysis (pp. 61–68). London, UK: Routledge.

De Luna, P. (1998). Local education foundations: Right for many schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (5), 385–390.

Desai, U. C, & Snavely, K. (2012). Three faces of the state and the nonprofit sector. Administration & Society, 44(8), 962–984.

Dilulio, J. J. (2003). Response: Government by proxy: A faithful overview. Harvard Law Review, 116(5) 1271–1284.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The socio-logy of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The mar-ketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64 (2), 132–140.

Else, D. (2013). Research findings: Assisting K-12 education through the national school foundations association . Retrieved from http://www.schoolfoundations.org/research-findings.



File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related market ing and corporate philanthropy in the priv-ately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529–1539.

Fisher, M. (2000). Ethical decision making in fund raising . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Frumkin, P. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Gazley, B. (2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government–nonprofit partnerships. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 141–154.

Gazley, B. (2013). The shoe’s on the other foot: Government reliance on private philanthropy . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). Hartford, CT.

Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (3), 389–415.

Geller, S., & Salamon, L. (2008). A nonprofit work-force action agenda: Report on the Listening Post Project Roundtable on Nonprofit Recruitment and Retention. Listening Post Communiqué No . 10, 1–7. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/publications-findings/?did=259.

Glickman, N. J., & Servon, L. J. (2003). By the numbers: Measuring community development cor-p orations’ capacity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22 (3), 240–256.

Hall, P. D. (2010). Historical perspectives of nonprofit organizations in the United States. In D. O. Renz & Associates (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 3–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hammack, D. C., & Young, D. R. (Eds.). (1993). Nonprofit organizations in a market economy: Under-standing new roles, issues, and trends . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haque, S. M. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of govern-ance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.

Heinrich, C. J., Lynn, Jr., L. E., & Milward, H. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evi - dence over the extent and impact of the trans for ma-tion of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (Suppl. 1), i3–i19.

Hurst, A. (2014). The purpose economy: How your desire for impact, personal growth and community is changing the world . Boise, ID: Elevate.

Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for cor po-rate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning, 36 (5), 481–498.

Isett, K. R., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a net-work of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 149–165.

Jacobs, J. (1992). Systems of survival: A dialogue on the moral foundations of commerce and politics . New York, NY: Random House.

Jeavons, T. H. (1992). When the management is the message: Relating values to management practice in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 403–417.

Jeavons, T. H. (2010). Ethical nonprofit management: Core values and key practices. In D. O. Renz & Associates (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 178–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39 (3), 354–381.

Kanter, R. M. (2011). How great companies think differently. Harvard Business Review, 89 (11), 66–78.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kettl, D. F. (2005). The global public management revolu-tion . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Knutsen, W. L. (2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations. Administrat-ion & Society, 44 (8), 985–1013.

Knutsen, W. L., & Brock, K. L. (2014). Introductory essay: From a closed system to an open system: A parallel



critical review of the intellectual trajectories of pub lic ness and nonprofitness. Voluntas, 25(5), 1113–1131.

LeRoux, K., & Feeney, M. K. (2015). Nonprofit organ-izations and civil society in the United States . New York, NY: Routledge.

Liebman, J. B. (2011). Social impact bonds: A promising new financing model to accelerate social innovation and improve government performance. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, Doing What Works.

Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.

Marx, J. D. (1999). Corporate philanthropy: What is the strategy? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 185–198.

Merz, C., & Frankel, S. S. (1995). Private funds for public schools: A study of school foundations . Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound, School of Education.

Minkoff, D. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401.

Minow, M. (2002). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law Review, 116, 1229–1270.

Mirabella, R. M. (2013). Toward a more perfect nonprofit: The performance mindset and the “gift.” Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), 81–105.

Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.

Moulton, S. (2009). Putting toghether the publicness puzzle: A framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 899–900.

Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.

Murray, J. H. (2012). Choose your own master: Social enterprise, certifications, and benefit corporation statutes. American University Business Law Review, 2(1), 1–53.

Myers, J., & Sacks, R. (2003). Tools, techniques and tightropes: The art of walking and talking private sector management in non-profit organisations, is it just a question of balance? Financial Accountability & Management, 19(3), 287–306.

Najam, A. (2000). The four c’s of government third sector-government relations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 375–396.

Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. (2007). NACC’s curricular guidelines for graduate study in nonprofit leadership, the nonprofit sector and philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.urban.csuohio.edu/nacc/documents/GradCG07.pdf.

O’Neill, M. (2007). The future of nonprofit management education. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (Suppl. 4), 169S–176S.

O’Riain, S. (2000). States and markets in an era of globalization. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 187–213.

Osborne, D. E., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is trans-forming the public sector . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2012). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 56 (4), 972–1001.

Paton, R., Mordaunt, J., & Cornforth, C. (2007). Beyond nonprofit management education: Leader-ship development in a time of blurred boundaries and distributed learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4, Suppl.), 148–162S.

Pesch, U. (2008). The publicness of public admin-istration. Administration & Society, 40 (2), 170–193.

Putzel, R. (1992). “Experience Base” learning: A class-room-as-organization using delegated, rank-order grading. Journal of Management Education, 16 (2), 204–219.

Robichau, R. W. (2013). Between markets and govern-ment: Essays on nonprofitness and the institutional transformation of child welfare agencies . (Doctoral



dissertation, Arizona State University). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3568343.)

Sabeti, H. (2011). The for-benefit enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 98–104.

Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Govern-ment-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Salamon, L. M. (2002). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 3–63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Salamon, L. M. (2012). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer . New York, NY: The Foundation Center Press.

Salamon, L. M., Geller, S., & Newhouse, C. (2012). What do nonprofits stand for? Listening Post Com munique No ., 22, 1–23. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/publications-findings/?did=389.

Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships . New York, NY: Chatham House.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schultz, D. (2004). Profesional ethics in postmodern society. Public Integrity, 6(4), 279–297.

Scott, W., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and org an - izing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline . The art and practice of the learning organization . London, UK: Random House.

Simon, C. A., Yack, M., & Ott, J. S. (2013). MPA program partnerships with nonprofit organiza-tions: Benefits to MPA programs, MPA students and graduates, nonprofit organizations, and com-munities. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19 (2), 355–374.

Sisodia, R. S., Wolfe, D. B., & Sheth, J. W. (2007). Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion and purpose . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Theorizing hybrid-ity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public administration . Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12105/full.

Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit org-anizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29 (3), 219–229.

Su, X., & Bozeman. B. (2009). Dynamics of sector switch-ing: Hazard models predicting changes from private sector jobs to public and nonprofit sector jobs. Public Administration Review, 69 (6), 1106–1114.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Van Slyke, D. M., & Roch, C. H. (2004). What do they know, and whom do they hold accountable? Citizens in the government–nonprofit contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Res earch and Theory, 14 (2), 191–209.

Van Til, J. (1987). The three sectors: Voluntarism in a changing political economy. Nonprofit and Volun-tary Sector Quarterly, 16 (1–2), 50–63.

Van Til, J. (2008). Growing civil society: From nonprofit sector to third space . Bloomington: Indiana Univer-sity Press.

Waddell, S. (2000). New institutions for the practice of corporate citizenship: Historical, intersectoral, and developmental perspectives. Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 107–126.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-ment, 16 (4), 541–555.

Wise, C. R. (2010). Organizations of the future: Greater hybridization coming. Public Administration Review, 70 (Suppl. 1), s164–s166.

Young, D. R. (1999). Complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? Nonprofit-government relations. In E. T. Boris & E. C. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.



abOuT THe auTHOrS

robbie Waters robichau is assistant professor at the Institute for Public and Nonprofit Studies at Georgia Southern University. She received her doctorate in Public Administration and Policy with a Nonprofit Leadership and Man agement Certificate from Arizona State Univer sity. Her research interests are in public and nonprofit management, organizational behav ior, govern-ance, and child welfare policy.

Kandyce fernandez is assistant professor of public administration in the College of Public Policy at The University of Texas at San An-tonio. While her broader research interests address emerging organizational structures and the interactions that take place between org-anizations attributed to specific sectors, she has a particular interest in nonprofits, philan-thropy, and urban development and education.

Patsy Kraeger is assistant professor, as of Aug ust 2015, at the Institute of Public and Nonprofit Studies at Georgia Southern University. She holds degrees in public administration, non-profit management, and law. She received her PhD from Arizona State University, where she currently serves as a faculty associate. Her major research interests are focused on social enterprise policy, performance management and governance, and the study of philanthropy vis-à-vis democracy.



iNTrOducTiONFor almost 20 years, scholars interested in public affairs education have called for inno-vation in master’s-level curricula to respond to the momentous shifts, begun in the 1960s, in how public services are delivered. The integral and expanded role of nonprofit organizations as implementers of publicly funded programs and as participants in the larger policy process is a key feature of what is now generally understood as the new public governance.

At a 1996 conference on nonprofit manage-ment education, Salamon argued that public administration teaching programs should under take a “basic reconceptualization of what the nature of public administration has come to mean” (1996, p. 12). He expanded and reiterated the proposed innovation in a 2004 Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) keynote ad-dress (Salamon, 2005). Smith has also built a case for “a fundamental rethinking of the

Nonprofit Management Education in Schools with Public Affairs Curricula:

An Analysis of the Trend Toward Curriculum Integration

Judith r. SaidelUniversity at Albany, State University of New York

Steven rathgeb SmithAmerican Political Science Association

abSTracTFor almost 20 years, scholars interested in public affairs education have called for innovation in master’s-level curricula to respond to shifts, begun in the 1960s, in how public services are delivered. The integral role of nonprofit organizations as implementers of publicly funded programs and as participants in the larger policy process is a key feature of the new public governance. This article examines recent trends in nonprofit management education in universities that offer master’s-level graduate programs in public affairs. Based on data from 43 schools collected in two waves, first in 2011 and again in 2014, we elaborate a four-level curriculum integration model and document trends in curriculum development. We find that just over half of the sample schools remain in a pre-integration stage of curriculum development. Simultaneously, analysis across the 43 schools reveals that significant movement has occurred among schools in the later stages of curriculum change.

KeYWOrdSNonprofit management education, curriculum integration, curriculum development, intersectoral management education

JPAE 21 (3), 337–348


current curriculum” (2008, p. 126). Along with other researchers (e.g., Cohen & Abbott, 2000), Salamon (1996, 2005) and Smith (2008) ident ified the integration of nonprofit-related issues into the core curriculum of master’s-level public affairs programs as a central element of curricular innovation.

This article is an empirical examination of recent trends in nonprofit management educa tion in universities that offer master’s-level graduate programs in public affairs. Based on data from 43 schools collected in two waves, first in 2011 and again in 2014, we elaborate a four-level curriculum integration model and document trends in curriculum development. The four levels—Curriculum Expansion, Pre-Integration, Core Integration, and Institutional Integration —differentiate between stages of curricular and cocurricular developments related to nonprofit management in schools with public affairs curricula. The characteristics by which schools are compared are these: courses and course content, roles of and status of and promotion policy for faculty, certificate availability, and scope of campus outreach. The study’s focus on recent shifts in graduate education highlights evolutionary patterns under way since the 1980s. Further explanation of the model is provided in a later section of this article.

The timing of this study is especially fortuitous because of the current intersection in the dev-elop mental histories of both nonprofit manage-ment education and public affairs education. Nonprofit graduate programs that offer at least three courses related to nonprofit organizations and the nonprofit sector have expanded rapidly over the last 30 years, moving from fewer than 20 in the early to mid-1980s to over 150 today (Mirabella, 2007; Mirabella & Wish, 2000). At the same time, as this Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) symposium demonstrates, the field of public affairs education is still in a transition phase toward fully acknowledging that students must be prepared to succeed in a cross-sector management context. The curri-culum integration model elaborated here is intended to facilitate change responsive to this context by serving as a conceptual road map for curricular planning and innovation.

The confluence of at least four factors provides a rationale for the importance of new courses and experiential learning opportunities that position students to succeed in cross-boundary management. First, the institutional shift in the forms of collective action toward inter-dependence between the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors (Saidel, 1991, 1994) is, by now, a virtual starting point for any analysis of contemporary public governance. As Smith (2008) contends, although the increasingly complex relationships between sectors in all dimensions of policy development and imple-mentation make decisions about how to revise the curriculum difficult, updating courses, including core courses, to reflect the new institutional reality should be a curriculum development priority.

Second, the career argument is persuasive. An increasing number of students in master’s programs of public administration and public policy seek and find employment in nonprofit-sector jobs, work in both sectors over time, or have responsibilities as public managers that necessitate an understanding of the dynamics of the nonprofit managerial environment. These employment patterns are, of course, closely related to a third factor—the public service motivation argument that students aspiring to careers in government and/or nonprofits share common values grounded in the ideals of public service (Young, 1999). This underlying motivation reinforces the likelihood that students in schools with public affairs curricula may well work in both sectors over time. Finally, the steady growth and professionaliza-tion of the nonprofit sector (Cohen & Abbott, 2000; O’Neill, 2005) during years when the workforces of government and certain sectors of the business economy were shrinking have created an expanded market for credentialed job seekers.

This article is divided into five sections. In the next section, we present background on debates in higher education related to nonprofit management education and a brief review of selected research studies. Then we describe the study’s methodology, describe more fully the

J . Saidel & S . R . Smith


curriculum integration model, and report our findings. In the discussion section, we identify potential barriers to and enabling conditions for the full realization of the model. In the conclusion, we suggest ways in which the model may be useful for curriculum planning, as well as potential co-occurring curricular innovations to consider.

bacKgrOuNd aNd reVieW Of SelecTed liTeraTureFrom the beginning of scholarly attention to the field of nonprofit management education, scholars have wrestled with whether and, if so, how the education of future managers in programs targeted primarily for careers in one sector should include education about the other sectors and the relationships between them. These questions were especially salient in the broader policy context of devolution and shifts in the ways in which public services were delivered. O’Neill and Young (1988) coedited the first book-length volume devoted specifi-cally to nonprofit management education, titled Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organi-zations . Their introductory chapter highlights themes derived from papers presented at a 1986 conference at the University of San Francisco. The authors elaborate the unique characteristics of nonprofit organiza tions and argue that programs that seek to prepare students for nonprofit management must be built around these characteristics. They raise the question whether nonprofit organizations, despite their extraordinary diversity, “have enough in common to justify and encourage a distinct, unitary management education tradition of their own” (1988, p. 11). In the mid-1980s, the answer, at least from the authors’ perspective, seemed to be yes. At the same time, however, O’Neill and Young made a prescient observation about the implications of cross-sector relation-ships and linkages. They argued that managers of nonprofit organizations must learn not only about the nonprofit sector but also about the for-profit and public sectors as well.

A second conference on nonprofit management education, held at the University of California, Berkeley in 1996, featured Johns Hopkins

Uni versity scholar Lester M. Salamon as the key note speaker. In a provocative presentation titled “Nonprofit Management Education: A Field Whose Time Has Passed?” Salamon challenged the question O’Neill and Young (1988) had raised earlier related to the ways in which nonprofit managers should be educated. In stead, he contended that the key questions are these: “What, then, is the central manage ment challenge facing public problem-solving at the present time? And what implications does this have for the design of nonprofit management education?” (Salamon, 1996, p. 4–5).

In contrast to a focus on the distinctive char-acteristics of nonprofit organizations, Salamon’s response was “the challenge of learning how to manage the complex collaborative relationships among the sectors” (p. 5). He critiqued current curricula in schools of public affairs, schools of public policy, and free-standing nonprofit man agement education. Instead, he proposed training nonprofit and public managers together as “professional citizens” in a program organized around the notion of a career in public service. Salamon was clear about the need for public and nonprofit managers to understand the “logics” of both sectors. In addition, he recognized the possibility that the new approach could be absorbed into ongoing curricula, thereby previewing the kind of integrated curriculum captured by the model explored in this article.

As nonprofit management education expanded rapidly in higher education both in the United States and internationally, the topic continued to draw the attention of researchers. Mirabella and Wish (2000) compared graduate nonprofit management education programs and found, among schools highly ranked by U.S. News and World Report, little evidence of curricula that go beyond an emphasis on internal management processes or the “inside function” of long-established management course content (p. 226).

Young (1999) also scanned the field in an analysis of the various ways in which nonprofit management education might develop. He

Nonprofit Management Curriculum Integration


found that predicting with certainty the future direction of the field was premature, given the diversity of programs under way. During the same period, Cohen and Abbott (2000) wrote an essay for the Columbia University School of International Affairs in which they argued strongly that schools affiliated with NASPAA should avoid, in nonprofit management educa-tion programs, course content that highlights the advocacy role of nonprofits and should instead “focus on teaching traditional and innovative management tools, tailored towards the private nonprofit sector” (p. 4). They cited O’Neill and Young (1988) and described a curri-cular approach congruent with the then-current strategies of most universities as reported by Mirabella and Wish (2000). Cohen and Abbot stressed, however, that “MPA curricula must address issues in both a concentration that prepares people to work in the nonprofit sector, and also in the core curriculum” (2000, p. 12).

Within 5 to 6 years, the dominant “inside func-tion” approach of most nonprofit manage ment education programs was under substantial challenge. Salamon (2005) had delivered a scathing critique of existing programs to the NASPAA community. As noted in the introduction, Smith (2008) contended that the complicated nature of inter-sectoral relation-ships in public policy development and imple-ment ation necessitated a reexamination of conventional curricula. In particular, Smith argued for a restructuring of the core MPA curriculum. “One important goal, then, should be to integrate material on the increasingly complex relationship between the public sector and nonprofit and for-profit entities into the core curriculum” (Smith, 2008, p. 123).

Horne and Paris (2010) focused specifically on how to prepare graduate students in public administration programs to achieve success in cross-sector collaboration careers. They inter-viewed seasoned managers in both public and nonprofit sectors and, based on the implicit know ledge conveyed in the interviews, dev-eloped learning objectives around student understanding of both the formal structures

and the informal processes and relationships that contribute to the realization of successful collaboration outcomes. Their recommend ations reflect a fully integrated curriculum ideal.

The research reported here adds to prior studies and debates by examining the following ques-tion: To what extent has curriculum inte gration occurred? This is the central descriptive research question of this study. In addition, we examine two explanatory research questions that have not been explored in previous studies: How can we understand in a systematic way the developmental stages through which graduate nonprofit management education programs move? What are the conditions that enable and the barriers that impede the integration of nonprofit management education into the core offerings of schools with public affairs curricula?

MeTHOdOlOgYThis study proceeded through a two-stage research process. Stage 1 involved development and refinement of the four-level model. In Stage 2, we tested the model through a survey and interviews.

Stage 1Our interest in the notion of curriculum inte-gration as it applies to nonprofit manage ment education in schools with public affairs curri-cula originated in panel present ations we made and discussion at the Benchmark 3.0 Con-ference, sponsored by the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) and held at Arizona State University in 2006. Subsequently, we pool-ed our experience at various universities and developed a conceptual model of curricular developmental phases through which most non-profit management programs seemed to proceed. We presented the framework and received posi-tive feedback at the 2010 NASPAA and Asso-ciation for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) conferences.

Stage 2In 2011, we conducted an empirical invest-igation of the state of nonprofit management education in schools with public affairs curri cula.



The purpose of the research was to determine whether the curriculum integration model is, in fact, consistent with the developmental phases of a wide variety of graduate nonprofit management education programs in U.S. universities.

Data sources for this research include U.S. News & World Report’s Top 25 MPA Programs; U.S. News & World Report’s Top 10 Nonprofit Man agement Programs (three schools on this list were not ranked in the Top 25 MPA Programs); and a diverse purposive sample of 15 universities drawn from the NASPAA Nonprofit Management Education Section list. The choice of a reputational sample from the first two sources is based on the likelihood that highly ranked schools offer evidence of innova-tions in curriculum development (Light, 1999; Mirabella & Wish, 2000). The total number of campuses in the study is 43. In order to main-tain consistency in the sample across time, we utilized the 2011 rankings and NASPAA sample for data collection in both 2011 and 2014.

In both 2011 and 2014, the primary method for data collection was intensive website analysis with follow-up e-mails or phone calls, when neces sary, for clarification of the data. Still, it is possible that primary reliance on website analy sis can result in some inaccuracy in data inter pretation. We also interviewed, in 2011, a purposive sample of seven experienced faculty members from different universities with respons ibility for nonprofit management edu -ca tion programs. Faculty were identified from campuses that, taken together, would reflect diversity along the lines of urban/rural, region, nonprofit concentration or not, and public/private. Time constraints limited the number of interviews we were able to conduct.

Research interviews, conducted via telephone, included seven questions and lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. After checking the accuracy of Web-derived information, we asked faculty interviewees to describe the origin and evolu-tion of the nonprofit management program. We followed up with open-ended questions about conditions that facilitated or presented

barriers to the growth of the curriculum. The interview concluded with informational ques-tions that enabled verifi cation of placement of the university at the appropriate level in the curriculum integration model (see Table 1, described below).

To examine recent trends over time in the developmental histories of nonprofit manage-ment education programs, in 2014, we developed a brief survey to be completed electronically by the schools classified in 2011 as Level III. Whereas evidence of Level I, II, and III programs can be deduced from website analysis, evidence of Level IV activities is not as accessible by examining websites only. The Web-based survey included five “yes/no” items related to the criteria for placement at Level IV. Criteria for the different levels in the model are explained in the following section. All Level III schools completed the survey, for a 100% response rate.

curriculuM iNTegraTiON MOdelAs Table 1 indicates, the developmental curri-cu lum integration model features four levels (horizontal axis) and compares the characterist-ics of schools on the basis of courses and course content, roles of and status of and promotion policy for faculty, certificate availability, and scope of campus outreach (vertical axis). Schools at Level I—Curriculum Expansion—have added nonprofit elective courses; hired adjunct, non-tenure-track faculty as instructors; and developed noncredit certi ficate programs for community members, often offered through university extension de partments or schools of continuing education or continuing studies. Students in Level I schools may self-identify as nonprofit students and begin to advocate for more formal, ex panded curri cular opportun-ities. Level II—Pre-Integration—schools have created a non profit concen tra tion, instituted formal advising and mentoring of students interested in nonprofit management or related education, invited nonprofit guest speakers, hired tenure-track faculty, regularized adjunct appointments, and offered nonprofit intern ships.



The key feature of universities at Level III—Core Integration—is, as the name implies, inte gration of nonprofit content into the core curriculum. For example, public management courses include nonprofit cases that illustrate concepts such as mission and leadership in the nonprofit context. Course content on govern-ment-nonprofit relationships and public-private partnerships is reflected in courses on the foundations of public administration, the policy

process, and public management. Nonprofit material is part of the syllabi for microeconomics, budgeting, and public and nonprofit finance courses. In addition, in Level III schools, nonprofit journals and discipline-based journals in which nonprofit-related research is published are positively recognized in the faculty review and promotion process; qualified nonprofit faculty members are awarded tenure; attendance at nonprofit academic meetings is encouraged

Table 1.Curriculum integration Model

Level ICurriculumExpansion

Level IIPre-Integration

Level IIICore Integration

Level IVInstitutionalIntegration

courses and course content

Nonprofit electivecourses added

Nonprofit concentration developed within master’s degree

Formalized advising made available

Nonprofit guest speakers invited to present

Core courses within master’s degree include nonprofit-related material

Nonprofit courses marketed across the university

roles of and status of promotion policy for faculty

Adjunct instructors hired as faculty

Tenure-track faculty hired

Adjunct appointments regularized

Nonprofit journals counted in faculty review and promotion

Qualified non-profit faculty awarded tenure

Attendance at nonprofit conferences supported

Nonprofit faculty serve on dissertation committees in disciplinary departments and vice versa

Faculty from disciplinary departments participate in nonprofit programs

certificate availability

Noncredit certifi-cate developed for community members

Credit-bearing certificate introduced for degree students

Nonprofit certificate marketed to all students on campus

Scope of campus outreach

Nonprofitinternshipsoffered

Nonprofit events widely publicized on campus



Table 2.Change in number of u.s. universities at each level of the Curriculum integration Model, 2011–2014 (N = 43)

2011 2014 Percentage ChangeN % N %

level i 6 14.0 6 14.0 0.0

level ii 24 55.8 22 51.2 −8.7

level iii 7 16.3 0 0.0 −100.0

level iV 6 14.0 15 34.9 +150.0

Notes. Level I = Curriculum Expansion; Level II = Pre-Integration; Level II = Core Integration; Level IV = Institutional Integration.

and supported; and a credit-bearing certificate for degree and/or nonmatriculated students has been intro duced.

Level IV—Institutional Integration—is charac-terized by the assimilation of the nonprofit pro-gram into the broader university academic and cocurricular environments. Nonprofit courses are marketed across the university. Nonprofit faculty members serve on dissertation commit-tees in the disciplinary departments or in professional schools and vice versa. Faculty from disciplinary departments such as political science and sociology, as well as professional schools such as business and social welfare, parti cipate in the planning and implementation of nonprofit programs within the university and/or programs such as seminars and colloquia that span the university and wider community. The nonprofit certificate for graduate and professional students is marketed to all students and nonprofit events are widely publicized on campus.

fiNdiNgSAs reported in Table 2, in 2011, 14% of the schools sampled were in the Level I, Curricu-lum Expansion, stage of development. Students could elect nonprofit courses that were taught primarily by adjunct instructors. A noncredit certificate was sometimes available. The largest

percentage by far—over half (55.8%) of the universities in the sample—were at Level II, Pre-Integration. The MPA curriculum of these schools included a nonprofit concentration, tenure-track faculty members taught at least some of the courses, and procedures for advising and offering appropriate internships were under way, but little connection was apparent between nonprofit courses and the core MPA curriculum.

In 30% of the sampled graduate programs, those in Levels III and IV, course titles offered evi dence that nonprofit-related content had been in cor-porated into core courses.1 On the other hand, very few graduate nonprofit programs (14%) were fully integrated into the broader academic and co-curricular campus environments.

By 2014, the picture in Levels I and II was mostly unchanged. Six schools remained in Level I, Curriculum Expansion; over half (51.2%) of universities were still in Level II, Pre-integration. On the other hand, at the more advanced levels of integration, the pro grams in all schools that had been in Level III, Core Integration, (n = 7) in 2011 had moved toward a campus-wide scope of activity (Level IV, Institutional Integration) in 2014. The per centage change column in Table 2 documents the dramatic difference over a 3-year period between curricular stability in Levels I and II and significant curricular change in Levels III and IV.



diScuSSiONThis section draws on the findings described above. In addition, it relies on the interviews we conducted, our own direct experience at various schools, and our observation of develop-ments on other campuses. Many formal and informal conversations at professional meetings such as NACC, ARNOVA, and NASPAA have informed the analysis.

The development of graduate nonprofit man -age ment programs follows a largely, but not entirely, predictable pattern. Some elements of more-advanced program levels may occur earlier than other elements. The mix of particular pro-gram features in each level may vary across cam puses and change back and forth over time within one campus. For instance, one inter-viewee observed: “We started with integration into core courses and found insufficient rigor and attention to nonprofits; usually nonprofit

content got shortchanged, and it was not satisfying for those interested in nonprofits.”

After careful deliberation, the faculty decided to establish a separate nonprofit curriculum and maintain some nonprofit material in core courses. This program is somewhat unique in that it includes both a strong separate nonprofit program as well as integrated core courses. On the whole, though, the model presented in this article reflects the current contours of nonprofit management education on 43 campuses in the United States.

Given the concentration of universities at pre-integration stages of curriculum development in both 2011 and 2014, we asked our faculty interviewees to reflect on barriers that impede curricular change. Drawing on their responses and our own experience and observations, we conclude that multiple factors at different levels

Table 3.Factors That promote or impede Curriculum integration

Factors that promote change Factors that impede change

faculty role Active support by department faculty, especially tenured members

Intentional deliberation by faculty supporters and others

Lack of broad-based faculty support

“Lone voice” faculty advocate

administrators’ role Support of department chair, dean, and other higher-level university administrators

Lack of support or relative disinterest among higher-level university administrators

Students’ role Expanding student demand

resources Financial resources available for faculty hires

Substantial, multiyear support available from foundations or other external sources

Presence of an academic center

Resources for curricular innovation and change

Internal resource scarcity

Low or no priority among foundations or other external sources

curriculum in place Curriculum open to change Well-entrenched curriculum tracks

role of intermediary associations

Consistent encouragement by higher education professional associations



of institutional life may present challenges at a particular time.

As indicated in Table 3, a number of different factors can either promote or impede movement toward curriculum integration. Reflecting on obstacles to change, our respondents frequently mentioned the lack of broad-based support among departmental faculty as a formidable barrier. Also, a “lone voice” faculty advocate for innovation, one who is pursuing a research agenda in this area, may be perceived as self-interested and too narrowly focused. By con-trast, a senior faculty member in a Level IV university commented that “faculty members themselves took a much more active posture toward articulating the need for faculty with specializations in nonprofit and NGO [nongovernmental organization] management.”

Similar observations about the need for voices of support were made by a number of re spon-dents commenting on the critical importance of higher-level administrative university lead-ership. In a program with seven full-time tenure-track faculty teaching and/or conducting nonprofit-related research, key administrative leaders such as the center director and vice dean were “particularly strong advocates” for an expansion and institutionalization of the non-profit curriculum. Of course, even the presence of articulate and committed leaders cannot compensate for a lack of financial resources available for faculty hiring. Another potential structural barrier may be the prior establishment of curricula, by now well-entrenched, with specific tracks such as inter national development or social policy that seem to discourage course integration. Institutional culture that mitigates against specialization can also be a factor. One respondent indicated that her school’s pride in creating “informed generalists” had been an early barrier to curriculum change related to nonprofit management.

In the research interviews, we also asked respondents to identify conditions that facilitate the growth of nonprofit management education curricula. Expanding student demand and support from the department chair and/or

dean were among the most frequent responses. Additional enabling conditions mentioned were external foundation grant support and the presence of an academic center.

The Building Bridges Initiative of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation deserves special mention in this regard. According to the key Kellogg Found-ation executive staff member who direct ed the multimillion-dollar, multiyear grant program, Robert K. Long (personal conver sation with Saidel, October, 1999), the Kellogg Founda-tion’s purpose was to change the face of higher education with respect to nonprofit-related curricula. By providing grants over a 4-year period (from 1998–2001) that were generous and long-lasting enough to be transformative, the foundation strongly encouraged university-based academic centers to work toward the institutionalization of nonprofit courses and certificates. One grantee institution began to sponsor community-wide leadership events that annually drew 300 to 400 people to campus, thereby gaining “a lot of cachet in the outside community” and increasing through external visibility the internal legitimacy of the nonprofit program.

Interviewees also mentioned the strong advo-cacy of tenured faculty colleagues as an important enabling condition. One person observed the following:

A well-published, tenured political science faculty member focused on international studies came across Japanese NGOs and realized he needed more information in order to continue his work. He approached me, and that relationship sold the concept of nonprofit studies to political science faculty.

Another longtime faculty advocate for curriculum innovation in this area made a similar comment, noting that a colleague whose research focus was housing policy and urban politics embraced the study of nonprofit organizations as a critical element of his teaching and research interests and subsequently added his voice to curriculum expansion efforts.



Finally, in the analysis of factors that might explain stability at the lower levels and change at the more advanced levels of the curriculum integration model, we note that a bimodal pat-tern of institutional isomorphism appears to be at work in the highly professionalized field of public affairs education. Among the 15 Level IV schools in 2014, 93.3% (n = 14) are NASPAA-accredited. For Levels I and II, the NASPAA-accreditation percentages are 33.3% and 77.3% respectively. Institutional theorists have long emphasized the powerful influence of profes-sional norms on the adoption of organization al practices and the diffusion of innovation. Through its accreditation authority, ongoing work of standing committees, and annual meet-ings, NASPAA clearly exerts strong isomorphic pressures that help explain this study’s findings, including the movement of schools at Level III in 2011 to Level IV in 2014. The establishment and expansion of the Nonprofit Management Education Section within NASPAA, as well as the more frequent publication of nonprofit management–related articles—highlighted by this symposium—in the Journal of Public Affairs Education, Public Administration Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and other public affairs journals attest to the increasing attention of public affairs faculty and researchers to trends in the field.

cONcluSiONThe curriculum integration model elaborated in this analysis is designed not only to provide a systematic way to determine what is currently happening in universities with public affairs curricula but also to function as a road map for future curricular development. We have received feedback from colleagues at various conferences that the model can be utilized to respond to the questions: How are we doing relative to our peers? and What factors might enable us to move the curriculum innovation process forward? The model can assist in building a case for needed changes in the content, scope, resource base, faculty hiring decisions, and internal and external reach of nonprofit management edu-cation programs. Perhaps it can add momen-tum to change processes under way in Level II schools and enable them to overcome what ap-

pear to be substantial barriers impeding progress to Level III, Core Integration. Further, progres-sion to Level IV (Institutional Inte gration) can be im peded or slowed by structural obstacles common in academic institutions: the difficulty of collaboration across departments, including lack of insti tutional incentives or adequate financial resources; differences in disciplinary per spectives; and the ongoing in vest ment of particular schools and departments in nonprofit-focused programs that may in tensify, even if unintentionally, competitive pressures among campus units. Nonetheless, institutional leader ship can overcome these obstacles in the interests of greater curriculum integration.

In addition, the trajectory of movement among the four levels of the model highlights the con-tinuing need to integrate nonprofit material into the core curriculum and develop new courses and experiential learning opportun-ities in areas such as cross-sector management, collaborative govern ance, and integrative leadership that will prepare students for the “multi-sector, shared-power” 2 world of public governance. The argument made in this article is different from challenging univer sities with public affairs curricula to establish strong nonprofit management programs, although that is a worthy goal. The developmental curriculum integration model instead reflects a progression toward a curriculum and cocurricular activities that meaningfully prepare students for cross-boundary management, regardless of the sector in which students may be employed.

Our model also recognizes that in many schools with public affairs courses and degree programs, the curriculum pertaining to nonprofits has lagged behind scholarship published in the academic journals in the field. Leading public administration journals, for example, have for many years pub lished articles on nonprofit organizations and cross-sector management. This curriculum inte gration model provides benchmarks and guidance for schools with public affairs curricula that are interested in both greater curricular integration and building upon existing research on nonprofit and cross-sector management.



Future research studies in this area could expand the number of colleges and universities in the sample, extend the analysis across additional years, and include interviews from all the uni-versities in the sample. It would also be valuable to determine whether the patterns of curriculum development that characterize United States–based schools are similar to or different from patterns that have developed in other parts of the world.

The stubborn persistence of complex policy issues that require multisector strategies suggests that student demand for public affairs curricula responsive to the realities of 21st century social problems is not likely to diminish in the foreseeable future. Given this scenario, we hope that the curriculum integration model will serve as a useful conceptual road map for creative planning and curricular innovation.

acKNOWledgMeNTS

The authors are indebted to many individuals for input and feedback on the ideas in this paper. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the very helpful comments of Putnam Barber, Fred Lane, Roseanne Mirabella, Jodi Sandfort, and Melissa Stone. We are also grateful for the in-sightful comments of three anonymous reviewers. We note with appre ciation the valuable research assistance of Rockefeller College graduate stud-ents Erin Trowbridge and Sara Reising.

NOTeS

1 Course titles may not always reflect course content, so we report this finding with caution.

2 This term was used in the title of the Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power World

conference, hosted by the Center for Integrative Leadership, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, September 20–22, 2012.

refereNceS

Cohen, S., & Abbott, T. (2000). Integrating nonprofit management education into graduate programs in public policy and administration. New York, NY: Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs.

Horne, C. S., & Paris, T. V. (2010). Preparing MPA students to succeed in government-nonprofit colla-boration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (1), 13–30.

Light, P. (1999). The new public service . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and philanthro pic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (Suppl. 1), 11S–27S.

Mirabella, R. M., & Wish, N. B. (2000). The “best place” debate: A comparison of graduate education programs for nonprofit managers. Public Admini-stration Review, 60 (3), 219–229.

O’Neill, M. (2005). Developmental contexts of non - profit management education. Nonprofit Manage-ment and Leadership, 16 (1), 5–17.

O’Neill, M., & Young, D. R. (1988). Educating mana-gers of nonprofit organizations. In M. O’Neill and D. R. Young (Eds.), Educating managers of nonprofit organizations (pp. 1–21) . New York, NY: Praeger.

Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543–551.

Saidel, J. R. (1994). The dynamics of interdependence between public agencies and nonprofit organizations. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in Public Administration (Vol. 3, pp. 201–29). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.



Salamon, L. M. (1996, March). Nonprofit management education: A field whose time is passed? Paper present - ed at the Conference on Nonprofit Manage ment Education 1996: A U.S. and World Perspec tive, Berkeley, CA.

Salamon, L. M. (2005). Training professional citizens: Getting beyond the right answer to the wrong question in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 7–20.

Smith, S. R. (2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications for schools of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14 (2), 115–128.

Young, D. R. (1999). Nonprofit management studies in the United States: Current developments and future prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5 (1), 13–23.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

Judith r. Saidel is O’Leary Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller Col lege of Public Administration and Policy, Uni versity at Albany, State University of New York. She publishes on government-nonprofit relation ships, nonprofit governance, and gen-der and bureaucracy. She won the 2006 Rita Mae Kelly Distinguished Research Award, which was conferred by the American Society for Public Administration’s Section for Women in Public Administration.

Steven rathgeb Smith is the executive director of the American Political Science Association. He was previously the Louis A. Bantle Chair in Public Administration at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University and the Nancy Bell Evans Professor at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. He is the author of several books, including Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting (with Michael Lipsky) and, most recently, Nonprofits and Advocacy: Engaging Community and Govern ment in an Era of Retrenchment (with Robert Pekkanen and Yutaka Tsujinaka).



In 1999, when Dennis Young reviewed the dev-elopment of nonprofit management educa tion in the United States, the field of study was only 20 years old but growing rapidly. Among the leading causes of growth identified by Young were many factors that we now consider the usual suspects: growing reliance on the non profit sector in public service delivery; government retrenchment in many social service areas; new methods of fundraising including commercial ventures; and skepticism about whether or not nonprofit managers were up to the tasks before them. Importantly, Young noted that public

service careers were no longer “confined to gov-ernment employment” and that “increas ingly, nonprofits were viewed as a key venue for the delivery of public services” (1999, p. 15). Young also alluded to the importance of the nonprofit sector in a democratic society given its role in promoting social values and building the institutions of civil society. For these reasons, a natural home for nonprofit studies initially was and continues to be schools and programs of public affairs, particularly Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy (MPA/MPP) programs.

A Core Issue: The Inseparable Relationship Between Nonprofits

and Public Policy

Shannon K. VaughanWestern Kentucky University

Shelly arsneaultCalifornia State University, Fullerton

abSTracTGraduates of nonprofit management and public administration programs face a workplace increas-ingly dominated by complex relationships between government, nonprofit, and for-profit entities. Nonprofit organizations and public policy cannot be understood independently of one another. To assess the role of nonprofits in the policy curriculum, we reviewed 12 public policy textbooks and 143 syllabi from graduate-level public policy courses taught at Network of Schools of Public Pol - icy, Affairs, and Administration-accredited programs to assess the extent to which nonprofits are incorporated. Nonprofit organizations deserve full integration into the core curriculum of Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs as essential actors in public administration and the policy process. Their ubiquity as policy partners, from problem recognition and advocacy to policy formation, implementation, and evaluation makes understanding nonprofit organizations crucial to the study and practice of public policy and administration.

KeYWOrdSNonprofits, intersectoral collaboration, core curriculum, blurred lines

JPAE 21 (3), 349–366


While this natural fit has long been recognized and programs of nonprofit study are most likely to find their homes in colleges of arts and social sciences or schools of public affairs and admin-istration (Mirabella, 2007), scholars of public policy and administration have not consistently integrated nonprofit organizations into their re-search or curriculum (Simon, Yack, & Ott, 2013). When the nonprofit sector is addressed in MPA/ MPP programs, it has often been through sep-ar ate classes and concentrations in which the nuts and bolts of nonprofit manage ment are taught but there is little to no inte gration of the material with public policy and administration. More recently, course offer ings have been expanded to include financial management, fundraising, and philan thropy, but again, these classes are separate and distinct from the core pub lic administration/public policy curriculum.

A related problem is that in public policy classes and research, both typically grounded in poli ti-cal science, nonprofits are usually treated as just another interest group. One illustration of this is a recent piece in Political Research Quarterly (Bevan, 2013) which discusses nonprofit organ-izational survival by analyzing organiza tions’ advocacy involvement and issue attention from government; missing from this discussion is the role of nonprofit organizations in the imple-men t ation, regulation, or evaluation of policy.

The view that nonprofits exist simply to ad vo-cate for issues before government bodies is far too limiting. As Almong-Bar & Schmid (2014) note, nonprofits have a complex rela tion ship with public policy in which most org anizations, particularly those that provide social services, influence policy making beyond advocacy and lobbying. They argue that nonprofit directors “have a real opportunity to take part and influence” the policy process as they make decisions that involve “specifics of public policy and the allocation of funds within the sector” (p. 22). They also note that there is striking - ly little research from policy scholars that recognizes this role in policy making by non-profit organizations.

Even in discussions of intergovernmental rela-tions, nonprofit organizations, so vital to public

policy at all levels of government, are typically treated as only interest groups or contractors. In the first issue of the Journal of Public Affairs Education, Richard Box (1995) analyzed 42 syllabi from classes on intergovernmental rela-tions and management taught in NASPAA-accredited programs. Of these, nine included an intersectoral category, defined as covering public-nonprofit-private relations. Box noted at that time that “given overall trends in the fin an-cing of governmental programs, privati za tion, and contracting, it makes sense to advocate greater emphasis on this topic in intergovern-mental courses” (1995, p. 35). However, it is unclear whether or not Box’s suggestion was heeded; in the discussion of intergovernmental relations in Politics in the American States, 10th edition (a common text for MPA/MPP stud-ents, with the first edition published in 1965), author Russell L. Hanson (2013) does not men tion nonprofit organizations at all, even when covering the provision of public services.

This is surprising given the fact that nonprofit organizations in the United States have a long history of providing public services through colla boration with government. Nonprofits define and address public problems and devise solutions to them, thereby forging a symbiotic relationship with public policy—each is influenced to varying degrees by the other (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2008). Whether non-profits are member-serving, such as chambers of commerce, labor unions, or farmers’ coop-eratives or the more commonly understood public-serving nonprofit organizations (Sala-mon, 2001), none exist without affecting or being affected by public policy in some way. Therefore, regardless of the sector in which they seek employment, graduates of public administration programs will face a workplace increasingly dominated by complex, inter twined relationships between government, nonprofit, and private sector entities (see Baggetta & Brass, 2014; Mirabella, 2001; Sandfort & Stone, 2008; Smith, 2008).

We argue that it is increasingly difficult to un derstand nonprofit organizations or public policy independently of one another and have devel op-ed a framework that views their relation ship as

S . K . Vaughan & S . Arsneault


interconnected through four facets—nonprofits make policy, are affected by policy, influence policy, and are subject to policy (Vaughan & Ars neault, 2014). Accordingly, we believe public policy courses must incorporate nonprofits as a critical element in order to provide a compre-hensive, intersectoral edu cation for students in pub lic administration and public policy programs.

While we recognize that much scholarship dis-cusses nonprofits as public service providers, that literature tends to fall outside of the bounds of public policy curriculum, thus is not particularly relevant to our argument. We have found that, although implementation is a key concept in policy studies, the role of nonprofits is not present in public policy courses to the extent it is present in the practice of public service. As noted above, we believe that this is partly because nonprofits are often viewed through an interest-group lens in policy courses. As shown in Table 1, nearly one third (32.2%) of the faculty teaching public policy classes in MPA/MPP programs who responded to our request for syllabi earned their degree in pol-itical science, more than twice as many as

any other degree field identified. Thus, we feel fair ly confident in concluding that the political science view of nonprofits as advocacy and interest groups is widespread in the policy curriculum. For this reason, we first highlight ways in which the interest group literature fails to encompass the full complexity of the nonprofit sector and its role in public policy; nonprofits sometimes act as interest groups, but their role in policy often extends far beyond.

Next, we examine the small but growing liter a ture on the blurring of the lines between the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors. Non profits have always been more than interest groups, but as recognition of their presence on the wider policy stage continues to grow, their well-established in teractions with public and for-profit entities have even greater implications for public policy at all stages. Therefore, we argue for bringing the nonprofit sector more firmly into policy classes in the MPA/MPP curriculum. By examining both public policy text books and syllabi from over 140 policy courses in Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admin istration (NASPAA)-accredit ed programs, we assess how

Table 1.degree Fields of Course Faculty

Degree field Frequency Percentage Cumulative percentage

Political science1 46 32.2 32.2

Public administration 18 12.6 44.8

Public affairs 6 4.2 49.0

Public policy2 13 9.1 58.0

combination of political science, public administration and public policy

15 10.5 68.5

Social science 3 2.1 70.6

economics 10 7.0 77.6

Juris doctor (J.d.) 3 2.1 79.7

Other 13 9.1 88.8

unknown 16 11.2 100.0

Total 143 100

Notes. Total percentages may not equal 100.0% due to rounding. 1 Includes political science and government. 2 Includes urban policy.

Inseparable Relationship: Nonprofits and Policy


well nonprofit organizations are being integrated into public policy-related curriculum. Finally, we offer some conclusions about the future of non-profit sector study in public affairs education.

NONPrOfiTS aS OrgaNiZed iNTereSTSWhen Madison wrote of the mischiefs of fac-tion in Federalist No . 10 (Madison, 2007), the relationship between organized interest groups and the decisions of government began a rich and varied history in the political science literature. Government decisions were initially viewed as being the result of the actions of com peting groups that strengthen the argu-ments necessary to develop good public policy (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998; Bentley, 1908; Dahl, 1961; Galbraith, 1952; Truman, 1951). Critics soon emerged, however, focusing on the ways in which pluralism threatens democracy because of: a lack of representativeness (Schatt-schneider, 1960); collective action problems (Olson, 1965; Salisbury, 1969; Wilson, 1973); the accommodating power of iron triangles (Lowi, 1969); and issue niches (Browne, 1991). Later, neopluralists argued that the counter vail-ing power produced by growth in the number of private foundations and the wave of new social movements make it more likely that average citizens and the general public would be represented in the policy process (Gamber, 2007; McCarthy, 2003; McFarland, 1998).

The countervailing power championed by neopluralists is generally identified within the literature as exercised by citizen or public in-terest groups. These groups are viewed as com-positionally different from traditional interest groups and are often formally structured as public charities under Section 501(c)(3) or as soc ial welfare organizations under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). On the other hand, organized interests as traditionally addressed in the political science literature are typically structured as tax-exempt organizations under the following sections of the IRC: 501(c)(5) labor, agricultural, and horti-cultural organizations; 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, and boards of trade; 501(c)(7) social and recreational clubs; 501(c)(8) fraternal beneficiary societies and associa-

tions such as B’nai B’rith International; and 501(c)(10) domestic fraternal societies such as the Knights Templar. These distinctions are relevant in that as the total number of tax-exempt organizations has grown dramatically in recent years, the nature of the sector has also changed. In 1995, approximately 27% of all registered nonprofits1 fit the traditional view of organized interests (e.g., to improve working conditions, improve business conditions, or provide fraternal association). By August 2014, the more traditional organized interests repre-sented only 15% of total nonprofits.2 In con-trast, the number of public charities, Section 501(c)(3) organizations, rose from 54% in 1995 to more than 74% in 2014 (Internal Revenue Service, 1995, 2014). This suggests that the traditional treatment of interest groups in the public policy literature focuses on a shrinking percentage of the actual organized interests involved.

differeNTiaTiON aNd cOllabOraTiONBeyond just numbers, however, nonprofits differentiate themselves as more than merely a subset of interest groups; they are also organizationally different from the for-profit entities typically associated with interest group activity. For example, whereas for-profit firms generally must give primary consideration to the financial best interests of their shareholders over any social responsibility goals (Sabeti, 2009), nonprofit organizations are legally barred from distributing net earnings to private shareholders and are required to serve a public purpose (Internal Revenue Service, 2005). For these reasons, lines of ownership in the nonprofit sector are far more muddled than in the for-profit sector (Valentinov & Iliopoulos, 2013). In addition, nonprofit organizations have lower labor costs for several reasons including their heavy reliance on volunteers, while for-profit firms must pay the requisite salaries to the vast majority of their staff members (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2014). Not-ably, although both for-profit and nonprofit organizations have important stakes in the policy process, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) imposes strict limits on the level of



lobbying activity in which charitable nonprofit organizations can engage; no such limits exist on for-profit involvement in politics and policy. These are among the factors that make nonprofit organizations operationally unique and in many ways position them in between the public and for-profit sectors with regard to issues of public policy. These differences also make nonprofits uniquely able to facilitate collaboration on many policy issues.

Research on the scope and impact of colla bor-ation by various actors is particularly useful for a discussion of nonprofits in the policy pro - cess. Scholars have varyingly referred to these collaborations as policy networks, subsystems, subgovernments, issue networks, policy com-munities, or advocacy coalitions. What all of these collaborations have in common is the understanding that policy problems, solutions, advocacy, and analysis are influenced by a variety of actors, often working in concert to advance specific goals (Heclo, 1978; Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Kim & Roh, 2008; Mintrom & Vergari, 1998). Collaborative models indicate the reality that policy actors often come from across the sectors and work together in a particular policy area over long periods of time, as illustrated by the issue of child abuse. For-profit medical providers as well as nonprofit organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and National Children’s Alliance have been active members of multisector coalitions of public, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations that have influenced the policies surrounding child abuse in the United States for decades (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2014).

Most of the public administration and public policy literature is only beginning to catch up to the significant role played by nonprofits in policy and governance. A recent piece by Nancy Winemiller Basinger in the California Journal of Politics and Policy is among the best examples. Basinger (2014) argues that it is important for those who make policy to understand the role of public charities in the policy process for a variety of reasons, including

the fact that government regulates the sector and that nonprofit organizations continue to grow in importance both politically and eco-nomically. Similar to our multifaceted view of the nonprofit/policy relationship, Basinger identifies the role of nonprofits in public policy as: preserving democracy; creating a voice for the underserved; providing input on pend - ing legislation and policy rules; serving as contractors (which includes making policy through direct delivery of services); and building social capital.

Policy tools such as vouchers, tax credits, and loans are among the new multisector strategies used to get the public’s work done. Each is a way for government to fund activity by other levels of government, nonprofits, and for-profits that seek to address public problems. Further, Smith (2008) points out that the number of intermediary organizations and associations has grown and that many of these have become lobby/advocacy groups for their own constituencies. Whether those constituents are the poor, ethnic groups, or arts communi-ties, intermediaries engage in the policy pro - cess as they seek funding, better regulatory environments, and favorable policies (see also Balassiano & Chandler, 2010).

Collaborative policy models and frameworks offer a useful way to examine the ongoing role that nonprofits play at each point in the policy process. Mikkelsen (2006) and Sandfort and Stone (2008) suggest that those working in and studying the nonprofit sector should be introduced to the concepts of policy networks or policy subsystems to provide better understanding of the nonprofit role in public policy. Helms and Biggs (2007–2008) call for policy mapping as a teaching technique for those in both the nonprofit and public sectors. Candler and Dumont (2010) create a “non-profit accountability framework” that considers the complex ways in which nonprofits are often accountable to government at all levels and across international borders. All of these are elements within the literature that highlight the intersectoral nature of public policy and the need to explore it further.



As Horne and Paris (2010) explain, “Cross-sector collaboration is the ‘new normal’ that characterizes the work awaiting today’s MPA students” (p. 13). Mirabella (2001) and Sand fort and Stone (2008) point out the limits of gov-ern ment capacity in the hollow state era and argue that students must understand the dif fer-ences between public, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations as the latter two increasingly play an important role in provision of public goods and services. Smith (2008) explains that modern governments have moved far beyond simple contracting relationships with nonprofits and argues that the MPA curriculum has to move beyond these one-dimensional models as well. He calls for changes in the core curriculum of MPA programs that will illustrate to students the increasingly complex relationships they will face in the public sector, relationships that often blur the lines between the public, non-profit, and for-profit sectors (Smith, 2008).

One strategy for introducing these complexities to students is instituting experiential learning programs set in nonprofit organizations (Gazley, Bennett, & Littlepage, 2013; Simon et al., 2013). Unfortunately, public affairs faculty are often a key barrier to implementing these and other meaningful curricular changes that better integrate the nonprofit sector. Simon and colleagues (2013) warn that “convincing faculty members to integrate nonprofit sector organi-zation issues and strategies into public ad min-istration (and political science) courses takes time, patience, and usually fortuitous circum-stances” (p. 368).

Why the nonprofit sector is such a hard sell to public affairs colleagues is a bit of a mystery; as Baggetta and Brass (2014) argue in a recent piece in Journal of Public Affairs Education, the traditional social sciences have much to offer nonprofit scholars and practitioners in terms of societal, political, economic, and cultural con-texts. Further, as Hill and Lynn (2009) note in their text on public management, the admini-stration of public programs relies not only on the three levels of government but on “grantees, contractors and subcontractors” from the pri vate

sector (p. 99). They point out that the role of nonprofit organizations in our system of checks and balances has a rich history. Non profit pro-vision of expert policy advice was beg un under congressional charter in 1863, when Abraham Lincoln signed the act incor porating the non-profit National Academy of Sciences. While attention to the blurring of the lines between sectors is relatively new, intersectoral collabor-ation began long ago. We argue, therefore, that nonprofit education is essential for a complete public affairs education. Quite simply, discussion of the nonprofit sector should be integrated into all aspects of the MPA/MPP curriculum because nonprofits have long been integrated into the practice of governing.

THe blurriNg Of THe liNeSAs the number of nonprofits has grown, atten-tion from academic institutions has as well. The growth of nonprofit classes and programs over the past three decades makes it clear that the sector’s importance has been widely recog-nized. Shier and Handy (2014) found that the number of dissertations and theses on nonprofit organizations and voluntary action grew from 98 completed between 1986 and 1990 to 1,547 completed between 2006 and 2010. This repre-sents an increase from 0.1% of all theses and dissertations in 1986, to 0.5% of all theses and dissertations completed in 2010. Their re search also reflects the interdisciplinary nature of non-profit study: political science/public admin istra -tion are the dominant subject areas in which theses and dissertations regarding non profits are completed, but economics/management is also a strong subject area (Shier & Handy, 2014); this interdisciplinarity has implications for the blurring of the lines between sectors, as well.

Nonprofits as an interdisciplinary field of study has led to a body of research that examines where nonprofit programs and curriculum are most likely to be established within institutions of higher education (Mirabella, 2007; Mirabella & Wish, 2001; Wish, 1993; Wish & Mirabella, 1998). In the most recent review of data on nonprofit management education, Mirabella found that in 2006 the number of nonprofit



management programs located in either a college of arts and sciences or a school of public affairs and administration decreased to 47% from the 55% noted in 1996 (Mirabella, 2007, p. 15S). This correlates with data on disser-tations and theses on nonprofits; the proportion of those completed in the subject areas of political science and public administration de-clined steadily between 1996 and 2010 (Shier & Handy, 2014). The interdisciplinary nature of the study of nonprofits, the increasing number of intersectoral partnerships, and the growing complexity of modern governing highlight the need to equip MPA/MPP students with the knowledge to work in this complex system.

THe Public POlicY curriculuMAs a first test of our assertion that nonprofit organizations and the sector itself are not well-reflected in the public policy curriculum, we performed a content analysis on the indices of 12 public policy textbooks commonly assign ed in MPA/MPP policy-related courses (see Ap-pendix A for list of textbooks).3 Our premise that the nonprofit sector and nonprofit organ-izations are largely ignored in the mainstream public policy curriculum held fairly well. In a search of a variety of terms associated with the sector—nonprofit, not-for-profit, nongovern-ment al organizations [NGOs], philanthropy, philanthropic, public charities/charitable, third- party governance, third sector, and voluntary sector—only one book included any of these con-cepts in the index.4 The depth of coverage was very shallow, totaling only four pages in the text.

In contrast, nine of the 12 indices (75%) included the term interest group(s), ranging in depth of coverage from four to 27 pages of information, with an average of 10.5 pages per text. Thus, while not universally emphasized, the role of interest groups in general is far more likely to be acknowledged in public policy textbooks than are nonprofit organizations or the nonprofit sector as a whole. Also of note, the terms contracts and collaborative governance were found in the index of one text each. Contracts was discussed on one page of one text, generally in the context of government contracts with private businesses; collaborative

governance was discussed on two pages, with the focus primarily on intergovernmental relations, and the input of interest groups and citizen stakeholders in the policy process. Neither use of the terms had explicit nonprofit application.

We next turned our attention from textbooks to course content, and sent a request to 502 faculty identified as teaching policy-related courses in NASPAA-accredited MPA/MPP pro grams. Requests were sent to faculty at all 171 NASPAA-accredited programs in the United States via email; a follow-up request was made to increase the response rate. In addition, some programs made syllabi available online, fur ther adding to our sample. This process yielded 143 syllabi for content analysis related to nonprofit organizations. The syllabi are from policy-related graduate courses, including basic policy process and policy analysis classes as well as those with specialized content such as environmental, eco -nomic, or social policy, at 64 U.S. univer sities (37.4% of NASPAA-accredited programs). Using the U.S. Census Bureau regions, we determined that the largest percentage of syllabi were from courses taught at universities in the South (43.3%), followed by the Midwest (21.1%), West (19.9%), and Northeast (15.8%).5 Likewise, most courses (37.8%) were housed within depart ments or schools with a combination of disciplines (e.g., public administration and policy); approx imately 13% of the courses were located in departments of political science. (Table 2 contains the frequency data for each organ izational category.)

Our primary interest in the syllabi was to determine the extent to which nonprofit organizations are included in course content for policy-related courses. Each syllabus was searched for the same keywords used in our content analysis of policy texts: nonprofit, not-for-profit, NGOs, philanthropy, philanthropic, public charities/charitable, third-party governance, third sector, and voluntary sector. We found that less than one third of the syllabi (30.8%) mentioned any of these keywords related to nonprofits. One caveat about this method of data collection is that it requires explicit reference to nonprofits in the syllabus, and thus potentially undercounts course coverage of the



topic. For example, a text chapter may include discussion of the nonprofit role in public policy yet the topic will not be reflected on the course syllabus. On the other hand, as noted above, it appears that public policy textbooks are unlikely to cover the nonprofit sector, thus we are fairly confident in the data collected.

Further examination using the keywords inter est groups, contracts, collaborative governance, and hollow state revealed that less than one fourth (23.8%) of courses contained content related to the more traditional view of organized inter-ests in relation to public policy (see Table 3). Although faculty identify interest group con-cepts to a lesser degree in their syllabi, the same

caveat about content analysis of syllabi applies here: if a text chapter discusses interest groups in the policy process, the topic will not likely be noted on the syllabus. Recall that the majority of policy textbooks include content on these topics, thus students are likely to be ex posed to the interest group role through assigned text readings. The same is not true for nonprofit concepts which are almost entirely absent from policy textbooks making faculty inclusion of supplemental material all the more important.

Less than one third (30.8%) of the courses exam ined include content related to nonprofits, which supports our premise that nonprofits are underrepresented in public policy courses.

Table 2.organizational locus of Courses

Organizational category Number of syllabi Percentage of total

Political science 19 13.3%

Public policy/policy studies 6 4.2%

Public affairs 33 23.1%

Public administration 22 15.4%

government 9 6.3%

combination of disciplines 54 37.8%

Total 143

Note. Total percentages may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.

Table 3.Content Analysis of policy Course syllabi

Content Number of syllabi Percentage of total

No related content 78 54.5%

interest groups content 21 14.7%

Nonprofits content 31 21.7%

both interest groups and nonprofit content 13 9.1%

Total 143 100.0%



That we expected this makes the finding no less disheartening.

core coursesEven more discouraging is the statistical rela-tionship between nonprofit content and core courses. Through Internet searches of pro gram requirements, we were able to determine which syllabi were from core courses for all but four of the syllabi included in the study. Table 4 includes the cross-tabulation of the core course and content analysis data. Percentages within the cells of the table reflect the percentage of syllabi within each course type category—core, elective, or unknown—that contained the key-words as indicated. For example, 69.6% of all core courses had no keywords listed; 44.6% of all elective courses did not have keywords listed; and 54.5% of all syllabi did not have key words listed. Percentages indicated in bold as part of the total line reflect the percentage of all syllabi included in the study that were core courses, electives, and unknown.

We used SPSS (IBM statistics software) to con-duct logistic regression analysis on two models; results of the logistic regression analyses are in-cluded as Model B1 and Model B2 in Appendix B. Model B1 used the absence of any keywords related to either interest groups or nonprofits as

the dependent variable,6 and in Model B2, the dependent variable was the presence of key words related to nonprofits.7 Whether the course was required or an elective8 and the organizational locus of the course9 were the independent vari-ables in both models.

As Table 5 shows, the majority of syllabi studied were from elective courses (59.7%) and had no keywords related to either interest groups or nonprofits (54.7%). When we focused on those syllabi that have none of our keywords listed (Model B1), we found that policy-related courses that are required for MPA/MPP programs are significantly less likely than electives to include content related to either interest groups or nonprofits (p < .01). The analysis of Model B2 suggests an inverse relationship between core courses and nonprofit content, but it is not statistically significant. While this would seem to suggest that policy-related core courses are less likely to incorporate interest groups than nonprofits, the results from Model B1 indicate that both topics are underrepresented in the syllabi of required policy courses. As such, we believe this, combined with the lack of nonprofit inclusion in policy textbooks, provides support for our call to fellow policy faculty to incor-porate more content on the role of nonprofits in public policy into the core curriculum.

Table 4. Content Analysis of syllabi by Core Versus elective Courses

Content analysis Core course (%) Elective (%) Unknown (%) Total (%)

No keywords 39(69.6%)

37(44.6%)

2 78(54.5%)

interest groups keywords 3(5.4%)

18(21.7%)

0 21(14.7%)

Nonprofits keywords 8(14.3%)

21(25.3%)

2 31(21.7%)

both interest groups and nonprofits keywords

6(10.7%)

7(8.4%)

0 13(9.1%)

Total(% of total syllabi)

56(39.2%)

83(58.0%)

4(2.8%)

143



faculty degree fields & Organizational locusSince faculty have been found to be a barrier to change with regard to integrating discussion of nonprofits in the curriculum (Simon et al., 2013), we explored the relationships between nonpro fit content in the syllabi with the degree field of faculty teaching policy-related courses and the organizational locus of the department (or school) that houses the MPA/MPP program. Our expectation was that courses taught by faculty with degrees in political science (see Table 1) or in departments of political science and public policy would be more likely to incorporate the traditional view of nonprofits as interest groups, thereby being less likely to include nonprofits. Accordingly, we coded the departments/schools as (1) Political Science; (2) Gov ernment; (3) Public Policy; (4) Public Ad-min istration; (5) Public Affairs; or (6) Com bina-tion of Disciplines. This coding scheme was chosen to reflect an order of inter disci plinarity.

Logit results for both models indicate that nei-ther degree field of the faculty nor the organi za-tional locus of the course has a statistically significant relationship with whether the course content incorporates either nonprofits or interest groups. While the results are not statistically significant, the cross-tabulation results indicate some discernable patterns in both faculty de-

gree field (Table 6) and organizational locus (Table 7), therefore we include tables for each. For example, syllabi in more interdisciplinary programs appear to include the nonprofit sec-tor more often than more singularly focused pro grams. Faculty with an academic back-ground in economics appear to be least likely to include either nonprofit or interest group content in their course syllabi.

cONcluSiONAs stated earlier, we view the relationship be tween nonprofits and public policy as multi fac eted: nonprofits make policy, influence pol icy, are affected by policy, and are subject to policy. These four facets are interconnected, like pieces of a puzzle, and form the framework for how we understand the complex interactions between nonprofits and public policy. Non profits make policy by implementing solutions to public prob lems through their service pro vision; they in fluence policy through advo cacy and lobbying; they are affected by public policy such as laws that encourage use of nonprofit service pro vid ers; and they are subject to policies that regulate the hand-ling of donor funds (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2014). These interconnected rela tionships between non-profits and policy illustrate why we think it is so important for nonprofit organizations to be fully integrated into the curriculum of MPA/MPP

Table 5.Keywords by Core Course

Core course(%)

Elective(%)

Total(%)

No keywords listed 39(51.3%)

37(48.7%)

76(54.7%)

interest groups keywords only 3(14.3%)

18(85.7%)

21(15.1%)

Nonprofits keywords only 8(27.6%)

21(72.4%)

29(20.9%)

both interest groups and nonprofits keywords 6(46.2%)

7(53.8%)

13(9.4%)

Total (% of total syllabi) 83(40.3%)

56(59.7%)

139




Table 6.Cross-tabulations of Content Analysis with Faculty degree Field

Political science

Public admin

Public affairs

Public policy

Combin - ation

of fieldsEcono-mics

Juris Doctor (J.D.)

Other field Total

No keywords listed

24(52.2%)

10(55.6%)

3(50%)

7(53.8%)

9(50%)

9(90%)

2(66.7%)

5(38.5%)

69(54.3%)

interest groups keywords only

7(15.2%)

3(16.7%)

0 2(15.4%)

5(27.8%)

0 1(33.3%)

3(23.1%)

21(16.5%)

Nonprofits key words only

9(19.6%)

3(16.7%)

1(16.7%)

4(30.8%)

3(16.7%)

1(10%)

0 4(30.8%)

25(19.7%)

both interest groups and nonprofits keywords

6(13.0%)

2(11.1%)

2(33.3%)

0 1(5.6%)

0 0 1(7.7%)

12(9.4%)

Total (% of total syllabi)

46(36.2%)

18(14.2%)

6(4.7%)

13(10.2%)

18(14.2%)

10(7.9%)

3(2.4%)

13(10.2%)

127


Table 7. Cross-tabulations of Content Analysis with organizational locus

Political science

Govern- ment

Public policy

Public ad minstration

Public affairs

Combination of disciplines Total

No keywords 10(52.6%)

7(77.8%)

5(83.3%)

16(72.7%)

14(42.4%)

26(48.1%)

78(54.4%)

interest groups keywords only

4(21.1%)

1(11.1%)

0 4(18.2%)

4(12.1%)

8(14.8%)

21(14.7%)

Nonprofitskeywords only

3(15.8%)

111.1%

0 2(9.1%)

12(36.4%)

13(24.1%)

31(21.7%)

both interest groups and non-profits keywords

2(10.5%)

0 1(16.7%)

0 3(9.1%)

7(13%)

13(9.1%)

Total (% of total syllabi)

19(13.3%)

9(6.3%)

6(4.2%)

22(15.4%)

33(23.1%)

54(37.8%)

143


programs. While our results find this inte-gration lacking in the pub lic policy curriculum, we hope that the increase in the number of non profit dissertations in recent years (Shier & Handy, 2014) bodes well for future inclusion of the sector in policy classes and beyond.

Research has shown that with regard to ad dress-ing public problems, nonprofit organizations are viewed as more voluntary than government and more trustworthy than for-profit firms (Coase, 1988; Hansmann, 1980; Young, 1999). This is particularly relevant for policy scholars since the



nonprofit sector in the United States has grown tremendously in the roughly 30 years since the theories of contract failure and transactional costs were published. The number of registered tax-exempt public charities and private founda tions grew from 104,206 in 1982 (Internal Revenue Service, 1991) to 1,063,183 in 2014 (Internal Revenue Service, 2014), which represents, on average, the addition of approximately 30,000 charities and foundations (i.e., citizen and public interest groups) to the sector each year. Not only is the growth in the sector relevant, the role of nonprofits vis-à-vis government and for-profit entities has taken on added dimension as the lines between the three sectors become increasingly blurred. Provision of public goods and services is likewise becoming a more integrated, inter-sectoral endeavor.

Accordingly, we see the current approach by MPA/MPP programs of including the non profit sector in the curriculum as either a separate, some-what foreign domain, or as simply a col lec tion of interest groups as far too limiting and super-ficial given the essential nature of the nonprofit sector across the policy process. The fact that 11 of 12 policy textbooks and 69.7% of the 143 syllabi studied contained no mention of the key-words related to nonprofits is very troubling. An easy first step to remedying this situation is for faculty teaching public policy courses to require articles that discuss the variety of ways in which nonprofits are involved in public policy. These articles can range from empirical pieces on the role of nonprofits in identifying and framing social problems to case studies documenting nonprofit policy implementation. A solution that will take a bit longer and in-volves the cooperation of policy scholars is add-ing the nonprofit role to the content of policy textbooks and related course material. Both of these relatively simple solutions would go far in giving public affairs students a more realistic picture of the complex, intersectoral nature of the policy process.

Nonprofit organizations should no longer simply be an optional addition to the course offerings of MPA/MPP programs but deserve full inte gra-tion into the curriculum as essential actors in the policy process. Their ubiquity as policy part-

ners, from problem recognition and advo cacy to policy formation, implementation, and eval-u ation, makes understanding the role of nonprofit organizations—and their unique characteristics —crucial to the study and practice of public policy and administration. Therefore, our appeal to scholars of public policy is to view nonprofit organizations beyond the simplistic role of in-terest groups, and to scholars of public admin-istration to understand them as more than just service contractors. It is a call to action for fellow public policy faculty to concertedly inte-grate the nonprofit sector throughout the public policy curriculum.

NOTeS

1 Churches (the generic term used by the IRS to encompass synagogues, mosques, temples, and other places of worship) and nonprofits with gross annual receipts that are normally less than $5,000 per year are not required to register with the IRS (though some do). All private foundations are required to register and file the Form 990-PF.

2 This percentage reflects those nonprofits recognized under Sections 501(c)(5), (6), (7), (8), and (10). Since the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), there has been some debate as to whether some of the organizations recognized under Section 501(c)(4) operate as more traditional interest groups. In June 2014, the total number of 501(c)(4) organizations was 81,490 (6% of all tax-exempt organizations). Even if it could be argued that all Section 501(c)(4) organizations should be included with the traditional interest groups, that total (21%) would represent a decline from 1995.

3 We excluded policy readers from the list because they tend to include classic readings that would not be expected to include discussion of the nonprofit sector. The complete list of texts can be found in Appendix A.

4 The latest edition of one of the textbooks published after our analysis now contains a reference to nonprofits and devotes the better part of one page of text to the relationship between nonprofits and public policy.



5 This distribution is in relative proportion to the number of NASPAA-accredited programs in each region: 39.2% of programs are in the South, 25.9% are in the West, 19.6% are in the Midwest, and the remaining 15.4% are in the Northeast.

6 None Listed was coded as: 0 (no keywords listed) and 1 (at least one interest groups (IG) or not-for-profit (NFP) keyword listed). The IG keywords included interest groups, contracts, collaborative governance, and hollow state.

7 NFP Keywords was coded as: 0 (no keywords listed) and 1 (at least one NFP keyword listed). The NFP keywords included: nonprofit, not-for-profit, non-gov ern mental organization, intersectoral, philan-thro py, charities, third-party governance, third sector, and voluntary sector.

8 Courses were coded as: 1 (core course) and 0 (elective).

9 We initially included both organizational locus of the course and degree field of the faculty member as independent variables in each model. Because of multicollinearity issues, we dropped degree field from the model after comparing the results of separate analyses with organizational locus and degree field. These independent variables are explained further in the subsection entitled Faculty Degree Fields and Organizational Locus.

acKNOWledgMeNTS

The authors wish to express our appreciation to John Crouch, Richard Green, Elizabeth Griffith, and Rosa Sanchez for their assistance with the data for this research. We also want to express our thanks to each of the faculty who responded to our request for syllabi, and to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

refereNceS

Almong-Bar M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.

Baggetta, M., & Brass, J. N. (2014). Context-based instruction: What traditional social science disci-plines offer to nonprofit management education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 579–596.

Balassiano, K., & Chandler, S. M. (2010). The emerg-ing role of nonprofit associations in advocacy and public policy: Trends, issues, and prospects. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 946–955.

Basinger, N. W. (2014). Charitable nonprofits in the West and their implications for public policy. Cali-for nia Journal of Politics & Policy, 6 (1), 187–206.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1998). Basic inter ests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bently, A. F. (1908). The process of government: A study of social pressures . Chicago, IL: University of Chi-cago Press.

Bevan, S. (2013). Continuing the collective action dil-emma: The survival of voluntary associations in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 545–558.

Box, R. C. (1995). Teaching intergovernmental relations and management. Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(1), 23–38.

Browne, W. P. (1991). Issue niches and the limits of inter -est group influence. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (3rd ed., pp. 345–370). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Candler, G., & Dumont, G. (2010). A non-profit accountability framework. Canadian Public Admin-istration, 53 (2), 259–279.

Coase, R. H. (1988). American philanthropy (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Galbraith, J. K. (1952). American capitalism . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gamber, F. (2007). The public sphere and the end of American abolitionism, 1833–1870. Slavery and Abolition, 28, 351–368.

Gazley, B., Bennett, T. A., & Littlepage, L. (2013). Achieving the partnership principle in experiential learning: The nonprofit perspective. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19 (3), 559–579.



Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enter-prise. The Yale Law Journal, 89 (April), 835–898.

Hanson, R. L. (2013). Intergovernmental relations. In V. Gray, R. L. Hanson, & T. Kousser (Eds.), Politics in the American states (10th ed., pp. 30–62). Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Helms, L., & Biggs, S. (2007–2008). Policy mapping: A new framework for teaching policymaking and policy design through case studies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3/4), 565–584.

Hill, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. (2009). Public management: A three dimensional approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Horne, C. S., & Paris, T. V. (2010). Preparing MPA students to succeed in government-nonprofit colla-boration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (1), 13–30.

Internal Revenue Service. (1991). Statistics of income: Compendium of studies of tax-exempt organizations 1974–87 . Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.

Internal Revenue Service. (2015). Publication 557: Tax-exempt status for your organization . Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved from Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf.

Internal Revenue Service. (1995, Aug.) Exempt organi-za tions business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.

Internal Revenue Service. (2012, Dec.). Exempt organi-zations business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.

Internal Revenue Service. (2014, Jun.). Exempt organi-zations business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Char it-able Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.

Jenkins-Smith, H., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203.

Kim, Y., & Roh, C. (2008). Beyond the advocacy coali-tion framework in the policy process. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(6), 668–689.

Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Madison, J. (2007). The Federalist No. 10. In A. G. Serow and E. C. Ladd (Eds.), The Lanahan Read-ings in the American Polity (4th ed., pp. 97–101). Baltimore, MD: Lanahan. (Original work publish-ed 1787).

McCarthy, K. D. (2003). American creed: Philanthropy and the rise of civil society 1700–1865 . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McFarland, A. S. (1998). Social movements and theories of American politics. In A. N. Costain & A. S. McFarland (Eds.), Social movements and American political institutions (pp. 7–19). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Mikkelsen, M. (2006). Policy network analysis as a strategic tool for the voluntary sector . Policy Studies, 27 (1), 17–26.

Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state educa tion reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60 (1), 126–148.

Mirabella, R. M. (2001). A symposium introduction: Filling the hollow state: Capacity-building within the nonprofit sector. Public Performance & Manage-ment Review, 25 (1), 8–13.

Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and philan-thropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (4), 11S–27S.

Mirabella, R. M., & Wish, N. B. (2001). University-based educational programs in the management of nonprofit organizations: An updated census of U.S. programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 25 (1), 30–41.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.



Sabeti, H., with the Fourth Sector Network Concept Working Group. (2009). The emerging fourth sector . Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Salamon, L. (2001). Scope and structure: The anatomy of America’s nonprofit sector. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 23–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of inter-est groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13, 1–32.

Sandfort, J., & Stone, M. (2008). Analyzing policy fields: Helping students understand complex state and local contexts. Journal of Public Affairs Educa-tion, 14(2), 129–148.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2014). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies: A growing interdisci-plinary field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quart-erly, 43(5), 812–831.

Simon, C. A., Yack, M., & Ott, S. J. (2013). MPA program partnerships with nonprofit organizations: Benefits to MPA programs, MPA students and graduates, nonprofit organizations, and commun-ities. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 355–374.

Smith, S. R. (2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications of schools of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 115–128.

Truman, D. (1951). The governmental process . New York, NY: Knopf.

Vaughan, S. K., & Arsneault, S. (2008). Not-for-profit advocacy: Challenging policy images and pursuing policy change. Review of Policy Research, 25(5), 411–428 .

Vaughan, S. K., & Arsneault, S. (2014). Managing nonprofit organizations in a policy world . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Valentinov, V. & Iliopoulos, C. (2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural coopera-tives compared: New perspectives for nonprofit scho lars. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42 (1),109–126.

Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wish, N. B. (1993). Graduate programs in nonprofit management: An update . Journal of the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals, 5 (2), 15–20.

Wish, N. B., & Mirabella, R. (1998). Curricular var i ations in nonprofit management graduate programs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9 (1), 99–109.

Young, D. (1999). Nonprofit management studies in the United States: Current developments and future prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5 (1), 13–23.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

Shannon K. Vaughan is assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Western Ken-tucky University, where she teaches primarily in the MPA program. Her research interests in-clude the impact of nonprofits on public policy, nonprofit funding issues, and ethics. Among her published work are articles in Public Integrity, Review of Policy Research, and the Journal of Health and Human Services Administration. She and Shelly Arsneault are the authors of Manag-ing Nonprofit Organiza tions in a Policy World, published by CQ Press.

Shelly arsneault is professor in the Division of Politics, Administration, and Justice at California State University, Fullerton, and recently served as the coordinator/advisor for the MPA pro gram. Her research focuses primarily on social welfare policies in the arenas of education, poverty, wel-fare, and health policy. Among her published work are articles in State and Local Government Review, The American Review of Public Adminis-tration, The Social Policy Journal, and Review of Policy Research.




aPPeNdiX a

Textbooks used for content analysis

Anderson, J. E. (2011). Public policymaking (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.

Barberio, R. P. (2014). Politics of public policy. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy

making (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Cochran, C. L., & Malone, E. F. (2009). Public policy: Perspective and choices (4th ed.). Boulder, CO:

Lynne Rienner.

Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, R., Cayer, N., McKenzie, M., & Peck, L. (2007.) American public policy:

An introduction (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.

Dunn, W. N. (2011). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Dye, T. R. (2012). Understanding public policy (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gupta, D. K. (2010). Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools, and techniques (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:

CQ Press.

Kraft M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2013). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Rushefsky, M. E. (2013). Public policy in the United States. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Simon, C. A. (2009). Public policy: Preference and outcomes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, Longman.

Wheelan, C. (2010). Introduction to public policy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.


aPPeNdiX b

logistic regression analyses

MOdel b1.no Keywords listed on policy syllabi

classification Table

Observed

Predicted

None listedPercentage

correctAt least one keyword noted

None listed

STeP 1 None listed

At least one keyword noted

41 22 65.1

None listed 32 44 57.9

OverAll PerceNtAge 61.2

Note. The cut value is .500.

Variables in the equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

STeP 1 corecourse .980 .374 6.856 1 .009 2.665

instrecode –.082 .104 .625 1 .429 .921

constant .175 .543 .104 1 .747 1.191

Notes. Variable(s) entered on Step 1: corecourse, instrecode. B = coefficient. SE = standard error of coefficient. Wald = Wald test. df = degrees of freedom. Sig.= p value. Exp(B) = odds ratio.




MOdel b2.nonprofits Keywords listed on policy syllabi

classification Table

Observed

Predicted

NFP keywordsPercentage

correctNo NFP keywords

At least one NFP keyword

STeP 1 NFP keywords

No NFP keywords

97 0 100.0

At least one NFP keyword

42 0 .000

OverAll PerceNtAge 69.8

Note. The cut value is .500. NFP = not-for-profit.

Variables in the equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

STeP 1 corecourse -.270 .399 .458 1 .499 .764

instrecode .195 .119 2.680 1 .102 1.215

constant -1.620 .633 6.561 1 .010 .198

Notes. Variable(s) entered on Step 1: corecourse, instrecode. B = coefficient. SE = standard error of coefficient. Wald = Wald test. df = degrees of freedom. Sig.= p value. Exp(B) = odds ratio.

aPPeNdiX b (continued)

logistic regression analyses


Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs are designed to meet the needs of people seeking graduate-level knowledge and skills that will improve their abilities to perform as admin is-trators in the public service sector. The delivery of public services is no longer exclusively the domain of public agencies, but has become a responsibility shared with private nongovern-mental organizations (Worth, 2013). Recog niz-ing this change, nonprofit manage ment educa-tion (NME) is increasingly being incorporated into MPA/MPP programs (Dolan, 2002; Mira-bella & MacDonald, 2012; Mirabella & Young, 2012; Wish & Mirabella, 1998), though with an understanding that nonprofit management is distinct in many ways from public administra-

tion and requires separate educational consider-a tions (Young, 1999). Although it appears also in other programs, nonprofit management education tends to appear most often within public administration programs, which house about half of the nonprofit management programs in the United States (Wish & Mira-bella, 1998). A growing number of MPA/MPP programs recognize the necessity of enhancing their programs by incorporating the skills that students will need to work effectively in this era of public and private delivery of public goods and services. This is not a new approach: many programs have taken a theory-informed practi-tioner approach to their curriculum, as we discovered in our review of syllabi for this study. Many programs with this mind-set employ skill-

Seeing Clearly: Measuring Skill Sets That Address the “Blurred Boundaries” of Nonprofit Management Education

Tosha cantrell-bruce and bob blankenbergerUniversity of Illinois at Springfield

abSTracTThis article offers advice to programs that seek to emphasize the nonprofit management skill sets necessary for working across the increasingly blurred boundaries of public service delivery. Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs embracing the key role of nonprofits may benefit from adding a competency related to nonprofit skills to their core program competencies. We propose a list of key nonprofit skills that could be integrated into MPA/MPP program curricula, and describe an approach for how these skills could be incorporated into program-level learning and assessment plans. This could be accomplished by adding a new nonprofit competency to the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) core competencies, by incorporating the key nonprofit skills into assessments of student learning in nonprofit courses, or by including such skills in the program’s required core courses for assessment of student learning outcomes.

KeYWOrdSLearning assessment, nonprofit skills, program assessment

JPAE 21 (3), 367–380


and practitioner-based educational methods, such as panel discussions, internships, job shadowing, and tours of local nonprofits, as part of single courses or larger nonprofit academic projects.

As is likely the case in many programs, in our department at the University of Illinois at Springfield, the faculty have long recognized the importance of including nonprofits as part of the MPA program. The university is located in the state capital, and though the MPA program primarily serves those seeking graduate-level training in public administration in order to work in state agencies, a large number of the students in the program plan to work in the nonprofit sector. The state delivers many of its public goods and services by contracting with nongovernmental organizations—both non pro-fit and for-profit. Thus, even MPA students working in agencies and not intending to work in nonprofit organizations will need to work in partnership with nonprofit entities. Knowing this, the department provides opportunities for students to develop skills and knowledge appropriate to participation in that sector. This is done both through distinct course offerings dedicated to nonprofit subjects and through the integration of nonprofit material across required courses. Furthermore, the department has structured the program so that students are able to obtain a Certificate in Nonprofit Management through completion of additional courses, which may also be used as electives in the MPA program.

Programs like this that embrace such approach es could benefit from adding assessment of non-profit skill sets to their overall assessment of student learning processes.

NONPrOfiT MaNageMeNT educaTiON THrOugH THe YearSNonprofit management education has evolved from the early days of Taylorism, when admin-istration was a generic science and topics such as leadership, financial management, marketing, and human resources did not differ much from organization to organization. It has traditionally been recognized that significant overlap exists between business or government management

and nonprofit management. But there has also been a recognition of substantive differences be-tween the environments, princi ples, and purposes of these types of organizations—differences that make nonprofit management education programs distinct (O’Neill, 2005; Young, 1999). Further, just as public admin istration and management programs have changed since the early days of these fields, nonprofit management education programs have as well. The growth of the sector over the last few decades together with changes in the nonprofit world regarding funding, delivery of public services, sector and state relationships, social responsibility, and power have collectively caused the study of nonprofit skills and management to alter (Paton, Mor-daunt, & Cornforth, 2007). As the field moves into this new phase, it needs to focus on empowering people to make social, economic, and political change (Mirabella, 2007).

With the evolution of nonprofit management education, MPA/MPP programs that embrace the key role of nonprofits could benefit from adding a competency related to nonprofit skills to the core program competencies required for Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) accreditation. Programs could also benefit simply from assessing nonprofit skills through student-level learning objectives and related outcomes in individual courses. Based on a review of the literature and of syllabi of nonprofit courses from multiple institutions, we propose a core set of key nonprofit skills that could be in-corporated into MPA/MPP program curricula. We do not claim to be exhaustive or identify all skill sets, but instead offer a core list on which others can build, based on competencies and skills identified by their own program faculty as important for those students working across the blurred boundaries of governmental and nongovern mental work. We conclude this article by discussing approaches incorporating these skills into program assessment plans.

SKillS fOr a NeW NONPrOfiT MaNageMeNT educaTiON cOMPeTeNcYLinking old-school nonprofit management skills with the important perspective of new nonprofit

T . Cantrell-Bruce & B . Blankenberger


management skills leads us to suggest these four skill sets: leadership, collaboration, capacity, and innovation. These skill sets have been proposed in the literature individually; we propose recog-nizing all of them together and introducing a method of assessing the skills within a nonprofit management competency. Although the four skill sets are identified and defined separately below, there is considerable overlap among the skills. Like separate threads of a tap estry that grows stronger when woven together, these non profit management skills interlace to provide a strong supportive structure for nonprofit managers.

approach to the analysisAs we considered possible approaches to pre par-ing students to work across the sector’s blurred boundaries, we chose two questions to guide our study. The first was derived from one of the recommended topics for this symposium: What are the core skill sets being taught in nonprofit management courses? The second question involved taking these core skills and adding them to program assessment processes: How can assessment of these core skills be integrated into an assessment of student learning process?

We were not attempting to generate an exhaustive list of skills, but merely a found-ational list of core skills that were commonly found in the teaching of nonprofit management. We hypothesized that we would find three core skill sets being taught: leadership skills, collaboration skills, and capacity skills. This list was based on prior research done by one of the co-authors as background for a Lumpkin Family Foundation GoodWorksCONNECT.org capa-city needs assessment (Cantrell-Bruce, 2013). GoodWorksCONNECT.org is an online com-munity space and resource center that connects the work that nonprofits do in Illinois. As preparation for the project, several state-level nonprofit capacity studies were examined (Gronbjerg, Cheney, Leadingham, & Liu, 2007; Pucella, 2009; Schröer, Medora, Mukerjee, & Wallinger, 2012; Task Force on Strengthen ing Nonprofit Capacity, 2010), along with addi-tional literature on skills valuable for non profit managers (Connolly et al., 2003; Horne & Paris,

2010; Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1999; Paton, Mordaunt, & Cornforth, 2007). These core skills were referenced in the studies as es sential for working with nonprofit organiza tions, and as such, we expected to uncover similar results in a review of nonprofit management syllabi.

After hypothesizing this short list of skill sets, we sought to corroborate that these skills were being incorporated in nonprofit management courses. We began by requesting syllabi through the Association for Research on Nonprofit Or-g anizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) Listserv. However, the few responses we received were insufficient for our purposes. So instead we conducted a Google search for publicly available syllabi. We employed the search terms nonprofit management, syllabi, syllabus, and nonprofit capacity. Using the search engine’s advanced tools, we delimited the search to return only those with an .edu URL. This search yielded 53,000 results.

We started reviewing syllabi from the first on the list and continued until we began to see consistency in the skills emphasized. We searched through the first 40 syllabi on the list to determine whether this consistency continued (see Table 1 for a brief summary of institutional characteristics). In our review, we found two basic types of courses: traditional nonprofit manage-ment courses emphasizing generic management concepts, and more externally focused new public service courses emphasizing concepts such as collaboration, leadership, and capacity building. These findings confirmed our expectations. The one term we found to be more heavily represented in the review than we expected was innovation, so this skill set was added to our list. There appeared to be a growing emphasis on innovation as a topic of importance in nonprofit management courses. We could have continued through all the syllabi on the list, but our purpose was not to generate an exhaustive list of skill sets, only to offer a core set to act as a starting point and illustration as to how these skill sets could be added to assessment processes. We expect that other skills could be added through future research.

Skill Sets in Nonprofit Management Education


An additional weakness of our approach was that it was limited to those syllabi which were publicly accessible, and that the order was based on Google search characteristics rather than a random sampling. As a result, our list is not a comprehensive list of skills—nor was it intended to be. Instead it aims to provide a common list of core skills that were readily apparent in existing syllabi and supplemented by skills present in the literature on the teaching of nonprofit management courses. We expect, and even hope, that faculty will supplement this list based on their experience with essential skills that they believe will be valuable for those working across the nonprofit-public admin is-tration boundary. The approach to adding non profit management skill sets to program learning outcomes and assessment processes we describe can readily incorporate the addition of other skill sets deemed important by program faculty while accomplishing our intended task of adding important nonprofit management–focused outcomes to MPA/MPP programs.

leadership SkillsLeadership principles have long been a part of management programs, and many of the principles continue to apply across sectors. Of the four skill sets identified, leadership appears to overlap the most with traditional business and public administration management educa-tion. But nonprofit managers face their own distinct leadership challenges (O’Neill, 2005; Young, 1999), and nonprofit management education programs would benefit from adding

a focus on nonprofit leadership skills to help equip their students for success. For example, in their article “Beyond Nonprofit Management Education: Leadership Development in a Time of Blurred Boundaries and Distributed Learn-ing,” Paton, Mordaunt, and Cornforth (2007) propose a new model of leadership. After conducting a comparison of university-level nonprofit education in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States, Paton et al. proposed this new model in response to changes in the nonprofit world resulting from several factors: increasingly blurred boundaries both within and between sectors, changes in funding, changes in delivery of public services, changes in sector and state relationships, and changes in social responsibility as well as advances in learn-ing and modes of education delivery. Given these circumstances, in their new model, Paton et al. define leadership at its core as “being influential”: “We believe it is necessary to conceptualize leaders in these ambiguous cir-cumstances as being people who make things happen and that therefore leadership is con-ceived of as being influential on things that matter” (p. 154s).

In carrying out the nonprofit mission with a focus on influence and leadership, nonprofit managers should be skilled in self-regulation, taking responsibility for one’s own actions, seeing the bigger picture, and operating by one’s own standards. Paton et al. term this leadership without authority, identified by resourcefulness and adaptability to the ever-changing nonprofit environment.

Table 1. description of institutions included in the Analysis of syllabi (N = 40)

Public university Private university

carnegie classification ru-VH or ru-H 21 3

Other classification 12 4

Total 33 7

Notes . Carnegie Classifications for colleges and universities were developed to support research and policy analysis. RU-VH indicates a research university (doctoral-granting) with “very high research activity”; RU-H indicates a research university with “high research activity.” Information from “About Carnegie Classification” from The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education website, at http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.



collaboration SkillsIn an era of blurred boundaries between sectors, there is increasingly a recognition that colla bor-ation skills are a necessity. Horne and Paris (2010) in their article, “Preparing MPA Students to Suc-ceed in Government-Nonprofit Collabor ation: Lessons From the Field” argue that collabora-tion skills are essential in the ever-changing non-profit world. The authors propose leader ship skills related to collaboration, skills that are influenced by different collaboration models and decision-making models as well as the nuances of the relationship between the two. The development of these skills leads to en-hanced opportunities for organizational learn-ing and network facilitation. Organizational learning refers to the organization’s skill and ability to respond to changes within the organ ization’s environment. Network facili ta tion skills refer to skills used for building potential alliances and collaborations.

Horne and Paris also propose a model for teach-ing about government-nonprofit collab oration using the open systems model. They further explain how program delivery or evaluation no longer stops at the use of a logic model. The “blurred boundary” logic model requires incor-porating the influence of the government-nonprofit relationship, both formally and informally. The influence of that relationship, and the skills a nonprofit professional has in managing that relationship, can influence the success or failure of program delivery. Devel op-ing collaboration skills that recognize such an interrelated context are crucial to successful nonprofit managers. Beyond the influence of the government-nonprofit relationship, Horne and Paris propose that students can learn the skills to facilitate the development of formal collaborative structures.

Two outcomes related to acquisition of colla-borative skills include aiding the advance ment of organizational learning, and network facilita-tion. Organizational learning is defined by Fiol and Lyles (1985, p. 803) as “the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding.” Horne and Paris (2010) add to this definition the notion of systemic

learning, which they describe as “the type of learning that requires sharing of information throughout the collaborative system—here, between the government agency and nonprofit organization—and has the potential to improve the overall collaboration, beyond improvements isolated to a single organization” (p. 21).

This type of sharing and learning requires a level of psychological capacity, due to the level of change directed at the nonprofit organization, whether political, economic, or social. Possess-ing sufficient psychological capacity requires a level of development, maturity, and self-aware-ness to be able to recognize evolving conditions, assess information resulting from the changes, and make decisions directed at addressing these conditions. While there are different types of psychological capital, we suggest that acknow-ledgment and general skill-building exercises for adapting and responding to change will suffice when coupled with other collaboration skills.

capacity SkillsCapacity skills are defined very broadly, just as the concept of organizational capacity is. For example, Light (2004) defines capacity as “everything an organization uses to achieve its mission, from desks and chairs to programs and people” (p. 15). As Worth (2013) suggests, “your capacity to study may be different from your capacity for athletics or for singing, so we need to think about your capacities, in the plural—that is, break capacity down into different cate-gories or elements” (p. 187). Worth emphasizes that nonprofit organizations are open systems in relation to the external world, and thus capacity building involves skills that facilitate strengthening relationships externally, as well as skills that develop internal systems and skills. Much like the collaborative skill set, capacity skills refer to those skills that cut across traditional nonprofit management organizational skills as well as the relationship and network soft skills identified in more recent literature.

The purpose of capacity in organizations is to be able to grow programs to scale and produce a collective impact. The blurred boundaries approach to government delivery of public



goods and services through third party organ-izations seeks to make a collective impact which involves government, business, and nonprofit to address community issues. Although the funding for capacity building has changed over the years, from venture philanthropy sources to the use of internal resources, the outcome has remained focused on collective impact. Hudson (2005) has further defined this as differentiated by internal versus external elements. Internal refers to people, processes, and infrastructure. External refers to funders, partnerships, and volunteers. Connolly et al. (2003) refer to adaptive, leadership, technical, and manage-ment capacities.

Whichever approach one takes, the application of open systems and resource dependency models leads to systematically investing to achieve the organization’s mission. The result of the growth of capacity is development of skills to enhance organizational learning, develop new programs, and motivate volunteers and staff toward a culture of performance (Letts et al., 1999). This expectation suggests that the nonprofit professional should be able to respond to environmental changes relevant to the nonprofit, and that the executive director should motivate staff and volunteers to embrace changes to move the organization forward. Successful use of these skills can mean embra cing new revenue streams, delivering products in a different way, or partnering with other organizations. This requires not only collabor-ation but also innovation skills.

innovation SkillsIt could reasonably be argued that innovation is a part of the capacity skill set and need not be emphasized as a separate skill set, but given the frequency with which it appeared in our search, we determined that it merited its own mention. As the boundaries between sectors are blurred, the need for innovation grows, whether it is for generating different revenue streams, new clients, or new partnership opportunities.

Innovation to improve long-term organizational success has been emphasized for some time (Light & Light, 1998), and innovation is impor-

t ant to organizations equally, regardless of sector. Wymer, Knowles, and Gomes (2006) define innovation as any change in products (technical) or processes (administrative) to help achieve the organizational mission. Similarly, Dees, Emer-son, and Economy (2002, p. 162) state that “innovation involves finding new and better ways for accomplishing a worthwhile objective.”

Most innovation skills directly relate to theories of resource dependency, market overexclusion, or market underprovision as reasons for diversifi-cation or supplement of revenue for non profit organizations. Revenue diversification is often hindered by a decline in public trust or the possibility of mission drift. When wedded to an innovative approach, though, revenue diversi-fication can focus on opportunities to maintain the nonprofit’s original outputs and outcomes while commercializing elements of the nonprofit mission—with the intent of sustaining the overall mission. For example, an art museum can charge for rent of the gallery after hours to local businesses. In doing so, the museum meets a two-pronged mission: it brings in additional revenue for the museum while also exposing an additional audience to an appreciation of the arts and artwork. As Tuckman and Chang (2006) discuss, by embracing the blurred boundaries between for-profit and nonprofit clientele, non-profits can broaden their dual (economic and social) or even three-pronged (economic, social, and environmental) bottom line. Opportunities may include additional modes of service delivery ranging from websites to chat rooms to for-profit sponsorship.

However, innovation takes more than a mind-set. It takes acquisition of knowledge and skills to manage partnerships and carry out the intend ed output delivery. For example, as the ability to broaden the use of online donations worldwide expands for a nonprofit, do nonprofit professionals likewise increase their knowledge about any legal ramifications of international donations? Are nonprofit professionals prepared with the skills needed to manage for-profit sponsorship of the nonprofit’s website? As Steuerle (2000) mentions, partnerships between for-profit and nonprofit organizations continue



to grow. Will the nonprofit professional at AARP be prepared to review a contract or memoran-dum of understanding formalizing a relationship with Monster.com? Internally, will nonprofit staff have the ability to redirect production costs from brochures not printed or mailed toward developing an online brochure for Alcoholics Anonymous’s meeting times and locations?

iNcOrPOraTiNg NONPrOfiT MaNageMeNT SKillS iNTO PrOgraM aSSeSSMeNTHaving identified four core nonprofit skill sets, we now propose a structure for integrating these skills into program assessment. These skill sets could be incorporated into program assess-ment plans as part of a nonprofit competency that is added to the NASPAA core competencies. Alternately, these skills could be incorporated into assessment of student learning, either in individual nonprofit courses or in required core courses as additional skills important for assess-ment of appropriate student learning outcomes.

In this section, we outline procedures for inte-grating nonprofit management skill sets into program assessment processes. We begin by discussing how to include additional compe-tencies, such as a new nonprofit management competency, within the context of industry-recognized standards and within a broader conceptual model of program assessment. We continue by describing general methods for measuring learning outcomes. We conclude with a section on measuring student learning in which we offer an example of a nonprofit management skills-based core competency that could be added to existing core competencies, an example of a learning outcome for each of the four skill sets, as well as a learning activity that could be used to assess that learning outcome, and finally a sample rubric for use in measuring student learning outcomes.

including Nonprofit Management Skill Sets in MPa Program competencies

Industry-Recognized Standards for Assessment. Employing industry-recognized standards im-proves the validity of an evaluation for any standards-based program assessment, whether education-related or otherwise (Sylvia & Sylvia,

2012). NASPAA standards provide such a re-source. These standards include demonstration of student learning competencies in five core areas: to lead and manage in public governance; to participate in and contribute to the policy process; to analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems, and make decisions; to articu-late and apply a public service perspective; and to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry. In addition to these core competencies, NASPAA institutions are expected to add program-specific competencies appropriate to each institution.

Competency-based assessments of student learning offer an effective way to connect course-level learning objectives to program-level objectives (Dunning, 2014). For each course, students are expected to demonstrate course-level learning outcomes. These course-level outcomes should be incorporated into program-level student learning competencies such as those derived from the NASPAA core competencies. For pro-grams that emphasize the key role of nonprofits, identification of additional competencies asso-ciated with nonprofit management is vital. The four core nonprofit skill sets identified in this article provide a foundation for adding these nonprofit management competencies.

In addition to NASPAA competencies, the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) offers guidelines for programs in nonprofit management education (2007). Outcomes asso-ciated with NACC recommendations could be used either for alternative or for additional standards-based assessments. The NACC guide-lines offer a list of 16 topics, with subtopics in each, for graduate programs in nonprofit man-agement to cover. These are not necessarily meant to suggest a course be offered for each topic; instead, topics can be addressed across courses. Thus, these topics are not equivalent to competencies, but they are a valuable guide for material to be covered in nonprofit programs. The NACC curricular guidelines can be used to help build a bridge between the NASPAA core competencies, a program’s mission-based competency expectations, and individual pro-gram and course outcomes (see Figure 1).



A Conceptual Model for Assessment . In think ing about how to incorporate a nonprofit competency into program assessment plans, it is important to consider the overall structure of program assessment. One of the most commonly employed models for focusing the design of program assessment is systems theory. Systems theory also offers the advantage of being one of the most easily understood models. This model, which has been in use for decades in organ iza-tional theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966) and political science, public administration, and policy studies (Easton, 1979), offers a straightforward program logic model that emphasizes the inputs, pro-cesses, and outputs of the program, as well as its interaction with its environment (see Figure 2). It is a very helpful way of thinking about edu-cational assessment.

For instance, Horne and Paris (2010) employ a systems theory approach in their proposed model for teaching about government-nonprofit colla-boration. In their work, they acknowledge the use of learning objectives and apply an adapted logic model with internal and external factors of government and nonprofit relationships to the traditional input, activities, outputs, and outcomes framework. In our study, this frame work

still applies; however, we also sug gest measure-ment of internal and external skills.

A systems theory logic model can be applied to educational programs of any kind. Generally speaking, for an educational program, core inputs include the faculty, the students, and the financial, administrative, technological, and material resources necessary for the educational program. As these inputs are drawn into the program’s educational processes, the expected outputs to be produced are the number of students benefited and related outcomes, including the generation and acquisition of knowledge and skills, course completions, persistence, and degree attainment.

In organizational program assessment, the assess-ment process begins by defining the program goals and objectives and working backward from these (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2003; Sylvia & Sylvia, 2012). MPA programs begin with the framework of defined standards-based universal core competencies established by NASPAA. Mission-specific and program-specific competencies are added to the NASPAA uni-versal core competencies at the discretion of each institution. Programs that emphasize the

figure 1. MpA-nonprofit program Competency Framework

Notes. MPA = Master of Public Administration; NASPAA = Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration; NACC = Nonprofit Academic Centers Council.

figure 2. systems-Theory program logic Model

Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes

NASPAA-informed core competencies

Mission-based nonprofit competency

NACC curricular guidelines

Program-level outcomes

Course-level outcomes



figure 3. basic program Assessment logic Model: The relationship of Competencies and program outcomes

importance of nonprofit management could therefore incorporate a dedicated competency reflecting such an emphasis, or include sub-ordinate outcomes associated with nonprofit management. The core nonprofit management skill sets identified in this article—leadership, capacity, collaboration, and innovation—are suggested as a set of skills to be associated with a nonprofit management competency and used in developing program outcome assessment plans.

As we envision the program assessment process then, MPA/MPP program outputs and related outcomes could include not only the NASPAA core competencies and related outcomes, but also the nonprofit management competency and related outcomes (see Figure 3). NASPAA core competencies are interpreted through each individual program’s mission based compe-tencies and related outcomes and measures. Skills from the new nonprofit competency could be incorporated in the program logic model either within the “Program Mission-Based Compe ten-cies” or as a nonprofit manage ment education competency completely separate from the

NASPAA core competencies. Or, if the skills cut across existing competencies, then assess ments of those skills could be included in the outcomes and measurements of those competencies.

Adding a Nonprofit Management Compe-tency to an MPA Program. If the decision has been made to add a full mission-based competency that incorporates core nonprofit management skills, a competency would need to be defined. The example we will use here is “to articulate and apply core nonprofit skill sets.” From this, an MPA program would list the core nonprofit skills identified by program faculty as important for their program’s graduates to possess. If a program were to employ the four core skill sets proposed in this article, subordinate competencies based on those skill sets (e.g., nonprofit leadership) would be articulated and associated outcomes (e.g., ability to identify outcomes of leadership styles) would be identified for each. Assessments for each would in turn be selected to measure student learning. Figure 4 illustrates this model.

Universal competencies

Program mission-based competencies

Outcomes Measurement

figure 4. illustration of Approach Assessing student learning outcomes

Universal competencies

Program mission-based competencies

Nonprofit management leadership skill

Outcomes

Students are able to articulate the impact of leadership styles

on organizational behavior

Measurement

Direct measure(s) of

student learning



Measuring Learning Outcomes. While keeping in mind all of the inputs into program processes, and working from defined program outcomes, outcome assessment techniques should be design-ed with measurement in mind (Sylvia & Sylvia, 2012). Specific course-level and program-level learning outcomes should be identified by pro-gram faculty to support the growth of student learning related to the nonprofit management skill sets. Once the outcomes are chosen, specific student learning assessments should be selected and data collected to demonstrate that student learning related to these skills has occurred (Dunning, 2014). A variety of appropriate assess-ment techniques can be employed to measure student learning at the course and programmatic level. Programs should collect data document-ing student learning throughout the program through course-level assessment of student learn-ing, as well as at the end of the program through summative assessment tools such as capstones, theses, or comprehensive exams. Some researchers have tried to create standardized exams, such as the summative major field test for public administration (Camp Jones et al., 2013), but these are still under development.

Many faculty are already engaged in course-level assessment, and data gathered from these assess-ments can also be used for program-level assess-ment. Course-level student learning should be thought of as a subsystem of the overall program assessment system. Thus, data on achievement of student learning outcomes measured through

skill set assessment at the subsystem level is collected to support demonstration of learning around key program outcomes, as well as used as data at the subsystem level. Course-based assessment data can be collected through a variety of methods, such as project-based assess-ments, multiple choice quizzes/exams, written examinations, written assignments, oral present-ations, structured clinical examinations, short answer questions, discussion boards, and oral assessments (Astin, 2012; Bean, 2011; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Suskie, 2010; Walvoord & Anderson, 2011). The advantage to collecting course-embedded assessments is that it does not require faculty to revise the way that they collect data for their course-based assessments, but ties what are already considered important student learn-ing outcomes at the course level to overall program student learning outcomes.

Formal collection of data through mechanisms such as ePortfolios is one option for collecting such data at the program level. As described by Light, Chen, and Ittelson (2011), ePortfolios are an example of an integrated data collection assessment tool for documenting student learning and student learning growth over the span of a program. These electronic repositories collect data in the form of student work from the time the student enters the program to the time that the student completes the program. Hence, the repository houses data that can be analyzed in both formative and summative assessments of student learning.

Table 2. sample learning outcomes and Activities for Assessing nonprofit Management skill sets

Skill set Learning outcome Assessment activity

leadership Recognize the influence of different leadership approaches on organizational operations.

Case study

collaboration Identify project stakeholders and create strategies to collaborate with them.

Experiential learning project

capacity Describe management tools that successfully build human and financial capital for organizations.

Course-embedded written exam

innovation Articulate innovation strategies that have helped organizations be successful.

Course-embedded assignment



Case studies and experiential learning are highly recommended strategies for developing and assessing nonprofit management skills in MPA/MPP programs. These exercises help to develop students’ use of skills in applied set-tings. Specific student learning outcomes can be connected to assessments associated with these applied learning techniques (Helms & Biggs, 2007/2008; Horne & Paris, 2010; Lynn, 1999, Sandfort & Stone, 2008). Having been intro-duced to skills found in the literature, students are given exercises that enable them to see how these skills are applied and even to obtain first-hand knowledge of such application in real-world settings. Finding ways to collect data on how students have developed and applied these skills is a good way to demonstrate course-based and program-level learning.

Measuring Student Learning. This article has thus far provided several methods programs can use to collect data on student learning. Here we suggest ways to employ these methods when integrating core nonprofit management skill sets into program assessment. To provide an example, we will assume that the program has adopted a mission-based core competency “to articulate and

apply core nonprofit skills,” which include skills in nonprofit leadership, collaboration, capacity, and innovation. The next step is to identify ap-propriate outcomes for each skill set, along with associated assess ment measures. We provide one example for each skill set in Table 2, but mul-tiple learning outcomes could be designed for each com petency and skill set. Assess ment acti-vities can include course-embedded assign ments or exams, case studies or experiential learn ing projects, or parts of a summative assessment such as a capstone project or comprehensive exam.

Once the data are collected, the application of a rubric is an effective method for assessing whether students have demonstrated a student learning outcome. Department faculty should design and approve rubrics to apply to each assessment activity. Not every student assignment need be assessed with the rubric; a representative sample will suffice. To improve reliability and validity, teams of two or more faculty members should discuss the results of applying the rubric to determine agreement on the analysis. In Table 3, we provide an example of a rubric that could be applied to data from an assessment activity. A rubric’s ratings may

Table 3.sample rubric for the Collaboration learning outcome “identify project stakeholders and Create strategies to Collaborate with Them”

Student learning outcomes

Fails to meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

identified project stakeholders

Identified few or no stake - holders; overlooked impor-tant stakeholders; failed to use techniques adequately.

Identified core project stakeholders using ap-propriate techniques.

Identified all stakeholders both internal and external using advanced techniques.

developed communication strategy

Communication strate-gies were unclear or poorly designed.

Strategy to facilitate communication was clearly outlined.

Sophisticated strategy was developed to connect all stakeholders through multi - ple connections.

developed coordination strategies

Coordination elements designed were inad-equate to meet the needs of the stakeholders.

Coordination ele-ments to carry out collaborative func-tions were identified.

Coordination strategies were highly developed; feedback from stakehold-ers was employed.

applied relevant stakeholder analysis tools

Tools were not used, or were applied incorrectly.

Tools used were ap-parent and applied appropriately.

Multiple tools were carefully and systematically applied.



range from three to four to five categories. Typically, ratings range from fails to meet expect-ations to exceeds expectations, but other ratings may be used, such as a range from unacceptable to distinguished or from novice to shows mastery. Descriptions of what a rating means given the assignment should be articulated to give those rating the assignment a clear standard to apply.

Lastly, the key to effective assessment is devel op-ing feedback mechanisms that take data related to student learning outcomes and con nect these back to program planning processes. Formaliz-ing methods for data collection, data processing, and dissemination to program faculty should become a part of departmental routines. Logic models to illustrate how these feedback loops operate can be helpful mech anisms for ongoing feedback and analysis. The systems theory ap-proach provides a structure for developing such a mechanism.

cONcluSiONThe intent of this article is to offer a structure for integrating nonprofit management skill sets or competencies into MPA/MPP program assess-ment processes. By identifying four key skill sets for nonprofit professionals, we have provided suggested skill sets to help prepare students for the blurred boundaries facing them in the field. Here again, our intent was not to offer an exhaustive list, but to provide a core list that could be used to begin the process of integrating nonprofit management skills into MPA/MPP programs to help students prepare for the world of blurred sector boundaries. In addition, we propose a process for developing a program-level nonprofit man age ment competency assessment. Development of specific course-level learning outcomes, then program-level out-comes related to the four core skill sets, provides a mechanism for integration of nonprofit management into an MPA/MPP program.

The process we have proposed is flexible, allowing programs to structure their assessment plans around the integration of nonprofit skills and measurable outcomes, including different skill sets and associated learning outcomes than those proposed in this article.

refereNceS

Astin, A. W. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philo-sophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does . Buck ingham, UK: McGraw-Hill International.

Camp Jones, P., Roberts, G. E., Martin, E. P., Ahu-mada, E., King, S. M., & Kircher, P. (2013). The development of an MPA major field test. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 97–115.

Cantrell-Bruce, T. (2013). Illinois nonprofit connect, communicate, and collaborate needs assessment. Prepared for the Lumpkin Family Foundation, in conjunction with the University of Illinois and the Donors Forum.

Connolly, P., York, P., Munemitsu, S., Ruiz-Healy, C., Sherman, A., & Trebb, C. (2003). Building the capacity of capacity builders: A study of management support and field-building organizations in the nonprofit sector . Philadelphia, PA: The Conservation Com-pany. Retrieved from http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/buildingthecapacityofcapacitybuilders_full.pdf.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Enter-prising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entre pre neurs . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Dolan, D. A. (2002). Training needs of administrators in the nonprofit sector: What are they and how should we address them? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12 (3), 277–292.

Dunning, P. T. (2014). Developing a compe tency-based assessment approach for student learning. Teaching Public Admini stration, 32 (1), 55–67.

Easton, D. (1979). A framework for political analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organiza tional learning. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 803–813.

Gronbjerg, K. A., Cheney, L., Leadingham, S., & Liu, H. (2007). Nonprofit capacity assessment: Indiana charities, 2007 (Nonprofit Capacity Assessment Survey Series, Report No. 1). Bloom ington: Indiana Uni-versity School of Public and Environmental Af fairs.



Retrieved from https://folio.iupui.edu/bitstream/ handle/10244/27charitycapacityassessment.pdf? sequence=1.

Helms, L., & Biggs, S. (2007/2008). Policy map ping: A new framework for teaching policy making and policy design through case studies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 73 (3/4), 565–584.

Horne, C. S., & Paris, T. V. (2010). Pairing MPA students to succeed in government-nonprofit collaboration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (1), 13–30.

Hudson, M. (2005). Managing at the leading edge: New challenges in managing nonprofit organ izations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Letts, C., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations: Man aging ups-tream for greater impact . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Light, P. C. (2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it . Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- tion Press.

Light, P. C., & Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining inno-vation: Creating nonprofit and government organi-zations that innovate naturally . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Light, T. P., Chen, H. L., & Ittelson, J. C. (2011). Documenting learning with ePortfolios: A guide for college instructors . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lynn, L. E. (1999). Teaching and learning with cases: A guidebook . Chappaqua, NY: Seven Bridges.

Mayhew, F., Swartz, N., & Taylor, J. A. (2014). Implementing a multi-method competency model: Experiences of the MPA Program at James Madison University. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 321–334.

Mendel, S. (2013, July). Paper on the promise and po tential of the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council: Present and future strategic mission fulfillment . Paper presented at the NACC Mem bers Meeting, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://urban.csuohio.edu /naccdocuments/itePaperOnStrategicMission Fulfillment2013_Mendel.pdf.

Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and philanthropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quart-erly, 36(Suppl. 4), 11S–27S.

Mirabella, R. M., & McDonald, M. (2012). 11 university-based education programs in nonprofit management and philanthropic studies: Current state of the field and future directions. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Human resource management in the nonprofit sector: Passion, purpose and professionalism (pp. 243–255). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Mirabella, R. M., & Young, D. R. (2012). The devel-opment of education for social entre preneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or con verg-ing paths? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23 (1), 43–57.

Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organ-izational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and gov-ern mental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (Suppl. 1), 183–208.

Murdock, A., Tekula, R., & Parra, C. (2013). Responding to challenge: Comparing nonprofit programmes and pedagogy at universities in the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 6 (2), 69–95.

Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC). (2007). Curricular guidelines for graduate study in nonprofit leadership, the nonprofit sector and philanthropy (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://nonprofit-academic-centers-council.org/documents/GradCG07.pdf.

O’Neill, M. (2005). Developmental context of nonprofit management education. Nonprofit Manage- ment and Leadership, 16(1), 5–17.

Paton, R., Mordaunt, J., & Cornforth, C. (2007). Beyond nonprofit management education: Leader-ship development in a time of blurred boundaries and distributed learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (Suppl. 4), 148S–162S.

Pucella, T. J. (2009). An analysis of nonprofit capacity building in the Mid-Ohio Valley . Marietta, OH: Mar-ietta College, McDonough Center for Leader ship and Business. Retrieved from http://mcdonough.marietta.edu/AORGS/An%20Analysis%20of%20Nonprofit%20Capacity%20Building%20in%20the%20Mid-Ohio%20Valley.pdf.



Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2003). Eval uation: A systematic approach . Los Angeles: Sage.

Sandfort, J., & Stone, M. (2008). Analyzing policy fields: Helping students understand complex state and local contexts. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14 (2), 129–148.

Schröer, A., Medora, D., Mukerjee, A., & Wallinger, G. (2012). Oregon nonprofit sector report: The state of the nonprofit sector in Oregon, 2011 . Portland State University. Retrieved from http://www. non profitoregon.org/sites/default/files/uploads/file/ONSR.pdf.

Steuerle, C. E. (2001). When nonprofits conduct exempt activities as taxable enterprises (Emerging Issues in Philanthropy Seminar Series No. 4). Washington, DC: Urban Institute and the Hauser Center.

Suskie, L. (2010). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Sylvia, R. D., & Sylvia, K. M. (2012). Program plan-ning and evaluation for the public manager (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Task Force on Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity. (2010). Task Force on Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity: Report and legislative recommendations to the 81st Texas Legislature. Retrieved from http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/hhsc_projects/Faith-Based/Task-Force-Report.pdf.

Tuckman, H. P., & Chang, C. F. (2006). Commercial activity, technological change, and nonprofit mis-sion. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 629–644). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (2011). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Wang, L., & Ashcraft, R. F. (2012). Needs assessment and curriculum mapping: Enhancing management skills of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Man-agement and Leadership, 23(1), 121–136.

Wish, N. B., & Mirabella, R. M. (1998). Curricular variations in nonprofit management graduate pro-grams. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 99–110.

Worth, M. J. (2013). Nonprofit management: Principles and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Wymer, W., Knowles, P. A., & Gomes, R. (2006). Nonprofit marketing: Marketing management for charitable and nongovernmental organizations . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed .). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Young, D. R. (1999). Nonprofit management studies in the US: Current developments and future prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5 (1), 13–23.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

Tosha cantrell-bruce is assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield, where she leads the Nonprofit Project in the Department of Public Administration. She received her Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) degree from the University of Illinois at Springfield. She also provides evaluation services to non-profit and state organizations as an independent consultant. Her applied research focuses on capacity assessment issues among nonprofits, and her most recent report is the statewide Illinois Nonprofit Connect, Communicate, and Collaborate Needs Assessment.

bob blankenberger is assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Illinois at Springfield and was formerly deputy director of academic affairs and student success at the Illinois Board of Higher Education. He received his PhD in Public Pol icy Analysis and Administration from St. Louis University. He has a variety of publica-tions, research projects, and presentations related to higher education. Recent publications include “Performance Funding in Illinois Higher Edu cation: The Roles of Politics, Bud get Environ ment, and Individual Actors in the Pro-cess” in Educational Policy, co-authored with Alan Phillips, and “Dual Credit/Dual En roll-ment and Data Driven Policy Imple ment ation” in the Journal of Community College Research and Practice, co-authored with Eric Lichten-ber ger, Allison Witt, and Doug Franklin .



Social entrepreneurship courses on university campuses have exploded in numbers in the United States and across the world. An AshokaU publication entitled Trends in Social Innovation Education in 2014 found that “the total number of social innovation offerings [in universities] has grown by 200% since 1999” (2014, p. 4). These courses are found in business schools, leadership, law and nonprofit programs, and, increasingly, in schools and programs of public administration, public policy, and public affairs (hereafter called public affairs programs). Social entrepreneurship

courses began in the late 1990s, and primarily at business schools, with early leadership by Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, Duke, and Georgetown University business schools, among others (AshokaU, 2014, p. 15). In the last five years, AshokaU (2014) has documented an expansion of such courses to many other departments and cross-disciplinary programs, but still dominated by business school offerings. Indeed, in its recent 2013 survey of 945 universities worldwide, AshokaU (2014, p. 51) found that of the 215 universities that responded, 55% of the academic units that had

Teaching Social Entrepreneurship in Public Affairs Programs: A Review of

Social Entrepreneurship Courses in the Top 30 U .S . Public Administration

and Affairs Programs

Kimberly K. Wiley and frances S. berryFlorida State University

abSTracTSocial entrepreneurship uses a radically innovative way to address social problems, with sustainable financing and a scale that can be expanded for broader social impact. Social entrepreneurship courses have a growing presence in U.S. public affairs programs, but the content of these courses has not yet been mapped. For this paper, we reviewed 16 syllabi from courses taught in U.S. schools of public affairs and administration, largely from schools ranked in the top 30 nationwide in 2012 by U.S. News & World Report. We identified patterns in program approaches, course content, and evaluation methods in order to offer information to others who may be teaching these classes now or in the near future. We conclude that the confluence of values, skills, and knowledge offered by public affairs programs is highly relevant to students who endeavor to be social entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs at any level of government or nonprofit organization.

KeYWOrdSPublic affairs, social entrepreneurship, curriculum

JPAE 21 (3), 381–400


social entrepreneurship initiatives were housed in business schools, and only 6% were housed in public affairs programs.

The days of public affairs programs teaching govern mental bureaucracy and single-agency programs are over, as cross-sectoral programs and collaboration have increased and become the norm for policy implementation and service delivery (e.g., Agranoff & McQuire, 2003; Hartley, Sørensen, & Torfing, 2013; O’Leary & Bingham, 2009). While nonprofit programs have worked closely with government units through contracting arrangements for decades (Salamon, 2003), public affairs programs have recently increased their offerings in nonprofit management, such that by 2013, over 56% of ac credited U.S. Master of Public Administra-tion (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) pro grams offered a nonprofit specialization (NAS PAA, 2014, slide 9). More accredited public affairs schools now offer a nonprofit specializa-tion than any other specialization, in cluding general management and public policy.

The distinctions between nonprofits and pri-vate sector businesses are also blurring (Billis, 2010; Hoffman, Badiane, & Haigh, 2012). Through the development of social enterprise, nonprofits and private businesses often find themselves with double bottom lines or dual missions: making a profit while meeting a social or environmental purpose. New forms of legal organizations, such as L3Cs, allow nonprofits to spin off from for-profit organizations, and mix the sectors much more radically than previously (Wexler, 2009). Innovation, a cornerstone of social entrepreneurship, was once viewed as restricted to technology, eng-ineering, and business fields, while the field of public affairs was more oriented to hierarchy, accountability, and social equity. Now, technological, financing, and service delivery innovation is demanded at all levels of government; one example is President Obama’s Open Government Directive (Office of Man-agement and Budget, 2009). Local government leaders have been well-documented as inno-vators who use cross-sectoral and enterprise

approaches to carry out governmental policy (e.g., Eggers, 2009; Goldsmith, Georges, & Burke, 2010). Innovation appears not to be a fad in government, but instead a required way of dealing with public value, demands for accountability, and effective service (Goldsmith et al., 2010).

The administration of public service now utilizes partnerships with the private and third sectors as the preferred way of conducting the people’s business (Nicholls, 2006). Organizations that were once typically nonprofit are shifting to hybrid structures, either as a private enterprise with a social mission or as a nonprofit sustaining itself with earned income (Billis, 2010). Stu-dents need more experience and skills in under-standing how to combine the best of public/nonprofit and business practices for agency missions geared toward social benefits. Social entrepreneurship is the creation of programs or agencies with social value that are sustainable and use innovative methods of finance, delivery, and organization. While social entrepreneurship courses and programs were incubated in bus-iness schools, their content and skill develop-ment is increasingly used and needed in the public and nonprofit sectors. Considering the developing popularity of a social entrepreneur-ship approach to management and public/private partnerships, how are public affairs programs responding to the demand for courses on social entrepreneurship? How are they structuring these new course offerings, and what are they teach-ing? This is the focus of our paper.

In their study of social entrepreneurship in the third sector, Young and Grinsfelder (2011) conclude that the skills needed by social entre-preneurs differ from those taught in business entrepreneurship programs, and need to include political and third sector management skills. Young and Grinsfelder (2011) argue that the concepts taught in public affairs schools and their nonprofit programs, concepts such as philanthropy, government collaboration and procurement, and volunteerism, fill the gaps in the business school curriculum on social entre preneurship and are essential for success in the

K . K . Wiley & F . S . Berry


nonprofit and public sectors. Mirabella and Young, in a look across disciplines at “graduate education programs with a social entrepre-neurship emphasis,” assess the identification of these skills in program websites or course descriptions (2012, p. 46). However, neither Young and Grinsfelder nor Mirabella and Young examine thoroughly what is being taught in the public affairs classroom related to social entrepreneurship, a gap this paper fills. Public administrators and faculty in public affairs programs must keep current with emerging, on-the-ground practices so that MPA/MPP students and graduates are prepared for the changing expectations and ground rules of the governmental cross-sector partnerships and non-profit management environments in which they will work.

For this paper, we reviewed the state of social entrepreneurship programs in public affairs programs in the United States, largely from schools ranked in the top 30 in the nation (U.S. News & World Report, 2012).1 An assessment of these programs provided insight into course content, structure, and teaching methods. The purpose of such an assessment is to identify patterns in course content, program approaches, and evaluation methods in order to offer information to others who may be teaching these classes now or in the near future. We are not arguing that there is a best way to teach social entrepreneurship. Indeed, the state of the field suggests that it is emergent and diverse rather than convergent. Adoption of social entrepreneurship courses within public affairs programs is still in early stages; the majority of the syllabi we reviewed were new within the past five years. While there are insights to be learned from comparing the public affairs curriculum with business school curriculum, this is not the focus of our paper.

Our study used a Web-based assessment of the top-30-ranked U.S. public affairs programs (U.S. News & World Report, 2012) to identify and gather course syllabi. Fifteen of the top-ranked programs offered social entrepreneurship classes. We obtained syllabi for 14 of these

courses, plus two additional syllabi from social entrepreneurship courses at public administra-tion schools not on the top-30 list. Based on a summative content analysis of the 16 course syllabi, we found commonalities in key topic areas that, in most courses, prepared students to assess real-world case examples and develop a business plan for a new social enterprise. Our analysis revealed little overlap in textbook use across the courses and no standard approach to the evaluation tools. A concise review of the concept of social entrepreneurship as it applies to course themes is covered next, followed by the syllabi analysis and discussion of the answered and unanswered questions resulting from the analysis.

SOcial eNTrePreNeurSHiP iN THe Public affairS liTeraTure

defining Social entrepreneurshipA review of the social entrepreneurship litera-ture reveals a variety of definitions of the term itself and related concepts (Bielefeld, 2009; Young & Grinsfelder, 2011). We will not repeat earlier, in-depth discussions but only briefly describe widely used definitions without urging that any particular definition be adopted. In their recently published book, Guo and Bielefeld (2014) demonstrate in a table the disparity among 12 different approaches to defining soc-ial entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs; definitions range from an explanation of be-haviors of individual social entrepreneurs to a description of social enterprise activities. Their table summarizes definitions from well-known researchers in the field such as J. G. Dees (1998), Peter Frumkin (2002), and Paul Light (2006). Guo and Bielefeld conclude with a definition applied in a previous article coauthor-ed by Bielefeld, in which social entrepreneurship is “the pursuit of social objectives with innova-tive methods, through the creation of products, organizations, and practices that yield and sus-tain social ben efits” (Guo & Bielefeld, 2014, p. 7; Tschirthart & Bielefeld, 2012, p. 36). Ash-okaU’s Trends in Social Innovation Education in 2014 also notes that a variety of definitions of social entrepre neurship exist, and argues that this is healthy for the field (2014).

Teaching Social Entrepreneurship


Frumkin (2013) draws a definition of social entre preneurship based on a review of three books: Schwartz’s Rippling: How Social Entrepre-neurs Spread Innovation Throughout the World (2012); Light’s Driving Social Change: How to Solve the World’s Toughest Problems (2010); and Green and Hauser’s Managing to Change the World: The Nonprofit Manager’s Guide to Getting Results (2012). The books by Light and Schwartz offer similar definitions. Light defines social entrepreneurship as “an effort to solve an intractable social problem through pattern-breaking change” (2010, p. 12). This tight definition opens the door for social entrepre-neurship to be sector agnostic. Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka (an organization dedicated to finding, training, and celebrating social entrepreneurs), describes social entrepreneurs as changemakers in the foreword to Schwartz’s bestselling social entrepreneurship book, Rippling (2012); Drayton also encourages collaborative entrepreneurship rather than solo entrepreneur-ing. Ashoka pushes beyond the contributions and outcomes of individual entrepreneurs and drives systems changes to promote broader policy and structural reforms. Social entrepre-neurship in the public sector often takes the form of such collaborative entrepreneurship (Goldsmith et al., 2010).

Frumkin concludes his review with his own de-finition of social entrepreneurship as a practice that should (a) “involve a new and innovative way of solving a public problem” (2013, p. 375); (b) provide solutions that must be initially designed around a sustainable model both in terms of the organization and the finances; and (c) involve a commitment of scale in order to expand the social impact to a larger or more diverse constituency in the future. This defin-ition is inclusive of all three sectors and provides an effective framework for use in the public affairs classroom. It relates to public policy sol-utions and organizational design, and under-scores that solutions should be scalable beyond the project that first begins the enterprise.

What each of the authors above offer is an explanation of social entrepreneurship that goes beyond market exchanges of goods and services in order to fund a charitable cause.

These authors call for innovative solutions to small and large social problems, not simply developing unrestricted income sources for good causes. Social entrepreneurship is seen as distinct from generic nonprofit management in that it teaches students to create an innovative way to solve a social or environmental problem, a way that has sustainable financing and is developed on a small scale but can be scaled up. This is different from managing a program un-der standard government regulations and con-tracts. Many of the new financing tech niques—events and earned income—are not new, but put - ting the development, management, and del i-very elements together creates a new package.

Social entrepreneurship is not the same as policy entrepreneurship in that policy entrepreneurs work for policy change but rarely toward creat-ing the organizational and financing structures to deliver that change. Social entrepreneurs learn policy advocacy techniques, but their focus is on innovative, sustainable projects that may lead to policy change in the future. One com-mon theme is that social entrepreneurship in-volves innovative approaches to developing an organization and funding to create social value.

Thus, in the next section, we will cover three core topics in public affairs that have a new twist in social entrepreneurship classes: organ-izational structure, performance measure ment, and internal organizational behavior. These topics, widely taught in public affairs courses, are explored here employing language specific to social entrepreneurship studies.

Organizational StructureHousing social entrepreneurship courses and specializations in public affairs schools and programs is a smart fit, as social enterprise tends to function in a hybrid way—somewhere in between the three economic sectors (Billis, 2010). The shift from government to govern-ance in public affairs curriculum over the past 20 years reflects a move to cover the relationship of the three sectors primarily in government’s work and service delivery. Topics that address hybridity, though often not labeled as such, are explored throughout public affairs studies. For example, emergency management approaches



use a blend of levels of government, economic sectors, and hybrid organizations (Goodchild & Glennon, 2010; Perry, 1983; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

The hybridity of a social enterprise is defined both by the organization’s legal structure and by the intended outcomes (Billis, 2010; Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014; Hoffman, Badiane, & Haigh, 2012; Wexler, 2009). Though a social enterprise will express a dual or triple bottom line, this legal designation guides how an organization may administer earned income. As Wexler (2009) points out, there is no legal definition of social enterprise. His special report on the legal structures available to social enter-prise provides necessary information for the social entrepreneur beginning a new organization or for the social intrapreneur2 restructuring an existing organization (Brooks, 2009; Guo & Bielefeld, 2014). Wexler offers two examples: (a) an L3C, “an LLC that is formed as a low-profit limited liability company”; and (b) a bene-fit corporation, “a for-profit corporation that also has a social mission and is licensed to use the trade name ‘B corporation’” (2009, p. 566). Murray (2012) identifies 17 states with legal designation for L3Cs, B Corporations, and other variations of these models (such as California’s flexible purpose corporation statute), and in summary states that there is no single approach to legal structures for this organizational behavior.

The curricula of public affairs programs reach beyond management discussions and into governance. Billis argues that rather than exist-ing in a purely defined sector, hybrid organ-izations may employ principles from multiple sectors. Future leaders of hybrid organizations can apply operational priorities embedded in their organization’s social or environmental missions (Billis, 2010). For example, Ten Thousand Villages operates on a for-profit model but is staffed by volunteers and is legally a 501(c)3 in which profits are reinvested in the company to expand its fair trade mission. Interdisciplinary approaches to teaching social entrepreneurship can greatly benefit from these lessons on organizational structure offered by public affairs schools.

Performance MeasurementAn enterprise that exists solely to earn a profit is by definition not a social enterprise. Social value creation is central in defining social enterprise, thus performance measures must be able to cal-c ulate this bottom line (Guo & Bielefeld, 2014). Barinaga (2013) found that a single shared measure of value across social enterprises proves challenging due to differing missions and approaches to addressing even a single social problem. Teaching public value–oriented meas-ures may be better suited to all subdisciplines of public affairs than to business, as public affairs curricula already include instruction on mission-driven services and alternate measures for the provision of public goods. Nonprofit courses typically include strategic planning for organiza-tions that have missions for building social value.

Indeed, a recent whole literature on public values has had a renaissance (Bozeman, 2007) that argues for incorporating social justice, environ-mental sustainability, and equal opportunity values. This focus on public values contributes to the suitability of teaching and integrating social entrepreneurship in the public affairs curriculum. Public values demand measures in addition to return on investment or profit measures, and public affairs faculty are skilled in developing outcomes and outputs for broader public values. Earned income—representing unrestricted funds—is part of the social entre-preneur’s strategy to fund ongoing enterprises, but as profits are shifted to social causes and benefits, then service outcome measurement is required to demonstrate public value.3

Government and foundation grant applications and programs typically require substantial measures of success. Social value can be measured as changes in the individual client or the community, in individual behavior or knowledge changes, or in larger societal indicators related to impact on community well-being and quality of life—these measures are all part of public affairs performance management literatures.

internal Organizational behaviorSocial entrepreneurship is not limited to organizational structure or individual behavior



(Guo & Bielefeld, 2014; Kistruck & Beamish, 2010). Managers within an established organ-ization can behave in ways that improve func-tionality while creating social value—thus acting socially intrapreneurial. An approach to teaching social entrepreneurship can focus on organizational behaviors that shift an entity’s mission from client programs delivered in a traditional hierarchy to social value creation in flexible organizational partnerships. These org-anizational behaviors include active leadership support for entrepreneurial activities within the organization, formal policy supportive of inno-vative behavior, or loose management structures allowing for decision making by both frontline staff and management (Goldsmith et al., 2010; Schwartz, 2012; Young, 2011).

At the curricular level, both business and public affairs schools may utilize this distinction be-tween organizational structure and organiza-tional behavior in the way they teach social entrepreneurship. AshokaU (2014, p. 56) notes two primary teaching approaches in under-graduate social entrepreneurship degrees. One approach uses business training and business plan development as a foundation to attract students who want to develop a new social enter-prise. A second approach is more designed for students who will manage organizations in constant change and global interaction.

This second approach helps students acquire skills to develop new programs geared to social value or, alternatively, to develop new funding streams within organizations that are not wholly new enterprises but that require creative leadership, new problem and solution defini-tion, and a capacity to work collaboratively with other organizations. And the second approach, as a general focus, may be the better suited to public affairs programs’ strengths even while public affairs courses continue to allow students to choose to create new social ventures.

In the next section, we present the detailed analysis of our research methods and the curriculum content of public affairs programs’ social entrepreneurship courses.

curreNT aPPrOacHeS TO TeacHiNg SOcial eNTrePreNeurSHiP iN Public affairS

Method and dataFor our primary data, we conducted a sum ma-tive content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) of the social entrepreneurship programs and courses offered in public affairs (including public administration and public policy) programs and schools in the United States. A list of 30 top-ranked public affairs programs recognized by U.S. News & World Report (2012) served as our initial sampling frame. Based on a review of the websites of the top 30 schools, those with social entrepreneurship courses, certificates, or competitions were selected for inclusion in this study. An Internet search produced additional social entrepreneurship courses in U.S. public affairs programs, which are also included in our sample. Programs that merely mentioned social entrepreneurship as a topic within a course were excluded.

To identify these programs, first a manual search of each public affairs program’s web page for social entrepreneurship and related keywords was conducted. If none were found, an Internet search engine was used. Fifteen schools in the top 30 were identified as offering social entre-preneurship courses. We were able to obtain syllabi from 14 of those schools. Two schools in the top 30 were identified as offering other related programs, such as certificates or competitions, in their curriculum. Two addi-tion al schools (not ranked in the top 30) were identified as offering courses and included here as well.

A great diversity of universities is represented in our sample, as demonstrated by their geographic location, public/private distinction, and enroll-ment size. The sample includes 14 public and five private universities located in 14 states and the District of Columbia and in all major regions of the United States. They vary considerably by enrollment size: five universities of between 10,000 and 20,000 students, seven between 21,000 and 40,000, six between 41,000 and 60,000, and one with more than 61,000 students. This sample is not a comprehensive list of all social entrepreneurship programs in the United



States, but instead a reasonably sized sample of social entrepre neurship programs located within public affairs schools or programs. AshokaU’s recent (2014) survey of 215 universities world-wide found that only 6% of social entrepre-neurship initia tives were housed in public policy or public administration schools, which suggests that our relatively small sample may represent a fairly high percentage of social entrepreneurship courses currently taught in public affairs programs. But given our sampling limitations, we aimed not to establish sample to population generalizability but rather to pro-vide a variety of cases that offer rich descriptions and explanations for the variety of courses and topics offered (Firestone, 1993).

The presence of a course on social entre pre-neurship was assessed by noting the words in a course title or as the main objective presented in a course description or objectives. Once cour ses were located, an attempt was made to ac quire a syllabus. If made available online, it was downloaded; if not, it was requested directly from the course instructor or a program ad ministrator. We attempted to obtain the most current syllabus for each course. Sixteen course syllabi were collected (two of the 19 public administration programs did not offer courses, and we were unable to obtain a syllabus for one of the courses): 10 syllabi for graduate-level courses and six for undergraduate.

Though no assumptions or hypotheses were made about what would be learned from this search, patterns were expected. Many topics

within the syllabi were identified and easily categorized into the themes presented later in this paper. Through our inductive analysis of the syllabi, we identified five distinctive cate-gories of course topics. After examining an initial sample of 12 syllabi, no further categories arose from examining additional syllabi. In this way, we believe theoretical saturation was attained (Mason, 2010). A list of the syllabi collected is available in Appendix A.

Titles of books required in the course, course topics, and course evaluation methods were identified and compared in an effort to identify similarities. After a review of overall program-matic approaches, the findings of the syllabus analysis are presented through narrative and descriptive tables on three content areas: (a) course topics, (b) assigned reading materials, and (c) evaluation mechanisms. A brief descrip-tion of specialized and interdisciplinary programs completes this section.

findings and discussion

Programmatic Approaches. By reviewing the schools’ websites or contacting the school directly, 19 public affairs programs were identi-fied as incorporating some type of social entre-preneurship education into their curriculum, ranging from competitions to single courses to certificate programs (see Table 1). All but two of the 19 programs offered at least one course. Eleven programs offered graduate courses on social entrepreneurship as part of their MPA or nonprofit certificates; six offered undergradu-ate courses.

Table 1.Types of social entrepreneurship education in 19 public Affairs programs in the united states

Graduate course(s)

Under- graduate course(s)

No courses

Graduate certificate or

undergraduate minor

Joint program

with business school

Competition/ challenge

N schools 11 6 2 4 3 1



Table 2.Topic Categories in social entrepreneurship syllabi

Defining SE Market ing

Business models

and plans

Finance and fund-

raisingMeasuring outcomes Management

graduate syllabi (n = 10) 10 6 9 10 9 6

undergraduate syllabi (n = 6) 6 5 6 6 5 5

Total (N = 16) 16 11 15 16 14 11

Note. SE = social entrepreneurship.

Four of the top-ranked public affairs schools offered a graduate certificate or undergraduate minor in social entrepreneurship; three of these schools indicated their programs were offer ed in partnership with their university’s business school. One program, at Arizona State University, offered a graduate certificate in Social Entre pre neurship and Community Development online.

Many of the business schools that incorporated social entrepreneurship studies, at the univer sities included for analysis, provided challenges or com petitions; only one public administration program, the University of Texas at Austin’s RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service, which is housed in the Lyndon B. John-son School of Public Affairs, advertised such an event at the time of the analysis. It may be the case that rather than hosting their own social entrepreneurship challenges, public affairs pro-grams refer their students to externally hosted events, to support an interdisciplinary approach or to avoid duplication or competition for stu-dent participation. Additionally, it was common for the public affairs programs to house their social entrepreneurship education within their nonprofit curriculum as either a core course or an elective for a graduate-level nonprofit certificate or specialization.

Course Topics.4 A considerable range of course topics were identified across this sample of social entrepreneurship syllabi. True to the prac-

t ical approach of MPA courses, topics tended to focus on developing a social enterprise rather than empirically analyzing causal factors of so-cial entrepreneurial organizational or individual behavior. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the frequency of appearance of topics in the syllabi, and reflects a common topical approach to teach-ing this subject.

The content of the courses was quite diverse, requiring us to generalize the topics into broad-er categories such as finance and fund-raising and management.5 In Table 2, the 23 original course topics have been grouped into six general categories. All of the courses explored defining social entrepreneurship. Course topics included in this category are social change and legal distinctions between sectors. About two thirds of the courses (11) included either marketing, market research, or marketing plans. Learning to build a social enterprise or incorporating social entrepreneurship into existing organi-zations was often a course objective, and the topic category of business models and plans was included in nearly all (15) of the courses. Also included in the business models and plans cat-egory is the concept of going to scale or grow ing a project. Fourteen courses discussed meas uring outcomes, using language such as measuring performance, social impact, or social value.

Surprisingly, only just over half (six) of the graduate courses included management topics,



though nearly all (five) of the undergraduate courses did so. This category included manage-ment and governance, human resources, leader-ship, partnerships, intrapreneurship, and ethics. This deficit in the graduate programs may reflect an understanding that management topics are often covered in core courses in public affairs programs and do not need to be duplicated in a specialized course. Instructors may sacrifice management topics in graduate courses with confidence that they will be covered elsewhere. The gap in attention to management in the graduate courses was addressed in the under-graduate courses, where five of the six courses included at least one management topic.

Because finance is one characteristic that dist-inguishes social entrepreneurship, it warrants fur-ther review. All 16 courses covered finance and fund-raising through a variety of approaches. The course descriptions mentioned “earned income as a form of revenue generation,” “entre preneurial techniques,” or “commercial entrepreneurship.” Topics include earned income, investments, philanthropy, public sector funding, fund-raising, and financial management . Few course objectives referenced finance topics, however, despite its centrality to social entre-preneurship and its inclusion in some courses. One may infer that given finance is not listed in the course objectives or specific skills that stu-dents will acquire as learning competencies, the instructors may provide only a general under-standing of the subject matter, rather than in-depth social enterprise finance competencies.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the course topics related to finance. There was little consistency across courses on the topics provided. As ex-pect ed, the most common finance topic was earned income. Financial management was in-corporated least often (in only two courses), which was consistent with the overall dearth of management topics. It is possible, however, that financial management may have been incorpor-ated as a subtopic in discussions about the eco-nomic sectors and business plan development.

One undergraduate course reviewed included all finance topics except for financial management. Students in an undergraduate course in a social sciences school are less likely than students in a business school or in an MPA program to have been exposed to finance-related courses. An undergraduate course may thus require a more comprehensive inclusion of finance topics, different from what might be expected of a graduate-level course, where students are get-ting that material in other public affairs classes.

Three topics found in the graduate course syl-labi did not fall neatly into the broad categories reported in Table 2: (a) politics and public policy (three courses), (b) an international ap proach to social entrepreneurship (four courses), and (c) theoretical explanations (one course). These key topics may have been sacrificed by other instructors in order to allow more time for exploring the mechanics of the social enterprise proposal or plan. Alternatively, these discussions may have taken place as subtopics to other

Table 3.social entrepreneurship syllabi with Topics related to Finance and Fund-raising

Earned income

Philan- thropy

Government funding

Fund- raising

Financial management

graduate syllabi (n = 10) 9 6 3 2 2

undergraduate syllabi (n = 6) 4 3 3 3 0

Total (N = 16) 13 9 6 5 2



topics that do fit in the general categories, or appear in case examples.

Reading Materials. A course textbook sets the tone for an instructor’s approach to the material. The 38 textbooks identified in the syllabi in this study ranged from handbooks or models for social entrepreneurship (Brooks, 2009; Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001) to case reviews (Bornstein, 2004; Eggers, Singh, and Gold-smith, 2009). As is reflected in the varying course approaches, some books cover research methods and empirically sound models (Light, 2008; Nicholls, 2008), while others primarily provide case or historical examples of successful social entrepreneurs (Mortenson & Relin, 2007; Schwartz, 2012). One course included classic literature: The Aeneid, introducing Ae neas as the quintessential social entrepreneur (Shockley & Frank, 2010), and The Grand Inquisitor (Dostoyevsky & Guignon, 1993).

Guo and Bielefeld’s 2014 book, Social Entre pre-neurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value, was required in two courses and marries much of the public affairs literature on social entrepreneurship with that available in the business management discipline. Their em-phasis is less on building a wholly new enter-prise and more on increasing innovation within exist ing organizations. Much of the textbook focuses on this idea of intrapreneurship and social entrepreneurship in the public sector. This differs from Brook’s 2009 textbook, Social Entrepreneurship, and also Enterprising Nonprofits:

A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs by Dees, Emerson, and Economy (2001), both of which provide step-by-step guides for constructing a new social enterprise. Brooks (2009) provides tools and strategies from the for-profit and nonprofit sectors while Dees, Emerson, and Economy (2001) focus on applying these tools to the nonprofit sector.

Studies published in management journals in pub lic affairs and business administration schools, as well as studies from the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, were required reading in some courses. The articles provided both empirical analyses and theoretical explanations of entre-preneurial behavior—both organizational and individual. Though peer-reviewed journal art-icles had a stronger presence, news articles were a common source of current trends in the field and case examples. The variety of assigned read-ing materials could indicate (a) ample presence of social entrepreneurship in academic literature or (b) lack of agreement on the concept itself. The list of articles identified in the reviewed syllabi is too comprehensive to include here (one graduate course listed 73 scholarly and news articles to read during the semester, with an average of six readings per week). Key pieces of literature are cited in the literature review, and a list of the required textbooks is included in Appendix B.

Evaluation Mechanisms . Table 4 provides a break-down of the mechanisms for evaluating student learning, skills, and knowledge. Only four of

Table 4.evaluation Mechanisms used in social entrepreneurship syllabi

Exam or quiz Case reviews Business plans or proposals

graduate syllabi (n = 10) 4 7 6

undergraduate syllabi (n = 6) 1 4 5

Total (N = 16) 5 11 11



the graduate courses and one of the under-graduate courses employed exams or quizzes as evaluation mechanisms. These exams were often accompanied by case studies or other small assignments such as journaling or online dis-cussions. Courses without formal exams or quizzes relied on individual and group-based design of social enterprises, case studies, and class participation. This approach to evaluation requires students to create a detailed business plan for a social enterprise from opportunity identification to mission development to in come sources to risk minimization. Students then “pitch” their ideas to the class or to visiting social entrepreneurs. Business plans or proposals were the preferred method; only five of the courses did not require a business plan, though one offered this as an option among five choices for the final paper requirement. In addition to the business plan option, the final paper options included research on an area related to social entrepreneurship, a case analysis of an existing social venture, or a comparison of several social ventures addressing the same social problems.

An informative finding was the varying ap-proaches to reviewing cases. Students eval uated social entrepreneurship in ways that included (a) identifying news stories of social entre pre-neurs, (b) writing term papers assessing indiv-id ual social enterprises, (c) preparing discussion questions, and (d) engaging with local social entrepreneurs who served as guest speakers. Some instructors incorporated specific case examples presented by Harvard Business Review or available in textbooks like Entre pre-neurship in the Social Sector by Wei-Skillern and colleagues (2007). Other instructors required students to seek their own case examples and present them to the class online or in the class-room. The objective appeared to be to expose students to a large variety of social entrepreneurs and enterprises. Instructors measured students’ competence on the subject matter through the written analyses of the cases on online dis-cussion boards or final papers. Students were asked to compare the entrepreneurial behavior in the case examples to explanations posed by assigned readings and lectures or to propose solutions to problems faced in the cases.

Two courses set out to connect students directly with social entrepreneurs within the local com-munity. One course actively paired students with social entrepreneur mentors associated with the university in order for the mentor to guide the student through the development of a business plan. Another course required an informal needs assessment of local organizations addressing social issues of interest to the students, including by attending meetings held by community groups. About two thirds (10) of the courses made a brief connection to social entrepreneurs by having them serve as guest speakers.

Overview of Content. The course content was diverse, though most courses walked students through generating a business plan for a so - cial enterprise. The step-by-step approach of ident ifying opportunities, developing a mission state ment, identifying legal structures and fund ing streams, and measuring outcomes was common. Analyzing theory as it relates to prac-tice was less of a focus. Most courses reflected a practical approach to program development.

As expected, each course presented a definition of social entrepreneurship in the initial meeting periods. The reading materials reflected the inclusion of discussions around blended, or hybrid, organizational structures as well as the variety of performance measures available to social entrepreneurs. Eleven courses discussed the measurement of social value, a determining factor between commercial entrepreneur ship and social entrepreneurship. An additional course included readings on social impact, but not specifically the measurement of social im-pact. And finally, by reviewing a multitude of case examples, students observed patterns in the organizational behavior of these entities.

Overall, in the majority of these classes, stu-dents learn how to develop a plan for a social enterprise. They are provided a successive ap-proach to the tools and skills needed to bring the project to fruition. Measuring the achievement of this competency may be better accomplished through the development of a business plan or case assessment rather than through a formal exam.



Specializations in Social Entrepreneurship. Three public affairs programs exemplify a thor-ough academic exploration of social entrepre-neurship. More importantly, they provide stu-dents with a connection between academia and practice and a hands-on experience of creat - ing social value. The School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington offers a graduate Certificate in Social Entrepreneurship in partnership with the university’s Kelley School of Business and Center on Philanthropy. This program includes coursework from the public affairs and business schools in addition to an internship requiring students to work directly with local organizations.

Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School offers a graduate Certificate in Nonprofit Man-agement and Social Enterprise. The program is rooted in nonprofit courses addressing the sector as a whole, financial resources and management, and human resources. Electives are offered in a variety of nonprofit practice areas, such as dis aster management and international non-governmental organizations. The program promises to prepare the practitioner for the field and the student for higher-level academia.

New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Grad-uate School of Public Service offers an inter-disciplinary undergraduate minor. Required and elective courses are housed within public ad-min istration and business. Students are required to split their courses between the two depart-ments, presumably to inform future work across “public and private boundaries” (Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, n.d.). The university also offers field experience where students spend a week learning the culture and engaging in social entrepreneurial activities in another country following 15 hours of coursework in the classroom in New York.

Interdisciplinary Approaches. In this search for social entrepreneurship programs at uni - ver sities housing top-ranked public affairs pro grams, interdisciplinary programs were also discovered. Programs such as business, engin-eering, and art schools were all found to be

partners in larger inter disciplinary programs; the public affairs pro grams were not always identified as partners, however. For instance, the Marshall School of Business and the Leventhal School of Account ing partnered at the University of Southern Cali fornia to offer a social entrepreneurship minor.

The challenge and competition opportunities offered by all of the programs identified as hav-ing such events were open to all students of all disciplines registered at the university. Other programs that supplemented coursework but were open to students at large were offered as well, such as the lecture series at the Center for Community and Nonprofit Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with leaders from private foundations, social entrepreneurs, and representatives from local human service organizations. In these interdisciplinary and open programs, students throughout campus can benefit.

Duke offers a social entrepreneurship program with progressive levels of engagement and campus-wide emphasis including schools of medicine, engineering, public policy, and business. Cocurricular activities like speaker series, hackathons, and start-up challenges are open to students university-wide. Students hear from seasoned social entrepreneurs and are also supported in building their own solution to social problems. Additionally, an immersion program at Duke is a highly hands-on experience, where students are immersed for summer- or yearlong programs with local experts and organizations in major U.S. cities. The Enterprising Leadership Initiative, housed in Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, combines coursework, fieldwork, a project incubator, and mentorship opportunities with alumni to provide students with hands-on experiences in solving social problems. This cutting-edge program takes students from the classroom to implementing innovative solutions in the field. Though other universities offer a start-to-finish approach to social enterprise generation, none of the others reviewed were as comprehensive and flexible as Duke’s program.



cONcluSiONInterest in social entrepreneurship on university campuses is growing rapidly. This is due to a number of factors that suggest that public affairs programs will and should become more central in offering social entrepreneurship classes and participating as partners in social entrepreneurship programs that are cross-disciplinary majors and certificates on university campuses. What accounts for this great increase in interest in social entrepreneurship education? First, student demand for these classes and for learning how to tackle social change is in creas-ing (AshokaU, 2014, p. 43). Millennials are a generation raised on technology, glo balization, and entrepreneurial action (Howe & Strauss, 2000). They bring these interests to universities, and believe they can make social change. Social entrepreneurship classes enable these ambitions to be better understood and, perhaps, realized.

Second, universities are being asked to be more responsive to community needs; university civ-ic engagement and service-learning programs from the past 15 years are finding common ground with social entrepreneurship programs and promoting the development of these pro-grams across campus (AshokaU, 2014). Social entrepreneurship is a unifying theme that cuts across all disciplines; it can unite students who bring different disciplinary perspectives, rang-ing from engineering, politics, law, business, and communications, to work on projects or new organizations designed to address issues related to sustainability, poverty, clean water and air, housing, and a host of other societal concerns. Public affairs programs have already established close ties with community partners for internship and service-learning placements, and the required practitioner orientation of social entrepreneurship classes is consistent with public affairs teaching approaches.

A third factor is that universities are under pressure (often from legislatures and elected officials) to be relevant, to provide students with employable skills, and to promote eco-nomic development in their community. Social entrepreneurship offers a way to contribute to these broad goals, particularly as the social

entrepreneurship coursework is often supple-mented with more traditional disciplinary train ing. Finally, university presidents seem to embrace social entrepreneurship as a positive cross-campus theme and way to unite siloed disciplinary programs that do not teach their students collaborative and cross-disciplinary per spectives (AshokaU, 2014). Students must solve complex problems in the workplace, and these offerings teach problem definition, solu-tion development, and sustainability require-ments that are consistent with learning to solve complex social problems.

Our paper has presented detailed descriptive information on the topics and approaches used to teach social entrepreneurship courses in a sample primarily of the top 30 public affairs programs. As teachers working within a campus- wide social entrepreneurship initiative, we believe this approach offers the best options for students to learn the skills and entre pre-neurial behavior that enables successful social entrepreneurial ventures. This belief is coupled with a certainty that the confluence of values, skills, and knowledge that public affairs pro-grams offer, in organizational structure and behavior, policy, and management, are all highly relevant to students who endeavor to be social entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs at any level of government or nonprofit organization.

Most of the courses reviewed here are attached to the nonprofit management specialization, although many of the degree programs are inter disciplinary. The analysis of these public affairs social entrepreneurship classes show that they cover additional material than that cover-ed in established classes in management and organ izational behavior, material such as busi-ness plans, social change, and scaling for impact. Social entrepreneurship reflects activities in all sectors, but its hybrid nature particularly suits the public affairs perspective.

Our review supports the conclusion drawn from a review of 215 university programs in social entrepreneurship: that there is a wide variety of approaches and definitions. The authors of this review conclude that this is healthy for the



field; as they say, “we don’t particularly care what you want to call it, but we very much care whether or not you are doing it and whether or not it is working” AshokaU (2014, p. 25). The report goes on to say:

It will become increasingly necessary for social innovation educators and campus leaders to make a “breadth vs. depth” decision: Will we adhere to a narrow definition of social entrepreneurship and only strengthen programs designed to launch professional social entrepreneurs, for example? Or will we focus on ex-panding programs that serve the interests of students from varying disciplines with broad and diverse life and career goals? (AshokaU, 2014, p. 25)

We believe that public affairs programs are more likely not to focus on preparing students who want to become professional social entre pre-neurs, but rather to focus on empowering students who work in the governance arena to be social change agents, and to understand the existing tools and development processes for creating radically new programs or organizations.

In the course syllabi we reviewed, the stated course objectives included understanding the basics (e.g., “Define and discuss key termin-ology, concepts and theories”) as well as efforts toward motivation and confidence (e.g., “To empower [students] to develop their own innovative solutions to difficult social problems around the world”). There were immediate understandings (e.g., “Learn the function of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise in communities”) and also intentions for long-term, individual goal setting (e.g., “Realization of alternative career options in making life choices and, possibly, greater confidence”).

Considering the aggregate of course topics in our sample, we expect students will come to feel comfortable assembling or evaluating plans for a social enterprise. With the high quantity of case reviews incorporated throughout the courses, dual and triple bottom lines will be considered the norm rather than special or

unique. Ample practice pitching ideas in class, at the hackathons, and as part of social entre-preneurship competitions and challenges will ensure that students graduate and move into the workforce as strong, confident presenters.

Some of the reviewed courses are a department’s single effort at including social entrepreneur-ship in the curriculum, and this may result in students who lack the skills to plan beyond start-up. It is expected that a majority of start-up commercial enterprises will fail; this is also likely true for start-up social enterprises whose missions reach beyond profit. If public affairs programs focus too heavily on idea pitches and start-ups, students may be left lacking key skills for managing their organizations. Thus organizational sustainability, outside of financial sustainability, may be a struggle. Other public affairs courses can buttress the skills gained in the social entrepreneurship course, while social entrepreneurship courses present innovative conceptual and development approaches to social and organizational change.

Our ultimate goal with this research was to gather resources for developing the first social entrepreneurship course for the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. Applying the results of this analysis, we developed a course that follows the core findings: six core topic areas (see Table 2), ample exposure to case examples and con nec tions with local social entrepreneurs, and the tools and confidence to generate a plan for building a social enterprise. At the time this paper is published, we will be in our sixth offering of the course, with full enrollment each semester. A quote from an email sent to one of the authors by a student four months after the student’s graduation articulates our success:

It was your class that helped me realize having a career with non-profits or so cial-ly conscious organizations was even an option. Your class not only gave me a sense of direction but helped me discover what I believe to be a passion that I will have for the rest of my life.



NOTeS

1 This research was prompted by an effort to design a social entrepreneurship course and a larger social entrepreneurship program within the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy. The authors had not previously taught such a course; thus the content analysis of the small but sufficient selection of syllabi provided a toolbox from which to build a course plan.

2 A social intrapreneur is someone who works inside of an organization to achieve radical change or fol-low the principles of social entrepreneurship.

3 The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for shar-ing this insight.

4 A caveat should be noted: A summative content an-alysis of a course syllabus cannot tap into the course lectures and class dialogue. Consequently, this course topic review provides merely the face value of what a course has to offer to a student.

5 Italicized terms represent course topics, themes, or categories of topics discovered in the syllabus review.

refereNceS

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401–1422.

AshokaU. (2011) Teaching resource guide . Arlington, VA: Ashoka University.

AshokaU. (2014). Trends in social innovation education in 2014 . Arlington, VA: Ashoka University.

Barinaga, E. (2013). Politicising social entre pre neur ship —three social entrepreneurial rationalities toward social change. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 347–372. doi:10.1080/19420676.2013.823100.

Bielefeld, W. (2009). Issues in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(1), 69–86.

Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneur-ship: What everyone needs to know . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism . Washing-ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Brooks, A. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneur-ship . Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation and Stanford University.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enter-prising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs . New York, NY: Wiley.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enter prises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Manage-ment Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.

Dostoyevsky, F., & Guignon, C. B. (Ed.). (1993). The grand inquisitor: With related chapters from The brothers Karamazov (C. Garnett, Trans.). Indiana-polis, IN: Hackett.

Eggers, W. D. Singh, S. K., & Goldsmith, S (2009). The public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government . Deloitte/Harvard Kennedy School Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/553487.pdf.

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (4), 16–23.

Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Frumkin, P. (2013). Between nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73 (2), 372–376.

Goldsmith, S., Georges, G., & Burke, T. G. (2010). The power of social innovation: How civic entrepreneurs ignite community networks for good . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.



Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowd-sourcing geographic information for disaster response: A research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3 (3), 231–241.

Green, A., & Hauser, J. (2012). Managing to change the world: The nonprofit manager’s guide to getting results . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Guo, C., & Bielefeld, W. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: An evidence-based approach to creating social value . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entre pre-neurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821–830.

Hoffman, A., Badiane, K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit and non-profit divide. In K. Golden-Biddle & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Using a positive lens to explore social change organizations (pp. 49–70). New York, NY: Routledge.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation . New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three ap-proaches to qualitative content analysis. Quali tative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

Kistruck, G. M., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 735–761. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6520.2010.00371.x.

Light, P. C. (2006). Reshaping social entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(3), 47–51.

Light, P. C. (2008). The search for social entrepreneurship . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, P. C., and Reynolds, C. B. (2010). Driving social change: How to solve the world’s toughest problems . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3) [Article No. 8].

Mirabella, R., & Young, D. R. (2012). The development of education for social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging paths? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23 (1), 43–57.

Mortenson, G., & Relin, D. O. (2007). Three cups of tea: One man’s mission to promote peace one school at a time . Bismarck, ND: Penguin Books.

Murray, J. H. (2012). Choose your own master: Social enterprise, certifications and benefit corporation statutes (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2085000). Roches-ter, NY: Social Science Research Network.

Network of Schools of Public Administration, Affairs, and Public Policy. (2014). AY 2012–2013 annual program survey results . Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/DataCenter/index.asp on March 19.

Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Office of Management and Budget. (2009, December 8). Open government directive. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive.

O’Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Perry, R. W. (1983). Comprehensive emergency man age-ment: Evacuating threatened populations [Topical report]. Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Affairs Research Center.

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. (n.d.). Undergraduate Options At NYU Wagner [web page]. Retrieved from http://wagner.nyu.edu/undergrad/minors/entrepreneur.

Salamon, L. (2003). The tools of government . Cam-bridge, England: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, B. (2012). Rippling: How social entrepreneurs spread innovation throughout the world . San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shockley, G. E., & Frank, P. M. (2010). Virgil’s Aeneas as the quintessential social entrepreneur: Juxtaposing selections from epic poetry and entrepreneurship theory to teach social entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23 (Supp. 1), 769–784.



Tschirhart, M., & Bielefeld, W. (2012). Managing non-profit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. News & World Report. (2012). Best Grad Schools Rankings . Retrieved from http://grad-schools.us - news.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/public-affairs-rankings?int=997808.

Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66, 131–140.

Wei-Skillern, J. C., Austin, J. E., Leonard, H. B., & Stevenson, H. H. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the social sector . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Wexler, R. A. (2009). Effective social enterprise—a menu of legal structures. The Exempt Organization Tax Review, 63(6), 565–575.

Young, D. R. (2011). Nonprofit entrepreneurship. In S. Ott & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), Understanding nonprofit organizations: Governance, leadership, and management (pp. 165–170). Boulder, CO: West-view Press.

Young, D. R., & Grinsfelder, M. C. (2011). Social entrepreneurship and the financing of third sector organizations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17 (4), 543–567.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

Kimberly K. Wiley is a doctoral candidate in the Askew School of Public Administration and Pol icy at Florida State University. She develop-ed Askew School’s first social entrepreneurship course and continues to teach it alongside her studies in nonprofit management, policy imple-mentation, and social policy.

frances S. berry is the Reubin O’D. Askew Eminent Scholar of Public Administration in the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. Her research and teaching is in public policy, innovation and diffusion, strategic and performance manage-ment, and policy networks.




aPPeNdiX a

course Syllabi included in analysis

Public Affairs Programs With Courses in Social Entrepreneurship

School Course level Course title

Syracuse University (Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs)

Graduate EEE 600: Social Entrepreneurship (Spring 2008)

Indiana University Bloomington Graduate SPEA V559: Principles and Practices of Social Entrepreneurship

University of Georgia Graduate PADP 8220: Social Entrepreneurship (Fall 2009)

New York University (Rob-ert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service)

Undergraduate P11.0064: Understanding Social Entre-preneurship: How to Change the World One Venture at a Time (Fall 2010)

George Washington University Graduate PPPA 6033: Nonprofit Enterprise (Spring 2014)

Florida State University Undergraduate PAD 4946: Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Spring 2014)

University of Minnesota Graduate PA 5144: Social Entrepreneurship (Spring 2014)

University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate PA388L/MAN 385/SW 395K: Social En-trepreneurship (Fall 2010)

Arizona State University Graduate NLM 562: Social Entrepreneurship (Summer 2012)

Georgia State University Graduate PMAP 8232: Social Enterprise (Fall 2014)

Duke University (Sanford School of Public Policy)

Undergraduate PPS144s: Social Entrepreneurship in Action:Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector (February 2012)

University of Colorado Denver Graduate PUAD 5180/7180: Social Entrepreneurship (Summer 2012)

University of Mary-land—College Park

Graduate BUMO758D-DC06 PUAF689D: Social Entrepreneurship (Summer 2013)

Portland State University Graduate PA 541: Social Entrepreneurship (Spring 2014)

University of Colorado- Colorado Springs

Undergraduate PAD 2180: Social Entrepreneurship

Tufts University Undergraduate AMER 141, ELS 141: Innovative Social Enterprises: Nurturing Social and Civic Good (Fall 2010)



aPPeNdiX b

books listed in course Syllabi

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas (1st ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, A. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Bugg-Levine, A., & Emerson, J. (2011). Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany good to great. Boulder, CO: HarperCollins.

Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2007). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York, NY: Wiley.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit. New York, NY: Wiley.

Dostoyevsky, F., and Guignon, C. B. (Ed.). (1993). The grand inquisitor: With related chapters from The brothers Karamazov (C. Garnett, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Eggers, W. D. Singh, S. K., & Goldsmith, S (2009). The public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Deloitte/Harvard Kennedy School Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/553487.pdf

Eggers, W. D., & O’Leary, J. (2009). If we can put a man on the moon: Getting big things done in government. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Elkington, J. (2008). The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Frumkin, P., Manno, B. V., & Edgington, N. (2011). The strategic management of charter schools: Frameworks and tools for educational entrepreneurs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Goldberg, S. H. (2009). Billions of drops in millions of buckets: Why philanthropy doesn’t advance social progress. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Goldsmith, S., Georges, G., & Burke, T. G. (2010). The power of social innovation: How civic entrepreneurs ignite community networks for good. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Gundry, L. K., & Kickul, J. R. (2010). Entrepreneurship strategy: Changing patterns in new venture creation, growth, and reinvention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guo, C., & Bielefeld, W. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: An evidence-based approach to creating social value. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Karim, L. (2011). Microfinance and its discontents: Women in debt in Bangladesh. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.



Karlan, D. A., & Appel, J. (2011). More than good intentions: How a new economics is helping to solve global poverty. New York, NY: Dutton.

Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. (2012). Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. New York, NY: Routledge.

Larson, R. (2002). Venture forth!: The essential guide to starting a moneymaking business in your nonprofit organization. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.

Light, P. C. (2008). The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Mortenson, G., & Relin, D. O. (2007). Three cups of tea: One man’s mission to promote peace one school at a time. Bismarck, ND: Penguin Books.

Mycoskie, B. (2012). Start something that matters. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau.

Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Novogratz, J. (2013). The blue sweater: Bridging the gap between rich and poor in an interconnected world. New York, NY: Rodale.

Rasiel, E., & Friga, P. N. (2001). The McKinsey mind: Understanding and implementing the problem-solving tools and management techniques of the world’s top strategic consulting firm. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, B. (2012). Rippling: How social entrepreneurs spread innovation throughout the world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shore, B. (2010). The imaginations of unreasonable men: Inspiration, vision, and purpose in the quest to end malaria. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Stone, M. M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: From issue to viable plan. New York, NY: Business Expert Press.

Tierney, T. J., & Fleishman, J. L. (2011). Give smart: Philanthropy that gets results. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Vogel, D. (2006). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Wei-Skillern, J. C., Austin, J. E., Leonard, H. B., & Stevenson, H. H. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the social sector. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Wolk, A., & Kreitz, K. (2008). Business planning for enduring social impact: A social-entrepreneurial approach to solving social problems. Cambridge, MA: Root Cause.

Wood, J. (2007). Leaving Microsoft to change the world: An entrepreneur’s odyssey to educate the world’s children. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Yunus, M., & Jolis, A. (2008). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Yunus, M., & Weber, K. (2009). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

aPPeNdiX b (continued)

books listed in course Syllabi


The literature on public-private contracting, part nerships, and collaboration has grown dram-atically in the last three decades, as scholars seek to understand these increasingly common tools for public governance. Since the beginning of the 21st century, public-private arrangements of many kinds have flourished in countries around the world, often as a means for governments to cope with resource scarcity by engaging private organizations (Bovaird, 2004; Brinkerhoff, 1999; Brinkerhoff, 2002; Mitchell, 2014). Additionally, certain “wicked” problems, such as homelessness, hunger, and unemploy-ment, are not only complex and difficult to solve (Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004), they also necessarily involve a variety of

collaborative approaches, organizations, and jurisdictions to address them in what Linden (2002, 2010) calls a “networked world.” Public policy tools have become more sophisticated (Salamon, 2002), and as a result, more com-plicated and confusing to even those who pass the laws and design the “new governance” systems (Kettl, 2002). Public administrators must now recognize that governance and man-agement are likely to involve nonhier archical structures and relationships with private sector actors, who cannot be simply understood or managed by employing hierarchical command and control methods or straightforward principal-agent relationships. Organizational silos, boundaries, and hierarchies are becoming

Collaborations and Partnerships Across Sectors: Preparing the Next

Generation for Governance

ruth Hoogland deHoogThe University of North Carolina at Greensboro

abSTracTThis article examines inter-sectoral collaborations as reported in the literature and the suggested characteristics and competencies of collaboration participants. The ultimate goal is to suggest some strategies for preparing the next generation of students. The article’s focus is on inter- and multisectoral collaborations and partnerships that involve not only government and nonprofit service agencies, but might also include business, university, civic groups and faith-based organizations. Following a literature review, the article identifies appropriate skills, competencies, and tools that Master of Public Affairs and Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) students should begin practicing to be effective in collaborations that involve organizations and stakeholders from different sectors and types. The final section of the article offers several specific recommendations for more effective approaches to applying these general suggestions, recommendations drawn from Journal of Public Affairs Education articles, interviews, focus groups, and the author’s experience teaching in an MPA program.

KeYWOrdSinter-sectoral collaborations, nonprofit-government relations, MPA curriculum

JPAE 21 (3), 401–416


more and more obsolete in the face of rapidly changing environments in an increasingly global society. As Henry (2002) rightly points out, “governance characterizes the current political and economic environment of public admin-stration; inter-sectoral administration is a meth od of public policy implementation and govern-ment service delivery that is unusually com-patible with that environment” (p. 377).

Despite these new interorganizational structures, relationships, and purposes, public administra-tion research analyzing the many variations in this inter-sectoral world is only beginning to develop some coherency (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011; Herranz, 2010; O’Leary & Vij, 2012; Thomson & Perry, 2006). The development of many careful and rich case studies in the literature points out some common patterns, behaviors, and techniques that may lead to more general theories and practices (Alexander & Nank, 2009; Arbuckle & DeHoog, 2004; Bradshaw, 2000; Imperial, 2005; Takahashi & Smutny, 2002). Yet many times the focus in the public administration literature remains primarily on government action and leadership without analyzing the key roles of private organizations.

This article begins with an examination of inter-sectoral collaborations and their partners as reported in the literature and then discusses the suggested characteristics and competencies of inter-sectoral collaboration participants in this body of research. The ultimate goal of the final section is to suggest some strategies for preparing the next generation of students for the collaborations of the 21st century. Four assumptions underlie my approach to this topic and article. First, collaboration between and among organizations is a current fact of professional life for many public service leaders and managers (Horne & Paris, 2010), whether through grants, contracts, interjurisdictional agreements, or more fluid collaborations and partnerships. Second, today many professionals often move from jobs in one sector and type of organization to another over the life of their careers, typically due to their subject matter expertise. Those who understand other sectors

and are skilled at collaboration, boundary spanning, and networking are likely to be more successful than others in making these trans-itions. Third, as Smith (2008) and Salamon (2005) note, MPA and MPP programs and curricula should prepare students for under-standing the sometimes messy, confusing, and fluid environments that they will find them-selves in, particularly where traditional sector boundaries are blurring or irrelevant. Fourth, MPA programs and faculty can expose and equip students with many of the requisite skills to be effective practitioners in various organ-izations and collaborations (Benavides, 2013). It is important to become more familiar with the collaboration research and the many varia-tions of collaborative structures and processes, as well as consider both new and traditional approaches to prepare students for new organ-izational realities.

THe SecTOrS iNVOlVed iN cOllabOraTiONS aNd ParTNerSHiPSThe focus of this article is on inter- and multi-sectoral collaborations and partnerships that involve not only government and nonprofit service agencies, but might also include busi-nesses, universities, civic groups, and faith-based organizations. These can involve a wide variety of organizational types, from small to large, from community-based to state level to international. The structures themselves might also be characterized as a fluid network, infor-mal arrangements, or a multisided public-private partnership, or what Cigler (1999) terms the “partnership continuum.” In my view, inter- and multisectoral collaborations can be understood as special types of collaborations—and more difficult ones, due to multiple stake-holders, competing interests, different time horizons, and conflicting organizational values and cultures (Hardy & Phillips, 1998). The usual three-sector (public, nonprofit, for-profit) approach may also be inadequate for more nuanced comparisons among and within these sectors (Schlesinger, 1998).

While there are many extant organizational typologies, separating the public sector agen-cies into additional, finer distinctions—for

R . H . DeHoog


example, between the military, university, and other public agencies—allows for an improv - ed understanding of differences. Additionally, with in the broad category of nonprofit org an-izations, faith-based agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, and voluntary membership organizations (such as civic clubs), are distinctively different organizations with various patterns of behavior, funding streams, and incentive structures that may often be im-portant to analyze in complex collaborations. (Of course, even these broad categories do not begin to convey the variations within each type.)

In addition to nonprofit and government colla-borations, it is important to examine the various types of interactions with business organizations, which have often been neglected in research on public and nonprofit organizations. They also constitute a wide range of types, from con-sulting agencies, small businesses, professional practices, and traditional larger, multifaceted corporations. As noted in the social entre pre-neurship literature (e.g., Dees & Anderson, 2003), growing numbers of established and new enterprises have incorporated a social mission into their goals. However, businesses may have some difficulty in participating suc-cessfully in multisector collaborations, due to quite different time horizons, skills, cul tures, and values (Najam, 1996; Rubin & Stankiewicz, 2001; Waddell, 2000). Increasingly, in the nonprofit literature (Salamon, 2005; Suarez & Hwang, 2013) and in the business management field (Austin, 2000; Dees & Anderson, 2003; Sawaga & Segal, 2000; Waddell, 2000), greater attention is being paid to venture philanthropy, earned income strategies, corporate sponsor-ships, social sector alliances, expansive market-ing campaigns, and competition with for-profit agencies for government grants and contracts. According to a recent study of San Francisco Bay Area nonprofits, almost one third colla-borate with businesses (Suarez & Hwang, 2013, pp. 590–591). While some of these colla-borations may be one-time philanthropic relationships, clearly the business sector serves an expanding role in revenue diversification and support for nonprofit organizations.

Today, governance is understood as involving multiple actors and complex structures. Yet many organizations are evolving from their previous strategies, forms, and practices into what Dees and Anderson (2003) call “sector-bending”: “a wide variety of approaches, activities, and relationships that are blurring the distinctions between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, either because they are behaving more similarly, operating in the same realms, or both” (p. 16). They call attention to new organizational forms, such as hybrid organizations, nonprofit subsidiaries, or for-profit foundations. This also indicates that some of the common generalizations about organizational performance in the three sectors may no longer be as accurate in describing or predicting behavior, as found by Schlesinger (1998) and Witesman and Fernandez (2013). In preparing students for governance, MPA faculty and programs must be aware of promoting too easily the traditional stereotypes about nonprofits being strong in mission clarity, program development and service delivery, but weak in finances and evaluation; or about government agencies excelling in management and accountability, but weak in creativity and strategic thinking; or about businesses having skills in finance, performance measurement, and strategy, but less ability in program development and service delivery. Nonetheless, Najam (1996, p. 213) makes some useful comparisons among the sectors and describes their key features—differing values, incentives, and cultures—that may prove to be barriers in forming a collaboration.

In this article, following a brief review of the collaboration literature, I seek to identify appropriate skills, competencies, and tools that MPA and MPP students should develop to be effective in these multiple-partner collabora-tions. What is clear from this review is that relatively little attention has been paid to personal characteristics of collaboration parti-cipants and the preparation of newcomers to public service (two exceptions are Horne & Paris, 2010 and Koliba, 2012). Given the changing public service landscape, MPA faculty and programs must be more explicit on how

Collaborations and Partnerships Across Sectors


organizations and personnel can adapt to the new realities of inter-sectoral governance with skills of boundary spanning, bridging sector differences, and building collaborations among public, nonprofit, and even business sectors. I echo the goal of Lester Salamon (2005) in his 2004 keynote address to the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admini stration (NASPAA) conference attendees, which is

to devise a form of training that focuses on preparing people not for a particular type of organization—be it government, business, or nonprofit—nor with a part-icular technique, such as the technique of policy analysis, but for a particular type of career. The career I have in mind is that of what I call the professional citi-zen. The career of a professional citi zen is broader than that of a public servant as traditionally conceived. It em braces all those positions that are centrally involved in addressing public problems. This includes positions in government, but also positions in non profit organizations, foundations, and even corporate com mun-ity affairs pro grams. It even em braces voluntary citizen action. (p. 11)

defiNiNg THe TerMS, PrOceSS, aNd ParTiciPaNTS iN cOllabOraTiONScholars from a variety of perspectives and research sources (e.g., Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Ansell & Gash, 2007; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Cigler, 1999; Foster-Fishman, Ber-kowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Milward & Provan, 2003) have helped to de-scribe the structural, leadership, and man age -ment components of effective collaborations, networks, and partnerships, though only a few (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013; Coston, 1998; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Shaw, 2003; Suarez & Hwang, 2013; Witesman & Fernandez, 2013) provide much detail or analysis of the roles of the nonprofit or business sector. The consensus among researchers is that colla bor-ations, whether interorganizational, inter govern-mental, or inter-sectoral, are not only difficult to create and manage, they are also difficult to define and analyze with common frameworks

(O’Leary & Vij, 2012; Thomson & Perry, 2006), though the work of several (Bryson et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2011; Herranz, 2010) are recent attempts to do so.

Similarly, public-private partnerships can be com plex, as well as difficult to understand from a common set of variables. They connote a more formal set of agreements between two or three partners (usually one public agency and at least one for-profit organization), often with financial terms, for a more specific project or activity (Finney & Grossman, 1999). Colla-borations are usually understood as having multiple participants who take on a more com-plex set of plans, services, or policy initiatives. Nonetheless, the terms themselves are some-times used interchangeably in the academic and professional literature, and thus cause con sid-erable confusion, as O’Leary and Vij (2012) point out. In this article, I use Bardach’s (1999) definition of collaboration, “any joint activity by two or more agencies working together that is intended to increase public value by their working together rather than separately” (p. 8).

According to Finney and Grossman (1999), “the basic components of an inter-sector part-nership seem to come down to three factors: voluntary willingness to collaborate; a truly public purpose; and the ability of the partners to accomplish something collectively that they could not do as well, or perhaps even at all, separately” (p. 341). Several scholars (e.g., Mulroy, 2003; Thomson & Perry, 2006) have identified the conflicts, complexity, and adaptation that are likely to be found in longer-term, public-private projects, as participants learn and then adjust to multiple external and internal stresses.

As we might imagine, not all partnerships are successful, and many fail (e.g., Rubin & Stan-kiewicz, 2001; Takahashi & Smutny, 2002). Thomson and Perry (2006) suggest that colla-borations are “inherently fragile.” Recog nizing that conflict is likely to occur in these arrangements (Boris & Steuerle, 1999; Brink-erhoff, 2002), many scholars and nonprofit organizations have developed practical advice

R . H . DeHoog


about how to manage partnerships and colla-borations, both in the nonprofit and public sectors, with appropriate attention to the pot-ential pitfalls and challenges associated with them (Austin, 2000; Bardach, 1999; Brink er-hoff, 1999; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Linden, 2002, 2010; Miltenberger, 2013). While these efforts are probably helpful to practitioners, the complex relationships that evolve in the context of inter-sectoral colla borations are only beginning to be understood by scholars and in turn, applied to teaching about them.

THree KeY facTOrS iN MulTiSecTOr cOllabOraTiVe MaNageMeNTThe growing attention to the concept of governance via multiple organizations in carrying out public policies and programs recognizes the importance of what Bardach (1999) calls “managerial craftsmanship” and leadership to structure effective capacity of these ventures. A range of these management challenges go beyond hierarchical planning and intra-organizational coordination. According to Agranoff and McGuire (2003):

Collaborative management is a concept that describes the process of facilitating and operating in multiorganizational arrangements to solve problems that can-not be solved, or solved easily, by single organizations. Collaboration is a purpo-sive relationship designed to solve a prob lem by creating or discovering a solution within a given set of constraints (e.g., knowledge, time, money, com pe-tition, and conventional wisdom). (p. 4)

Some scholars (Agranoff, 2005, Agranoff & McGuire, 2003, Finney & Grossman, 1999) suggest that collaborations are a strategic choice designed by government agencies to implement policy solutions to difficult and complex problems that they cannot manage, often due to resource constraints. However, the notion that they direct or even “manage” these relationships suggests a role that may not always be observed in reality. The process and solutions via relevant nongovernmental actors are often less a strategic choice and more a process of

learning and “muddling through,” to use Lind-blom’s (2004) term (see also Arbuckle & DeHoog, 2004; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Hardy & Phillips, 1998). As Bryson and colleagues (2006) conclude from their literature review, “the normal expectation ought to be that success will be very difficult to achieve in cross-sector collaborations” (p. 52).

Given the difficulty of organizing and managing these inter-sectoral collaborations which are fre quently necessary to address complex and wicked problems, the following questions need to be asked: What knowledge, skills, and com-petencies seem to be most useful in successful collaborations? How can MPA faculty and pro-grams prepare the next generation to be com-petent in this rapidly changing, complex world?

Various approaches can be taken to understand and then communicate the key features of collaboration structures and participant skills. Thomson and Perry (2006) define several dimensions of collaboration processes: govern-ance, administration, organizational autonomy, mutuality, and norms. Some (Agranoff, 2006; McGuire, 2006; Thomson & Perry, 2006) suggest that collaborative skills include good management skills already taught in MPA programs and practiced by effective public executives, including the following:•excellent communication skills

(oral, written, listening, technology);

•strong organizational and management skills;

•knowledge of other organizations and the community;

•strategic analysis, planning, and follow-through;

•integrity, reliability, and ethical behavior; and

•broad public service values, not com pe ti tive attitudes or single- sector focus.

Nonetheless, my argument is that additional competencies need to be addressed and integrated into MPA curricula intentionally to



prepare students for understanding and man-aging more complex governance structures and relationships. McGuire (2006) and Thomson and Perry (2006) point to the necessity of several unique competencies, attitudes, and skills in evidence in successful collaborations that go beyond what is traditionally taught in public administration programs. McGuire (2006, p. 37) outlines four unique skills particularly critical in early stages: activation (identifying and including key players and resources), framing (obtaining agreement on leadership and management roles), mobilizing (gaining commitments and building support among key stakeholders), and synthesizing con-tributions and participants’ resources. Another important contribution to this dis cussion is the research and findings of Horne and Paris (2010), in which they interviewed public and nonprofit managers experienced in social ser-vices collaborations. Their subjects also conclude that management in inter-sectoral networks and collaborations requires different skills from those applicable to traditional hierarchies. No longer can the government agents consider themselves as the “experts” who drive and organize collaborations with an emphasis on top-down decision making and control.

Three elements drawn from the extensive collaboration literature are the focus of this article for the purpose of teaching the next generation: (a) understanding various organiza-tional structures and values (those of partners as well as the design of partnerships, networks, and collaborations), (b) creating effective inter-personal relationships (via social capital, trust, social networking), and (c) developing appropriate leadership qualities and skills (e.g., commun-ication, conflict resolution, flexibility).

Organizational Structures and ValuesCollaboration partners require some knowledge of the structures, values, and processes of part-ner agencies—whether government, nonprofit, business, consulting, or, as in many local human services, also faith-based and civic organizations. Since they bring different backgrounds, experience, and behavior patterns to collaborations, participants need to adjust

their assumptions and expectations that may otherwise get in the way of progress. Govern-ment partners may be more accustomed to hierarchical structures with formal pro cedures and specialized staff roles that emphasize ac-countability. They may have less knowledge or experience with nonprofit and business organ-izations’ decision-making pro cesses, resources, and behaviors. For their part, nonprofit parti-cipants, especially those from community-based and faith-based agencies, will often be less familiar with complex organizations and their procedures. Thus, unrealistic time frames, conflicting expectations, and unfamiliar com-munication systems can create confusion and conflict among partners who interact in these new relationships. Social services managers inter viewed by Horne and Paris (2010) recommend that participants must be familiar both with partners’ formal structures and processes and with those partners’ particular strengths to play their parts in collaborations.

A particular challenge of early stages of colla-borations and partnerships with diverse partners is designing appropriate systems and structures that reduce communication barriers, conflicts, and competition, while promoting account ab-ility, trust, and coordination of efforts. Often these will begin as fairly flexible, informal, nonhierarchical organizational relationships that may evolve into more formal designs for implementation and accountability (Coston, 1998; Gazley, 2008; Mandell, 1999). As the work plans and tasks become clearer, and as participants learn more about each others’ capacity, the forms will evolve into a design more tailored for their collaboration’s purpose, partners, and processes.

Understanding other organizations’ interests, cultures, and values are suggested by Thomson and Perry (2006) as competencies that may be necessary for collaborations but may be under-emphasized in MPA/MPP programs. Certainly government and business participants must be clear on the critical role that nonprofits’ mission focus, ethics, and culture may play in colla-borations (O’Neil, 2006). Just as importantly, those working in nonprofit and for-profit org-

R . H . DeHoog


an izations must be familiar with the political environment, public service values, cultures of other organizations, and various legal and structural forms of partnerships and colla bor-ations. Partnering with for-profit businesses and venture capitalists requires an under stand-ing of business forms, practices, and mental models that emphasize competition over colla-boration, which often can conflict with the motives and values of those in public service agencies (Najim, 1996, Waddell, 2000). While it may be simplistic to say that businesses emphasize profits, government agencies focus on accountability, and nonprofits pursue their missions, enough differences in values, cultures, and time horizons exist among these types to constitute an important factor to consider in developing inter-sectoral collaborations.

interpersonal relationshipsSeveral studies on interorganizational colla bor-ations offer research findings on the requisite and specific skills and personal traits of parti-cipants, though not necessarily for inter-sectoral collaborations. For example, O’Leary, Choi, and Gerard (2012) found in their survey of senior federal managers that they emphasized the personal qualities and interpersonal skills most necessary for effective collaborations, as well as “group process skills, strategic leadership skills, and substantive/technical expertise” (p. 70). Shaw’s (2003) interviews on nonprofit and public agency collaborations found two themes in successful collaborations that highlighted participants’ skills and backgrounds—first, the idea of likability that fosters relationships and second, understanding the organizational culture of the partners. The concept of “trust” or “trustworthiness” figures prominently in this and several other studies (Austin, 2000; Lambright, Mischen, & Laramee, 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Snavely & Tracy, 2002; Williams, 2002). Left unclear in these accounts, however, is exactly how to learn and demonstrate trustworthiness with other partners. The evidence from Lambright and colleagues (2010) indicates that trust in networks is more likely when participants come from roughly equivalent organizational contexts, have frequent interactions, and have had previous

successful cooperative relationships. Obviously, these conditions are sometimes absent in inter-sectoral collaborations during the early stages. The explicit application of social capital and social networking may be useful here, as partners get acquainted with each other and each others’ networks. Additional research (Miltenberger, 2013) suggests that partners should regularly demonstrate reciprocity, express mutual commitment, and communicate a strong sense of joint ownership of successful outcomes to build and maintain trust.

leadership Qualities and SkillsThe critical role of key leaders or “champions” in forming and maintaining effective colla-borations figures prominently in case studies and other research (e.g., Cigler, 1999; Linden, 2010; Miltenberger, 2013) Their competencies certainly include those mentioned above, such as personal qualities and trustworthiness, yet other skills seem to be more critical for leaders who promote the collaborations and/or main-tain them. Leaders must be fully dedicated to the success of the collaboration and passionate about its purposes (Linden, 2010), even though they may have to navigate conflicting demands and loyalties—to their home organization and to the collaboration. Some of their attributes mirror what is widely accepted as “emotional intelligence,” which Goleman (1998) states includes self-awareness, self-regulation, internal motivation, empathy, and social skills. Flexi bi-lity, adaptability, and problem-solving abilities are mentioned by Thomson and Perry (2006), based on their study of AmeriCorps and other collaborations. Williams (2002) found in his observations and interviews that key boundary spanners had personal qualities that include not only an open and inviting personality and awareness of organizational culture, but also communication skills (including listening), con-flict resolution skills, ability to influence and negotiate, social networking skills, “being crea-tive, innovative and entrepreneurial” (p. 119), and the ability to manage multiple roles and accountabilities. Koliba (2012) argues that lead-ers must also have critical skills in develop ing and managing networks strategically with sys-



tems thinking, oversight, resource provision, and facilitation skills. All in all, it is safe to assume that the collaborative leader’s work will demand more knowledge, skills, and abilities than appeared in POSDCORB (planning, organiz-ing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting) and the public administration textbooks of the 20th century.

TeacHiNg cOllabOraTiON KNOWledge aNd SKillS TO THe NeXT geNeraTiONHow and why should faculty expose MPA students to new forms of governance, as well as teach and then assess interpersonal and leader-ship skills among students? While the new NASPAA standards do not explicitly recognize the complexity and importance of partnerships and collaborations, the competency “to lead and manage in public governance” (Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admin-istration, 2009) implies that MPA programs should focus on developing students’ know-ledge, skills, and competencies to prepare them for a variety of organizational contexts and challenges, not just the traditional hierarchical forms of government agencies. Koliba (2012) notes: “The intentional use of the term public governance reflects the shift away from viewing public administration as the management of unitary governments and toward the recogni-tion that modern administration takes places within and across polycentric governance networks” (p. 89). Just the same, all of the five competencies could be said to support and develop the abilities of graduates who work in these more complex systems: (a) to lead and manage in public governance; (b) to participate in and contribute to the policy process; (c) to analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve prob-lems and make decisions; (d) to articulate and apply a public service perspective; and (e) to communicate and interact effectively with a diverse and changing workforce and public [emphasis added].

Some (e.g., Smith, 2008) have argued cogently that programs should include knowledge of all sectors and organization types in the core curri-cula to prepare students for the 21st century complexity. In reviewing course titles and

descriptions of NASPAA-accredited programs in two years (2007, 2010), Koliba (2012) re-ports on the growth of nonprofit courses and concentrations. But he expresses the concern of Salamon (2005) who sees the growth of separate training of nonprofit managers as a potential problem because issues that require concerted public and nonprofit collaboration might not get effectively addressed from these silos.

In creating separate programs, certificates, or degrees in nonprofit management are programs adding to the boundaries instead of overcoming them? Two forces encourage programs to overcome the barriers that separate students into nonprofit and government camps, as well as encourage them to integrate their learning. First, over the years, MPA alumni may well move between sectors, whether due to choice or to unexpected opportunities. Knowing more about various organizational contexts and management concerns would equip graduates to be more strategic and successful as they seek new positions. Second, most MPA students will inevitably be part of intra- or interorganizational networks, partnerships, and collaborations as they pursue their careers. They should be prepared with knowledge about these structures to ensure that they will be effective in the process and outcomes of these efforts.

The question arises then, how can faculty inte-grate the content and research about net works, partnerships, and collaborations with the prac-tical skills required by partners in these inter-sectoral collaborations? Should new courses be created, or should some content and skills be folded into existing core courses? What kinds of assignments and special programming can promote the development of skills for networks, collaboration, and inter-sectoral relationships?

While all MPA programs likely have elements of these skills and values imbedded in their curricula, faculty should feel some responsibil-ity for articulating their importance in being successful managers and leaders. And programs should be quite intentional in emphasizing the importance of these skills, not only in hier-archical settings, but also in inter-sectoral and

R . H . DeHoog


interorganizational relationships. Public service programs and faculty bear the responsibility of adapting and modifying course readings and assignments to reflect the new literature on governance and collaborations. Separate courses in collaboration, network management, or con -flict resolution and negotiation certainly re cog-nize the changing public service landscape, add value to any curriculum, and may be viable elective options in some programs (Smith, 2008). Additionally, carefully selected cases, discussion guides and journal articles (Horne & Paris, 2010) can provide some coverage in core courses to emphasize comparisons between sectors and subsectors, and to focus more explicitly on the role and structure of networks, collaboration, and partnerships in both public policy formulation and implementation (Garris, Madden, & Rodgers, 2008). Topics on organizational culture, behavior, politics, and leadership in different organizational contexts should be central concerns in graduate pro-grams that go well beyond the technical skills typically supplied in MPA/MPP edu cation. Through a variety of tools, in case studies, interviews, class discussions, readings, or videos, faculty can offer students insights into how to examine and compare interorganizational struc tures, processes, and behavior. Given the fact that adding new topics to existing classes or creating new courses is often difficult due to constrained resources and existing program requirements, the following section will suggest ways that faculty in MPA and MPP programs can teach these skills and knowledge.

alternative approaches to Teaching and learningIn the following section, I offer some addi - tional alternatives to these more traditional suggestions. These alternative suggestions flesh out methods to integrate the three essential collaboration ingredients introduced above—understanding organizational structures and val ues, creating interpersonal relationships, and developing leadership qualities and skills. They are based on four sources of information: (a) research and perspectives from previous Journal of Public Affairs Education contributors (Benavides, 2013; Cross & Grant, 2006;

Hartley, 2009; Kapucu, 2012; Smith, 2008; Wheeland & Palus, 2010); (b) my experience acquired in working in several community colla-borations as well as teaching in and dir ecting a small MPA program at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) that draws both in-service and pre-service students for public and nonprofit careers; (c) interviews with three groups of UNCG MPA alumni (police officers, nonprofit executives, and local government managers); and (d) the suggestions of a group of 2013 Southeastern Conference on Public Admin istration (SECoPA) conference panelists and audience participants convened to discuss partnerships and collaborations.

My personal experience in inter-sectoral colla-borations has included projects in community development (see Arbuckle & DeHoog, 2004), refugee resettlement, and housing. The alumni interviews and the SECoPA discussion were fairly informal; the purpose was to draw out the reflections and suggestions of MPA alumni (19 total) and public administration faculty (approximately 25) who were interested in improving the understanding and teaching of collaboration. The interviews with alumni were part of a larger research effort and included participants who had been involved in several partnerships and collaborations.

Program Intentions. First, MPA programs can be intentional and systematic in their efforts to promote collaborative learning and skills. Re-cruit ing and admitting students from diverse backgrounds can provide the ingredients for appreciating differences, practicing inter per-sonal skills, and sharing varied work ex periences in different types of organizations. As many programs have found, and as the alumni interviewees noted, integrating pre-service and in-service students, as well as nonprofit and government employees, enriches the learning experience for all.

The alumni I interviewed strongly supported this approach to acquaint students with people and programs they may otherwise have no connection to, along the lines suggested by Koliba (2012) and Salamon (2005). Promoting



a student cohort with a mix of career interests, diverse backgrounds, and work experiences enriches programs and promotes peer learning. For example, the police officers specifically asserted that being in classes with students in the nonprofit sector prepared them to understand the “big picture of public service” and the broader community resources available to assist them in their work. Nonprofit managers saw the value of students gaining broader public service perspectives about government agencies with which they partner and will receive funding. They also mentioned the personal and professional benefits of gaining a network of future contacts that help them build social capital and collaborations.

Program Expectations. Second, spelling out program expectations and values can also set the stage to promote collaborative and inter person-al skills among students. MPA graduates reported in their interviews that program themes of collaboration and community, as well as other values introduced first in applicant inter views and then in the program orientation, led to positive peer relationships and networks that continued beyond the classroom. The explicit statement of program values com mun icates to students what is expected in and out of the classroom as well as lays the groundwork for public service careers where building colla bor-ations and community are increasingly necessary.

Classroom Themes and Approaches. Third, in teaching courses in public administration, local government management, and organ izational behavior, I intentionally return to these themes and develop various classroom approaches to pro mote collaboration, teamwork, and leader-ship skills among students. These include addi tional subject matter coverage, team assign ments, cases, and classroom practice in interpersonal and leadership skills. Of particular benefit is when students are able to identify proficiency in others, learn from their examples, gain feedback from peers on their efforts, and then reflect on how to improve their own skills, whether in a required reflective paper or in a journal (Cross & Grant, 2006; Herzog, 2004). In structuring these exercises, I often design

small groups—dyads or triads with a mix of experienced and inexperienced students who can practice skills, observe, and offer advice and encouragement to their peers. Providing spec-ific expectations and then feedback in conflict resolution and communication skills are part-icularly essential in my experience.

Internships. Fourth, well-structured internships for pre-service students and career changers pro-vide valuable work experience, exposure to an organization’s culture, and improved commun-ication skills (Benavides, 2013; Cross & Grant, 2006; Garris et al., 2008; Horne & Paris, 2010). To achieve these benefits, internship coord i na-tors should give clear directions to supervisors that they are expected to expose interns to the broader context of the agency’s work, to invite interns to interorganizational meetings, and to provide time for questions, feedback, and car-eer guidance. Benavides (2013) offers a useful summary and framework to show the linkages between the internship and the external host organizations, the university, and students. In my experience, internship coordinators and faculty should intentionally encourage students to develop an understanding and analysis of what these experiences mean, and what skills they have gained in their work. These may include structuring reflective assignments and exercises (Cross & Grant, 2006; Herzog, 2004), requiring, wherever possible, in-depth site visits with the student and supervisor, and allowing students to share and compare their internship experiences (with each other and with prospective interns). These activities give them opportunities to analyze both their own behavior and that of the organization as well as focus on certain elements of interorganizational or inter-sectoral collaboration. To promote quality supervision, faculty coordinators must determine how much oversight is required, how the site supervisors view their role, and to what extent they encourage interns to see the big picture of the organization’s work and their interorganizational relationships.

While recognizing the need for and value of quality internships, MPA alumni who were interviewed suggested that they would like to

R . H . DeHoog


hire and supervise more paid interns, but they were often limited by their resources of time, money, bureaucratic barriers, and lack of sup-port from their own leadership. To allow students who cannot locate or accommodate a traditional internship due to work, financial or family obligations, some alternatives to full-time paid internships can be designed to encourage learning about other organizational contexts. These suggestions include job shadowing, workplace informational interviews, research projects, online “virtual” work, and flexible part-time internships. While not ideal, these options can be structured to include feedback and reflection exercises to capture meaningful learning about organizations and professional skills.

Team Research Projects. Fifth, requiring team research projects for a real client in particular (Hartley, 2009) may help to build flexibility, adaptability, and problem-solving skills, as well as the ability to understand other people and organizations, which are necessary to be effec-tive in interpersonal and collaborative relation-ships. This suggestion builds on what Kapucu (2012) stresses—that our classrooms should model “communities of practice.” By this, he means that well-designed classroom discussions and group assignments should not only build peer relationships and balance theory and practice but also improve an understanding of real world issues by involving students with community practitioners. These can be part of requirements for a capstone course, a class team project, or an internship’s research project. In UNCG’s MPA program, at least one core course and one required concentration course involve a team research project for an area organization.

These projects can be met by resistance from some students, due to the required time com-mitments and conflicts with their full-time jobs, though most alumni (especially pre-service students) reported these experiences as parti-cularly eye-opening and rewarding. Additional challenges regularly appear with the client agency in obtaining information, gaining coop-eration from staff members, communicating with different personalities and agencies, and

completing projects on time. Instructors also face the issue of recruiting appropriate projects and liaisons and then dealing with unequal student contributions, unclear expectations from liaisons, and their own level of involvement in the project.

Alumni suggested that organizing and super-vising meaningful student team projects at their agencies take considerable staff resources, which are sometimes in short supply, such that the project results can be disappointing. Yet everyone agreed that students can learn some important leadership and interpersonal skills from frustrating team experiences—such as the need for patience, persistence, and flexibility in the midst of conflict. With some guidance, but not micromanagement from faculty, students can figure out how to complete the project despite various complications. Students’ level of confidence and coordination skills will greatly improve as a result. Nonetheless, it is important for faculty members to monitor their progress and keep the client’s expectations and goals at the forefront of students’ work, while giving students some latitude to develop their research and recommendations.

Observations, Interviews, and Case Examples. Sixth, in addition to or in the absence of a project for a client, students can learn about collaborations through observations of meet ings of interorganizational projects, interviews of collaboration partners, and rich case examples in their communities (Horne & Paris, 2010). SECoPA participants strongly supported using detailed case studies of collaborations and part-nerships, with some recognition that failures often provide greater learning than focusing only on the successes.

Inviting collaboration participants as panelists to share their experiences (good and bad) in classes can allow students to appreciate the chal lenges and methods of organizing and sus-taining collaborations. If possible, speakers from business, nonprofit, and public organiza tions could provide insights about their different perspectives and their learning from them. Since some guests may not be prepared to



provide a complete lecture or analysis of a partnership or collaboration, another suggestion was to invite guests, adjuncts, or faculty mem-bers to bring in a “problem of the day” scenario to a class to promote problem-solving skills and real-world action plans for collabor ations. The SECoPA faculty suggested assigning stu dents to identify specific roles, communication pat-terns, conflicts, and leadership behaviors. As an instructor, I have found that students often retain and reflect on these examples as well as my own candid cautionary tales about fail - ed collaborations.

Short Courses Taught by Practitioners. Seventh, offering short courses or workshops (e.g., for one credit rather than three credits) taught by practitioners on specific subjects like network management, contracts, conflict resolution, nego tiation, group facilitation, or strategic plan ning may provide another approach to introducing collaborative skills. Such options not only acquaint students with specific topics they may need for current or future work, but also can draw on the experience and interests of adjunct faculty. Some MPA programs, such as Villanova University’s (Wheeland & Palus, 2010), offer short courses or workshops regularly taught by area local government professionals who can also build bridges to internships and research partnerships. Nonprofit executives whom I interviewed in particular suggested short courses that would provide students with more exposure to “business” topics, such as social enterprises, business plans, and investment strategies. The value, as they saw it, would be to develop an understanding and language that would benefit not only their partnerships with businesses but also improve their communications with board members.

The MPA program at UNCG for many years has offered a wide variety of one-credit courses (now almost 20) taught by practitioners that both adjuncts and students benefit from and gain useful connections through. Though hiring adjuncts or creating new short courses at some universities can become a bureaucratic burden, UNCG’s process for including these courses in the curriculum and integrating practitioners

into the teaching schedule has been relatively easy. Alumni mentioned ex am ples of how they used their practical assignments at work, how they contacted these instructors later for advice, and how they gained specific feedback that assisted them in their career development.

Some of the one-credit course topics have long been in place for students with a public ad min-istration or nonprofit career in mind (e.g., grant writing, strategic planning, oral com-mun ication skills); others have been developed and taught specifically for the growing non-profit curriculum (e.g., social entre pre neurship, volunteer management), both on campus and online. The topics are scheduled flexibly, partly based on student demand, adjunct availability, and current employer needs. Some adjuncts are hired with successful experiences in inter-sectoral collaboration, partnerships, and net works that our faculty members do not have. Ensuring the competence and preparation of the adjuncts to teach their subjects is critical, but it is also necessary to communicate regularly with them to convey the program’s values, the students’ backgrounds, and the organizational contexts graduates will likely enter. In UNCG’s MPA program, the annual meeting with adjuncts involves not only obtaining their input about students and courses, but also sharing the program’s concerns, alumni feedback, and curricular changes.

Student Reflection. Eighth, another option to consider is to ask students to reflect on their learn ing process and outcomes during their education to prepare them for interviews, career opportunities, and future collaborative work. UNCG’s MPA program requires a summary of learning reflection paper as a final written requirement, followed up by an oral discussion with faculty members. The current noncredit assignment involves students analyzing and reflecting on their development in mastering the five NASPAA competency areas, with a rotating emphasis on two of them. While not explicitly designed to focus on collaborations, students’ improvements in self-awareness, inter-personal skills, leadership abilities, and even emotional intelligence often come through

R . H . DeHoog


clearly in these papers. This analysis is not only worthwhile for students, but it also provides the faculty with insights about what students gain from certain course themes and assign-ments. Over the years, the value of internships, assignments that apply theory to practice, and team projects for community clients have been frequently emphasized by students.

Most of the research and suggestions cited thus far focuses on improving MPA core and elective curricula, classroom teaching, and experiential learning to prepare students for their future collaborations. A final suggestion mentioned by alumni, nonprofit executives, and SECoPA participants was to encourage students to consider “cross-pollinating” by taking elective courses in Master of Business Administration and Master of Public Health programs to gain a better understanding of the interests, mo - tives, language, and innovations in business management. A nonprofit manager suggested developing interdisciplinary team projects for community agencies with these programs as another method of learning from each other to benefit both sets of students.

This approach involves breaking down barriers between business education and public service education, a challenging task indeed. While some courses and topics offer readily trans-ferable professional skills in management, communication, and leadership, the larger benefit for preparing students for inter-sectoral collaborations is in learning the structures and values of for-profit organizations. Those who have never worked in a business are often struck by the dramatically different conversations and attitudes by these faculty and students. An additional benefit that some have realized was that their educational experience solidified their career choice and commitment to public service.

cONcluSiONThis article seeks to familiarize faculty with the expanding and diverse literature on collabor-ations, with the goal of preparing to address several key topics in teaching about colla-borations. Key topics include the organi zational structures and values of collaboration partners,

the interpersonal and leadership qualities that are critical to organizing and implementing these arrangements, and specific suggestions on how to prepare the next generation in our programs to be competent in this rapidly changing public governance system.

Programs that seek to prepare MPA/MPP stu-dents for the complex 21st-century struc tures and practices should consider a variety of differ-ent approaches, depending on their missions, student mix, and geographic locations. It is likely that opportunities for observation, in-struc tion, experience, and reflection related to collaborations and partnerships are close at hand for most programs, no matter where they are located. Both program administrators and faculty bear the responsibility and challenge of integrating collaboration materials, knowledge, and skills into their curricula to prepare stu-dents for a more complex, even messy, public service environment.

refereNceS

Agranoff, R. (2005). Managing collaborative perform-ance: Changing the boundaries of the state? Public Performance & Management Review, 29 (September), 18–45.

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66 (Suppl. 1), 56–65.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative pub-lic management: New strategies for local governments . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Alexander, J., & Nank, R. (2009). Public-nonprofit partnership: Realizing the new public service. Administration & Society, 41, 364–386.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.

Arbuckle, M. B., & DeHoog, R. H. (2004). Connecting a university to a distant neighborhood: Three stages



of learning and adaptation. Journal of Community Practice, 12(2004), 53–70.

Austin, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How non-profits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bardach, E. (1999). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Benavides, A. D. (2013). Internships Adrift? Anchor-ing internship programs in collaboration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 325–353.

Bielefeld, W., & Cleveland, W. S. (2013). Faith-based organizations as service providers and their relation-ship to government. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42 (3), 468–494.

Boris, E. T., & Steuerle, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict . Wash-ing ton, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Bovaird, T. (2004). Public-private partnerships: From contested concepts to prevalent practice. The Inter-national Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), 199–215.

Bradshaw, T. K. (2000). Complex community dev elopment projects: Collaboration, comprehensive pro-grams, and community coalitions in complex society. Community Development Journal, 35 (2), 133–145.

Brinkerhoff, D. W. (1999). Exploring state-civil society collaborations: Policy partnerships in developing countries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 59–86.

Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Global public policy, part-nership, and the case of the World Commission on Dams. Public Administration Review, 62 (May–June), 324–337.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector col-la borations: Propositions from the literature, Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 44–55.

Cigler, B. (1999). Pre-conditions for the emergency of multicommunity collaborative organizations, Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 87–102.

Coston, J. M. (1998). A model and typology of govern-ment-NGO relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358–382.

Cross, J., & Grant, N. (2006). Teaching MPA intern-ships built on reflection in practice. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12 (1), 19–31.

Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit, Society, 40(4), 16–27.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(May), 1–29.

Finney, G., & Grossman, D. A. (1999). Public-private partnerships in the twenty-first century. In F. S. Lane (Ed.), Current issues in public administration (6th ed., pp. 340–348). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–262.

Garris, R., Madden, J., & Rodgers, III, W. M. (2008). Practitioners’ roles, internships, and practicum courses in public policy and management education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27 (4), 992–1003.

Gazley, B. (2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit partner-ships. Public Administration Review, 68 (1), 141–154.

Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Non profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelli-gence . New York, NY: Bantam.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engage-ment: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9 (2), 217–230.

Hartley, R. E. (2009). Putting yourself in their shoes: The analysis of real-world disputes through group field projects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4), 535–552.

Henry, N. (2002). Is privatization passé? The case for competition and the emergence of intersectoral administration. Public Administration Review, 62 (3), 374–378.

R . H . DeHoog


Herranz, J. (2010). Network performance and coord-ination: A theoretical review and framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 311–341.

Herzog, R. (2004). Teaching what you practice: The need for self-reflection in academic settings. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10 (3), 225–232.

Horne, C. S., & Paris, T. V. (2010). Preparing MPA Students to succeed in government-nonprofit collaboration: Lessons from the field. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (1), 13–30.

Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society, 37 (May), 281–320.

Kapucu, N. (2012). Classrooms as communities of practice: Designing and facilitating learning in a networked environment. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18 (3), 585–610.

Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(May), 363–371.

Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the 21st century . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Koliba, C. (2012). Administrative strategies for a net-worked world: Intergovernmental relations in 2020. In J. W. Meek & K. Thurmaier (Eds.), Networked Governance: The Future of Intergovernmental Man-agement (pp. 70–93). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lambright, K. T., Mischen, P. A., & Laramee, C. B. (2010). Building trust in public and nonprofit net-works. American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 64–82.

Lee, H-W, Robertson, P., LaVonna, L., Sloane, D., Galloway-Gilliam, L., & Nomachi, J. (2012). Trust in a cross-sectoral interorganizational network: An empirical investigation of antecedents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 609–631.

Lindblom, C. E. (2004). The science of “muddling through.” In J. M. Shafritz, A. C. Hyde, & S. J. Parkes (Eds.), Classics of public administration (5th ed., pp. 177–187). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Linden, R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Mak-ing collaboration work in government and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Linden, R. M. (2010). Leading across boundaries: Creating collaborative agencies in a networked world . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mandell, M. P. (1999). Community collaborations: Working through network structures. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 42–65.

McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 33–55.

Miltenberger, L. (2013). Collaboration, contracting, and contradictions: How nonprofit leaders can begin to think about collaborating with the government. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 54–60.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow state: Collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5(1), 1–18 .

Mitchell, G. (2014). Collaborative propensities among transnational NGOs registered in the United States. American Review of Public Administration, 44 (5), 575–599.

Mulroy, E. (2003). Community as a factor in imple-menting interorganizational partnerships: Issues, constraints, and adaptations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14 (2003), 47–66.

Najam, A. (1996). Understanding the third sector: Revisiting the prince, the merchant, and the citizen. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7 (2), 203–219.

Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admin-istration (NASPAA). (2009). NASPAA Standards 2009. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/naspaa-standards.pdf.

O’Leary, R., Choi, Y., & Gerard, C. (2012). The skill set of the successful collaborator. Public Administration Review, 72, 70–83.

O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public manage ment: Where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Admini-stration, 42 (5), 507–522.

O’Neill, M. (2006). Ethical dimensions of nonprofit administration. Nonprofit Management and Leader-ship, 3 (2), 199–213.



Rubin, J, S., & Stankiewicz, G. M. (2001). The Los Angeles Community Development Bank: The poss-ible pitfalls of public-private partnerships. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (2), 133–153.

Salamon, L. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A public management handbook for the era of third-party government . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Salamon, L. (2005). Training professional citizens: Get-ting beyond the right answer to the wrong question in Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 7–20.

Sawaga, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review, 42(2), 105–122.

Schlesinger, M. (1998). Mismeasuring the conse-quences of ownership: External influences and the comparative performance of public, for-profit, and private nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 85–113) . New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sity Press.

Shaw, M. M. (2003), Successful collaboration between the nonprofit and public sectors. Nonprofit Man age-ment and Leadership, 14(1), 107–120.

Smith, S. R. (2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications for schools of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 115–128.

Snavely, K., & Tracy, M. B. (2002). Development of trust in rural nonprofit collaborations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 62–83.

Suarez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2013). Resource con-straints or cultural conformity? Nonprofit rela tion-ships with businesses. Voluntas, 24, 581–605.

Takahashi, L. M., & Smutny, G. (2002). Collaborative windows and organizational governance: Exploring the formation and demise of social service part ner-ships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quart erly, 31(2), 165–185.

Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administra-tion Review, 66(Suppl.), 20–32.

Waddell, S. (2000). New institutions for the practice of corporate citizenship: Historical, intersectoral, and

developmental perspectives. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 107–127.

Wheeland, C. M., & Palus, C. K. (2010). A profile of Villanova University’s partnership with local government managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(3), 487–509.

Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.

Witesman, E. M., & Fernandez, S. (2013). Govern-ment contracts with private organizations: Are there differences between nonprofits and for-profits? Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 689–715.

abOuT THe auTHOr

ruth H. deHoog is professor of political science and director of the Master of Public Affairs (MPA) Program at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her current research areas are government-nonprofit relations, inter-sectoral collaborations, and refugee resettlement. She is the author or coauthor of two books and many articles in leading social science journals.

R . H . DeHoog


Many of the articles in this symposium focus on the importance of incorporating nonprofits into graduate programs in public affairs and public policy. Those who turn their attention toward the global sphere will find the import-ance of focusing on nonprofits or non gov ern-mental organizations (NGOs) is even more pronounced.1 In the global realm, infectious disease, ecosystem conservation, immigration, and human rights regularly cross boundaries without any one government capable of assuming responsibility and authority on the

issue. Transnational NGOs play an increasing role in bridging these domestic and internation-al policy realms and making, influencing, and implementing policy. The current and ongoing example of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa serves as a poignant illustration of how U.S. government institutions in particular must adapt to collaborating with NGOs in global contexts. The ability of public affairs graduates to address societal issues in a globalized world is dependent upon their ability to operate with and within NGOs.

Policymaking in the Global Context: Training Students to Build Effective

Strategic Partnerships With Nongovernmental Organizations

cristina M. balboaBaruch College School of Public Affairs, City University of New York

Maryam Z. deloffreArcadia University

abSTracTIn the global realm, public policy issues—infectious disease, immigration, and human rights—regularly cross national boundaries without any one government to assume responsibility and auth-ority on the issue. Policy makers must therefore shift their focus from “government” to “governance” and create strategic partnerships that leverage existing capacities to provide global public goods. This paper examines the importance of the global arena to Master of Public Policy (MPP) and Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs, and offers evidence of the increasing role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in governance. Using the current Ebola crisis in West Africa as an example, we demonstrate how NGOs’ engagement in global governance requires different skills and discussions, not just for nonprofit staff, but also for government and business sectors. In conclusion, this article offers suggestions for how MPP and MPA programs might begin to incorporate the concepts of these important non-state actors into public affairs curricula.

KeYWOrdSInternational NGOs, global governance, global policy making, capacity building, partnerships

JPAE 21 (3), 417–434


Globalization has changed approaches to gov-ern ance in several important ways. First, scholars and practitioners alike now understand that many of the issues that policy makers face are not neatly contained by national boundaries. The fair trade products available for purchase in the United States were grown, harvested and pro-cessed elsewhere. The democracies that develop and atrophy are funded, trained, and held accountable by governments, organizations, and citizens far beyond their boundaries. Public health epidemics can be transported to new locales via a six-hour plane ride. The effects of industrial practices in one place have direct consequences for issues of resource use, climate change, and waste disposal in another. What’s more, recent technological advances have in-creased the ease of communication and availab-ility of information (Cope, Leishman, & Starie, 1997), giving today’s civil society the potential to be more informed and active in their governance, and the governance of others, than in previous years (Florini, 2000; Salamon, Wojciech Sokolowski, & Anheier, 2000). With this expanded reach, increased connectivity, and amplified complexity of trade, technology, and information, globalization not only places new demands on governments, but also com-plicates policy agendas (Esty & Ivanova, 2002).

With no central government to address these global and transnational issues, the concept of “governing” has been converted from an actor to an act, from “government” to “governance.” Governance has been defined as “any form of creating or maintaining political order and providing common goods for a given political community on whatever level” (Risse, 2005, p. 165). States are no longer the only actors called upon to solve the world’s ills. Multiple actors—NGOs, industry, state and local governments, intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations—all work together to solve issues or provide the services needed.

This multi-actor approach to governing affects every actor involved in an issue. It increases the role of NGOs and for-profit firms in creating

both public goods and the rules that regulate those goods (Avant, Finnemore, & Sell, 2010; Cutler, Haufler, & Porter, 1999). It changes the way states and local governments interact with non-state actors. These changes require differ-ent expertise and different rules of engage ment across the board. Actors are no longer merely providers of public goods; the diversity and reach of those goods are expanding. All actors must build their abilities to connect disparate organizations, peoples, and approaches. NGOs, because of their flexibility and focus on mission, have often been identified as the connective tissue between state and non-state actors, the local to the global (and back to the local again), diaspora to country of origin, and expertise to expertise (DeMars & Dijkzeul, 2015). How are MPP and MPA graduates being prepared to be effective in this new era—and new arena—of global governance?

To expand this symposium’s argument that nonprofits are an integral part of public policy and public affairs, this paper broadens the scope of study to the international arena. First, we will describe the importance of NGOs in this global arena and as transnational actors. Second, we will detail how the specific role of NGOs in governance requires students to develop a detailed understanding of capacity and account-ability. Using the current Ebola crisis in West Africa as an example, we will demonstrate how the important role of NGOs in global govern-ance requires different skills and discussions, not just for nonprofit staff, but also for the government and business sectors. Next, we will examine the state of the art in MPP/MPA programs that self-report concentrations on the international arena to the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Admin istration (NASPAA) in order to provide some descriptive data on whether and how the global and NGOs are incorporated in the curriculum. In con clu-sion, this article will offer some suggestions on how MPP and MPA programs might begin to incorporate the concepts of these important non-state actors into the public affairs curricula.

C . M . Balboa & M . Z . Deloffre


THe iNcreaSiNg rOle Of NONgOVerNMeNTal OrgaNiZaTiONSDefinitions of NGOs abound, and while there is some debate on the finer points, there is consensus on several core features that con sti-tute an NGO. NGOs have formal organization, exist independently of govern ment (non govern-mental), place constraints on the redist ribution of earnings (nonprofit), have vol untary mem-bership, and are motivated by achieving a public good (Lewis, 2007; Salamon, 1994). NGOs are widely considered to be significant actors in global affairs, with numerous scholars showing how their advocacy and activism impacts global policy making on topics ranging from traditional security concerns to human rights to environmental conservation and the provision of public goods in the global arena (Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Price, 2003; Risse, Ropp, & Sikkink, 1999)2. Moreover, in the absence of a world government, NGOs play a role both in coordinating state behavior and in shaping the normative context in ways that change the identities, interests, and preferences of international actors (Balboa, 2014; Boli & Thomas, 1999; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Murdie & Hicks, 2013). We suggest that three indi-cators serve to measure the influence, pre sence, and soft power of NGOs in global policy mak-ing and implementation: the number of NGOs registered both globally and in the United States, the presence of NGOs in global policy arenas, and the revenue flows to (and from) NGOs.

One indicator of NGO influence is the number of NGOs officially registered in a given country. Bloodgood and Schmitz show that the number of transnational NGOs registered in the United States almost doubled from 3,548 in 1998 to 6,790 in 2008, and their revenue more than tripled, from USD 9.7 billion to USD 31.9 billion, in the same time period (Bloodgood & Schmitz, 2013, p. 67). Furthermore, while international NGOs comprise only 1.9% of all nonprofits registered in the United States, they

collectively received an estimated 2.9% of all charitable contributions in 2009, and their growth has surpassed that of other nonprofit sectors in the United States (Bloodgood & Schmitz, 2013, p. 67).

Globally, the number of active NGOs has increased 40% in the past 20 years, from 21,010 in 1995 to 29,387 in 2014 (Yearbook of International Organizations, 2014). The number of NGOs with an international focus has increased by 15% in just the past five years (i.e., from 6,825 in 2010 to 7,875 in 2014; Yearbook of International Organizations, 2014). While North America seems to have had the smallest membership growth of all the regions from 1990 to 2010, it still registered a 43% increase in NGO membership (Anheier, 2014). On the other extreme, Eastern Europe has demonstrated membership growth an order of magnitude greater than North America, with a 426% increase in NGO members between 1990 and 2010 (Anheier, 2014).

A recent study of transnational NGOs in the United States and in New York City in particular (Balboa, Berman, & Welton, 2015) indicates that circa 2009, there were almost 7,500 NGOs in the United States, generating revenue of over USD 30 billion. In that same time frame, in the New York City metropolitan area alone, 943 NGOs raised USD 4.3 billion in revenues. While many of these organizations were focused on increasing international under-standing (12.7% nationally and 12.3% in New York City) through cultural exchanges and educational opportunities, others were focused on international affairs (6.3% nation ally and 8.9% in New York City). The over whelming majority of NGOs focused on dev elopment and assistance (66.4% nationally and 51.4% in New York City). Clearly the state is not the only player in international development.

These data points on the numbers of NGOs registered in the United States and globally

Teaching for Global Strategic Partnerships


indicate an upward trend, but do increasing numbers correlate to increasing influence? While the world is globalizing, it is still largely state-centric, and NGOs may not have access to the policy-making arena in the same ways states do. One indicator for measuring influence is whether NGOs are present and part of global decision-making processes.

To gain access to the United Nations (UN), NGOs may seek accreditation through the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC), which confers consultative status and access to ECOSOC and other UN bodies. Through consultative status, NGOs have an increasing presence at the UN; the number of NGOs with consultative status rose from 41 in 1946 to about 700 in 1992, surged to 3,536 in 2011, and at last report, in 2014, included 4,164 NGOs (Bloodgood & Schmitz, 2013; Casey, in press; Yearbook of International Organizations, 2014). Further-more, Karns and Mingst (2009) discuss the increasing participation of NGOs in UN-sponsored global and ad hoc conferences: While only 250 NGOs participated in the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environ-ment in Stockholm, Sweden, close to 1,400 attended the 1992 UN Conference of the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the Rio agenda specifically assigned NGOs a key role in implementing the policy objectives developed during the con-ference (Karns & Mingst, 2009, pp. 233–234). Upward trends in NGOs with con sultative status and NGO presence at UN conferences suggest that as NGO numbers increase, their visibility and access to international policy-making venues rise as well.

A final indicator of NGO influence and power is the amount of money allocated to NGOs by public and private donors. In the global arena, governments provide the majority of funding for humanitarian crises, accounting for approximately 85.6% (or USD 17.9 billion) of total global humanitarian funding in fiscal year 2014.3 In large part, NGOs are the preferred

vehicles for delivering humanitarian aid; in 2014 NGOs received 11.6% (USD 2.5 billion) of committed/contributed global humanitarian funding and 14% (USD 207.6 million) of pledged contributions (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2014). Between 2007 and 2011, donors from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) disbursed 24% of their funding directly to NGOs (first-level recipients), while 53% of the funding was channeled through multilateral organizations that sometimes subsequently made grants to NGOs (second-level recipients; Buston & Smith, 2013, p. 61). Private donors (including both institutional and individual donors) donated approximately 30% of their funding directly to NGOs during the 2007–2011 time period (Buston & Smith, 2013, p. 61). In 2012, nearly USD 2.3 billion, or 19% of international humanitarian assistance, went directly to NGOs (Swithern, 2014, p. 58).

U.S. NGOs focused on foreign assistance (known as Private Voluntary Organizations or PVOs) also maintain substantial revenue streams. The United States Agency of Inter national De-vel opment (USAID) acknowledges this symbi-otic relationship: “Behind the successes of U.S. Foreign Assistance, there are many strong part-nerships between USAID and the PVO com-munity” (United States Agency for Interna tional Development [USAID], 2014, p. 4). With al-most 550 U.S.-based PVOs and 115 non-U.S. PVOs registered with USAID as of 2012, these organizations act as implementing partners for the U.S. Government’s develop ment goals. However, they do so maneuvering constantly between public and private actors.

For instance, U.S.-based PVOs raised close to USD 27 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone. Only 10% of those funds came from USAID, while 75% came from private funders. The non-U.S.-based PVOs raised over USD 5 billion, with only 4% coming from USAID; 42% came from private funders, and the remainder (54%)



from other sources, which may include other gov ernment agencies in the U.S. or abroad. These are substantial amounts of revenue, which NGOs spend either directly imple-menting programs or supporting local part - ner NGOs in 186 countries. Specifically, in 2012, there were 102 countries in which these PVOs worked with 10 or more local NGOs (USAID, 2014).

glObal HealTH SecuriTY aNd THe caSe Of ebOlaJust as nonprofits increasingly play a notable role in implementing, regulating, and eval uat-ing policy in the domestic context, NGOs also bridge domestic and global contexts and com-plement the U.S. government’s capacity to attend to global issues. One sector where this is plain is global public health. The global health community extends far beyond government and includes a panoply of actors: bilateral aid agencies (such as USAID); domestic and transnational NGOs; private foundations; multinational corporations; intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the UN; and advocacy groups. Given that many public health concerns transcend national boundaries and thus require coordinated action and massive financial investment, a purely state-centric approach is no longer appropriate.

Furthermore, governments now view global health as a foreign policy priority because it raises concerns about national security interests as well as human security—a concept that broadens the conventional understanding of security to include a focus on the individual, and considers poverty, health pandemics, and climate-related disasters as security threats (Deloffre, 2015). This view of global health requires coordination both across sectors of government and across the global health community. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, Brazil, and the European Union now espouse government-wide policies to coordinate govern-ment offices toward achieving global public health outcomes (Novotny, 2010). The U.S.

government likewise recognizes the necessity to collaborate with multiple sectors in order to achieve global public health outcomes (Nov-otny, 2010). For example, it launched the Global Health Security Agenda in February 2014, a multiparty effort organized with other coun-tries, international organizations, and private actors mandated with “accelerating progress toward a world safe and secure from infectious disease threats and to promote global health security as an international security priority” (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2015a).

Importantly, the U.S. government acknow-ledges that “global health security is a shared responsibility that cannot be achieved by a single actor or sector of government” (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2015b). The Global Health Security Agenda highlights the increasingly complex world of policy making and the importance of leveraging the existing capacities of multiple public and private actors to provide essential global public goods and services.

Perhaps one key example of the necessity for government-wide, multisectoral, and inter na-tional cooperation on global public health that leverages the unique capacities of each sector is the ongoing multi-actor U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The United States deployed personnel from multiple U.S. departments and agencies to West Africa, in-cluding staff from the Department of State and Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 1,000 staff members), USAID, and the Department of Defense, as well as 3,000 United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) troops. Government agencies provided unique logistics and capacities that were critical to successfully abating the global health security crisis. The U.S. Air Force established an air supply line to transport supplies from Senegal into Liberia when airlines stopped traveling to the region; the CDC set up contact-tracing and case-tracking systems; the military sent in mobile



medical laboratories that accelerated the pro-cess of testing blood samples and reduced diag-nosis times from 24 to 3 hours; the military built Ebola treatment units and field hospitals; and USAID’s Disaster Assistance Response Team provided interagency coordination on the ground as well as planning, operations, and logistics (Beaubien, 2015; United States Africa Command, 2014; USAID, 2015).

These government officials worked side by side with international NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders in English), Partners in Health, and Samaritan’s Purse to provide lifesaving medical treatment. NGOs built and worked in field hospitals, Ebola treatment units, and training facilities, and organized public education and awareness campaigns. NGO capacity comple-ments government capacity, particularly in terms of NGOs’ flexibility, rapid response cap-acity, sustained commitment in local com mun-ities, and expertise.

NGOs often have long-standing relationships with local communities and partnerships with local NGOs, which permit rapid response and enable trust building (Deloffre, 2014a). MSF, considered one of the four largest NGOs glo-bally, has unparalleled reach in the area of public health, with an annual revenue of USD 1.2 billion and operating and maintaining local partnerships in 70 countries (Huggett, 2012). These local partnerships were critical in pos-itioning it as one of the first responders to the Ebola crisis, as early as March 2014, and the first to appreciate the true amplitude of the outbreak. In April 2014, MSF warned of the unprecedented nature of the crisis, but the WHO downplayed concerns—in part because it relied on government self-reported data that indicated only a sporadic number of cases (Brit-ish Broadcasting Corporation, 2014; Médecins Sans Frontières, 2014; York 2014). Subsequent ly, the WHO did not declare the outbreak an emergency until August 2014, which left it to chase a runaway crisis rather than take pre-ventive measures to stymie the outbreak’s spread.

Moreover, NGOs are instrumental in building trust among local governments, local com mun-ities, and international actors. During the Ebola crisis, trust building was critical to fight ing stig-mas and dispelling rumors and mis infor ma tion, which crippled public health campaigns and created hostility and fear of medical per sonnel and foreigners (Deloffre, 2014a; McNeil & Höije, 2014). Another capacity of NGOs such as MSF is their experience and expertise in supplying acute medical assistance in crisis situations and in developing countries. MSF’s protocols and procedures were relatively suc-cessful in protecting medical staff and patients and informed the development of operational standards and procedures used by U.S. AFRI-COM troops (Dixon, 2014; United States Department of Defense, 2014).

Meeting the financial requirements of global health crises demands cross-sectoral coordi na-tion and capacity as well. As of this writing, the United States and the United Kingdom were the top two state donors to the Ebola crisis, contributing 35% (USD 913 million, with an additional USD 45 million pledged) and 12% (USD 327.9 million, with an additional USD 6.4 million pledged) respectively of the total contributions recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2015). Private donors—including Mark Zuckerberg, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Paul G. Allen Family Foundation—made immediate and direct donations to the foundation of the CDC, circumventing cumbersome government bureaucracy and appropriations regulations and instantaneously funding the needs of CDC teams on the ground (Cha, 2014). In all, 21 foundations contributed over USD 117 million and pledged an additional USD 123 million to the Ebola response.4 The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation alone contributed more than USD 100 million. (The OCHA data does not capture an additional USD 25 million donated by Mark Zuckerberg [Cha, 2014].) These types



of strategic partnerships are on the rise, and given the current austere financial climate for governments, might become more prevalent in the future.

Despite the multisectoral collaboration and mobilization of resources to address the Ebola crisis, there remain real limitations to policy implementation of human security objectives. Modifying traditional thinking on security to include human security requires the develop-ment of innovative global instruments that articulate the collective responsibility to provide human security and increase collaboration and commitment across all sectors of international activity (Deloffre 2014b). Health governance is still largely state-centric, bureaucratic, and grounded in international law. Bureaucracies are organized around rules, routines, and stand-ard operating procedures to generate predictable responses; these norms and processes improve effectiveness, but can also be cumbersome (Bar-nett & Finnemore, 2004). As previously noted, the WHO’s adherence to legal frame works and scientific procedures delayed its recognition of the Ebola crisis. Incorporat ing instruction on the global context into the MPP/MPA curri culum, instruction that con siders governance in addi-tion to government, might train students to adopt innovative approaches to policy making.

Another reason why current international mech-anisms are insufficient is that they do not circle back to the people affected by human security threats. The UN and the WHO comprise mem ber states whose elected representatives are accountable to their national constituencies. To truly develop global instruments for human security, the global community needs to expand the meaning of accountability to reflect the transnational interactions that transcend and breach state boundaries (Deloffre, 2014b). People-centered human security needs people-centered accountability, and one task for MPP/MPA programs is to educate and train students how to think about, implement, and practice accountability in the global sphere.

HOW dO NONgOVerNMeNTal OrgaNi ZaTiONS cOMPlicaTe THe cONcePT Of caPaciTY?As the lines between public and private actors in governance blur, and the roles of non-state actors in the creation and delivery of public goods and services is increasingly accepted and harnessed by those seeking to influence a policy area, MPP/MPA graduates need to interact with a diverse set of actors operating in multiple con texts simultaneously. Regardless of whether they work in government, industry, founda-tions, or NGOs, public affairs graduates will have to learn not only the specific types of skills that will help them work effectively with different act ors in various contexts, but also the metaskills of assessing which skill to employ in each con text.

Previous work on capacity demonstrates the im portance of assessing it at the global, na-tional, and local levels, as well as of considering the characteristics of the policy task when de-ploying capacities (Balboa, 2014; Bell, Murdie, Blocksome, & Brown, 2013).5 Balboa (2014) offers a typology that classifies capacity into three distinct categories—political (i.e., how an organization interacts with external actors), ad-ministrative (i.e., how an organization func tions internally through policies and procedures for its staff and resources), and technical (i.e., how an organization achieves the technical aspects of its mission)—and considers how each capa-city manifests differently on the global, national, and local levels.

In the global sphere, political capacity means raising funds to enable making and imple ment-ing policy; managing media outlets; and coord-inating multiple actors to facilitate interven-tions. At the local level, political capacity might require culturally sensitive communications that enable trust building and stakeholder negotiations with local leaders (i.e., tribal leaders and religious authorities) to implement the policies created at the global sphere. While the global technical capacity of practicing the most cutting-edge medical interventions is



important to situations such as the recent Ebola outbreak, these interventions will need to be adapted to reflect the local habits and cultural norms that impact the spread of the disease. Administratively, only states, IGOs, and the military have the capacity needed to mobilize and coordinate a global intervention with the structures and policies that facilitate com mun-ication and resource sharing.

Each actor working on an issue will demonstrate different strengths and weaknesses by capacity type or by sphere in which it operates. Bell and colleagues (2013) examine the impact of joint civil and military interventions on human sec-urity outcomes. They conclude that for more complex human security outcomes (e.g., those involving nonlinear and tightly coupled tasks), combined NGO and military efforts generate more favorable outcomes. However, analysis of the context and the capacities of different actors is critical to these efforts, so that the presence of one actor does not diminish the value-added of the other. For instance, military interventions can make publics distrustful, so policy mak - ers must balance roles in a way where NGO trust-building capacity is not reduced by a mili-tary presence.

Just because one actor exhibits skills in the global sphere does not mean it will be effective in the local sphere, and vice versa (Balboa, 2014; Brinkerhoff, 2011). Indeed, trying to use these global capacities at the local sphere could actually hurt an actor’s chances of implementing its mission, as illustrated by the WHO’s attempt to rely on its technical and scientific procedures for data reporting in countries that lacked the infrastructure and reporting capacities to pro-vide accurate data. The communication ap-proach of reporting program progress to a glo-bal funder will likely not be well received when reporting to a local leader. Trying to influence global policy making at the inter national con-vention level in the same manner as an actor would influence local policy and politics will likely result in failure. Since poli tical, tech no-

logical, and administrative capacity are inter-dependent capacities for mak ing an organization effective, inability to use one type of sphere-specific capacity (e.g., local admini strative capa-city) could result in ren der ing the other two types of capacity (e.g., local technical and political cap acities) in effective as well.

In addition to understanding which capacities are present and appropriate in which spheres, Balboa (2014) suggests that the most important capacity is bridging capacity. This capacity has three elements: (a) in-depth intercultural and cross-cultural (ICCC) understanding; (b) com-mitment and discipline to act as an intermediary; and (c) enough power in the organization to influence or change how work is done. This type of capacity is particularly important for NGOs, who often fill the role of connecting the local and the global, and connecting the multiple actors working within each of these spheres (DeMars & Dijkzeul, 2015).

Understanding accountability relationships is an important and specific form of political capa city, essential to creating strategic alliances to address the world’s policy issues. At the global level there are no clear and comprehen-sive representatives of civil society. Each actor represents a portion of civil society, and that portion of civil society has the means for calling only a few actors accountable. For example, is the state primarily accountable to the demos, and is it responsive to its needs? Is a business primarily accountable to its stakeholders for financial return? Are medical professionals foc-used on their missions of creating the public good of global health for all? All actors must assess to whom they are accountable, for what, and how. Moreover, to be effective, MPP/MPA graduates must recognize these multiple calls for accountability from various stakeholders, understand the prioritization of accountability relationships each actor makes, and use this information to negotiate between actors, opti-mize engagement in strategic alliances, and create organizational structures and policies that



Table 1.potential sphere-specific Capacities of Actors involved in the 2014 west Africa ebola Crisis

Sphere Actor

state agencies NgOs Military agencies

global P: (donor country) Co ordi nating multiple actors; informing public through media outlets; workingwithin parameters of foreign aid processes; access to IGOs; mobiliz-ing financial resources

P: (host country) Legitimacy and author-ity outside the state to raise awareness about needs; access to IGOs

P: Ability to mobilize financial resources; to raise awareness; to name and shame; sometimes access to IGOs; dissemi-nating information

a: Travel logistics for medi-cal professionals; funder reporting requirements

P:Well-funded; receive media attention

a: Hierarchical command structure; efficient decision making; planning

National P: Working with national governments and NGOs to strategize efforts

P: Enabling access and facilitating acceptance via the organization’s principles

a & P: Obtaining visas and required paperwork for medical professionals to en-ter country; nonprofit status

T: Collecting information, testimony, evidence, etc.

T & P: Interacting with local military; engaging national infrastructure; communication networks

local P: (host country) Legit imacy and authority within the state; ability to mobilize populations; ability to mobilize local resources

T: (host country) Under-standing of local customs, traditions, myths and practices; local language

T: Previous experience working with infectious disease; operational and safety standards; medical treatment of the infected; local disease status; training of local health profes-sionals; public education; community mobilization; community building

a: Logistics of hosting medical professionals

P: Ability to build and main-tain trust in local popula-tions; coordinating with local health care profes-sionals to strategize local in-terventions; understanding cultural barriers and bridges to disease containment

P: Local communication; partnerships and ca-pacity building of local law enforcement

T: Logistics including heavy machinery, transportation, and construction materials; infrastructure development; scientific expertise; security

Notes. NGO = nongovernmental organization; IGO = intergovernmental organizations. T = technical capacity; P = political capacity; A = administrative capacity (Balboa, 2014).



reflect these hierarchies (Balboa, 2015; Koppell, 2005; Wong, 2012).

Table 1 distills a few of the capacity differences, in the global, national, and local spheres that have been exhibited by state agencies, NGOs, and military actors engaged in addressing the Ebola crisis. While not an exhaustive list of capacities or actors, Table 1 clearly demonstrates both the symbiotic relationship of these actors as well as the differences in capacity by sphere of influence. At the national level, state agencies coordinate national strategies based on the data collected by NGOs. The local technical capacity of an NGO’s medical professionals to address infectious disease is complemented by the mil-itary’s technical ability to build infra structure so that patients can be treated. In addition, one can see that the political capacity needed to raise funds at the global scale is distinct from

(but perhaps dependent upon) NGOs’ political capacity to maintain trust at the local sphere. Understanding these differ ences and interdep-endencies is a part of build ing public affairs students’ bridging capacities to create strategic alliances for public good.

Thus, at the global scale, MPP/MPA students need to learn about how NGOs operate, not only to think about each actor’s capacity advantages and disadvantages in each sphere, but also to consider how to manage these varying relationships based on a diverse set of accountability priorities (see Brinkerhoff, 2002; Brinkerhoff, 2011; Lipsky, 2011). Most impor-tant, MPP/MPA graduates must acquire the bridging capacity to maneuver within their organization and with other organizations in the field. They must learn to communicate with multiple actors in the way those actors want to

Table 2.indicators of international/global- or ngo-Focused Mpp/MpA programs

International/globally-focused programs that have at least one:

Number of programs

Percentage of programs

Core course with global focus 8 18%

Core course with NGO focus 8 18%

Core course with both global and NGO focus 0 0%

Elective course with global focus 30 86%

Elective course with NGO focus 28 80%

Elective course with both global and NGO focus 6 17%

Tenure-track faculty with NGO focus 33 73%

Adjunct faculty with NGO focus 20 44%

Notes. N programs = 45. MPP = Master of Public Policy; MPA = Master of Public Administration; NGO = nongovernmental organization.



communicate—in glossy annual reports, in daily face-to-face communication, or in multimedia presentations. They must under stand the account -ability relationships that drive each actor—for example, funding relationships, mission achievements, or processes for follow ing scientific protocols or incorporating stake holder input. Lastly, MPP/MPA graduates must strive to connect various actors in a way that is most productive to solving the issue at hand.

HOW dOeS THe curreNT acadeMic aPPrOacH addreSS THeSe iSSueS?What is the state of the field with respect to integrating the global arena and an under stand-ing of NGOs in MPP/MPA programs? We used NASPAA’s specialization/concentrations fields to select the population of programs classified as “international/global” (48 schools). We consulted websites for each program during January and February 2015 using a codebook to gather and standardize descriptive data on each program.6

Our brief analysis of these programs offers an informative snapshot about how MPP/MPA programs incorporate (or do not incorporate)

NGO knowledge in teaching. Of the 304 schools (both accredited and nonaccredited) listed by NASPAA, only 48 (or 15.7%) claim an “international/global” focus.7 This low num-ber is understandable considering that many internationally focused programs offer a Master’s of International Affairs rather than a MPP or MPA. However, of those programs that do claim an international focus, the data indicates that while 73% have tenure-track faculty whose work focuses on NGOs, less than 18% of these programs have a core course that focuses on non-profits or NGOs. There are no programs in this population of internationally or globally focus-ed MPP/MPA programs that offer core courses with titles that include both nonprofits/NGOs and the global/international sphere. Table 2 provides a summary of our findings.

The high number of tenure-track faculty focusing on NGOs means that these programs do not necessarily have to employ adjuncts to create the NGO focus. Of the 12 programs that do not have full-time NGO-focused faculty, three list adjunct faculty with an NGO focus, which brings the total percentage of internationally focused MPP/MPA programs

Table 3.indicators of ngo Focus in internationally/globally Focused Mpp/MpA programs

Type of offering Number of programs

0 offered 1 offered 2–5 offered 6–10 offered 11+ offered

Core courses with NGO focus

37 6 2 0 0

Elective courses with NGO focus

7 9 11 7 1

Tenure-track faculty with NGO focus

12 6 22 3 2

Adjunct faculty with NGO focus

25 9 9 0 2

Notes. N programs = 45. MPP = Master of Public Policy; MPA = Master of Public Administration; NGO = nongovernmental organization.



that have faculty capacity to teach courses on NGOs to 80%. The disparity between the percentage of faculty who focus on NGOs and the number of core courses on NGOs indicates that course requirements for internationally focus ed MPP/MPA degrees do not fully optimize faculty capacity or scholarly interest. However, of the 37 programs that offer no core courses with an NGO focus, 23 offer NGO-focused elective courses. This brings the total percentage of programs with any courses on NGOs to 72%, a number that indicates that programs are starting to recognize that NGOs are important enough to governance to be taught in the classroom. The next step is to create core courses that deliberately teach about them.

Our data also indicate that two of the eight pro-grams that require an NGO-focused core course for the degree actually require more than one course (see Table 3). Of the 28 programs that offer NGO-focused elective courses, 25% offer only one such course, while over 28% offer six or more NGO-focused electives. One outlier pro-gram offers 16 such electives. Most of the pro-grams that employ NGO-focused tenure-track faculty and adjunct faculty seem to hire more than one faculty member with an NGO focus.

NeXT STePSWhat types of courses and methods might help public affairs students acquire the knowledge they need as the focus of governing becomes less on one actor (the state) and more on the functions of governance performed by multiple actors? How might our programs begin to incorporate these important actors into our curricula? To begin, there are certain approaches to teaching that would expose students to the nuances presented in this article, including case studies, role playing, and service learning.

Hundreds of nonprofit-management case studies are available through the Rutgers University Cases and Simulations Portal for Nonprofit and Public Sectors; the Harvard Business Re - view’s Case Study Collection; the University of

Washington Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance Electronic Hallway now contains 80 cases on non profits/NGOs with a few focused on the global context; and the University of Minne sota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs recently launched the Hubert Project, which includes some e-cases with the potential for expansion to cases that specifically focus on NGOs. Case studies are tools that can help build administrative and political capacity. Using nonprofit case studies in general man-agement courses would expose students to the distinct set of strengths and difficulties NGOs encounter when trying to achieve their mis-sions and contribute to solving the world’s ills. Requiring students to apply management concepts and practices for these actors would increase stu dents’ administrative capacity. For example, Bansal and Ewart’s (2007) case study on CARE Kenya requires students to analyze the capacities of CARE Kenya, the Kenyan government, Ken yan farmers, and food export multinational corporations to design a man-agement solution to save CARE Kenya’s failing social enterprise. CARE Kenya’s program had been designed to improve the livelihood of Kenyan farmers by linking them to global markets, but the NGO’s lack of business knowledge and dependence on external grants made the innovative program unsustainable. To design a sustainable part ner ship to resurrect the program, students must analyze the case and the capacities of each actor.

Focusing on case studies that address policy issues on a broader scale would increase stu dents’ pol-itical capacity for negotiating between multiple actors and creating strategic partner ships. While Harvard’s case study collection include over 100 case studies that focus on international NGOs, the complexity of NGOs and their relationships with other actors indi cates that even more could be written. In the absence of a published case study on a specific issue of importance to a class, faculty can use collections of articles from news sources and frame the process of discussion to address the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of each policy actor.



As more active engagement in a case study, role-playing simulations have been promoted as a means for increasing high-level learning for students (Silvia, 2012). Like traditional case studies, these simulations focus on real-life examples. Unlike traditional case studies, sim-ulations divide students into different types of actors, each with their own motivations, obliga-tions, and intentions. In simulations, students develop transportable leadership skills such as bridging capacity, which will equip them to address real issues (Figueroa, 2014). The poli ti-cal capacity developed through sim ulations can go far in helping students forge strategic alliances and bridge the differences between different actors and different spheres of influence.

Only one program in our population of inter-nationally or globally focused MPP/MPA programs offers a service-learning component.8 Service learning provides a deep approach to learning that permits students to link theory to practice in ways that can also help build ca-pacities in the communities where students live and work (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999). Deloffre designed a service-learning project, with the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), for her graduate-level class in NGO man-agement. AFSC projects allow students to gain hands-on experience in how to use program planning, evaluation, and problem-analysis skills in real-world global contexts. Furthermore, since students are trained in the social sciences, they introduce new perspectives, practices, and methodologies to the organization, offering culturally sensitive solutions and analyses adapted to the political, social, and economic contexts of AFSC programs.

While these real-world examples and experiential approaches to learning can serve as a start to equipping students with the necessary skills to maneuver in this new era of governance, ideally these experiences would build upon a solid base of concepts and theories taught and reinforced in multiple settings and courses. In terms of coursework, this paper’s example of

the Ebola intervention and discussion of capacity suggest that all MPP/MPA programs should teach courses on global governance with an emphasis on global policy making, NGOs in global politics, global capacity building, and global accountabilities. What is equally clear is that although these internationally focused MPP and MPA programs have faculty who focus research on NGOs, a deliberate effort to teach about NGO actors in core courses is still lacking. Here the discipline of public policy and public administration might follow the lead of the Alliance for Peacebuilding, which offers resources for conducting monitoring, evaluation, and organizational learning in peace-building contexts, toward developing better resources for teaching about NGOs and the global arena in policy programs.

While many of the skills and concepts raised in this article flag the importance of teaching about NGOs in the MPP/MPA curriculum, it is important to acknowledge what skills public affairs graduates would lack without this discussion. Students who do not receive exposure to NGO concepts might not fully understand the increasing role of private actors in governance across the globe. They will not be equipped to assess different actors’ capacity strengths and weaknesses at the multiple spheres in which global governance occurs. They will not fully grasp the nuances of exerting power in arenas where no one actor has abso-lute power. They will have limited ability to understand the constraints under which multi-ple actors operate and create for each other because of their accountability relationships.

Public affairs graduates also might not be able to take advantage of the opportunities that non-state actors create, operating outside of the bureaucracy of the state and with the growing magnitude of funding private actors have to offer in an effort to address their causes. In the global sphere, this multi-actor approach is how governance happens. To prepare public affairs students to address climate change, immigra-tion, human rights, or fostering of democracy,



programs must equip them to create, manage, and lead strategic alliances regardless of the sector in which they work. Whether in the realm of local, state, or national government, NGO, or business (or global institutions encompassing all of these actors, like intergovernmental organizations), the charge is clear: teach students to transform the blurred lines that used to divide actors into lines that connect them.

acKNOWledgMeNTS

We would like to thank the journal editors, symposium editors, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions. We would also like to thank Samantha Wolk and Lena Kushnir for skillful research assistance and data collection.

NOTeS

1 We use the term NGO because it is commonly used in international relations literature. The term nonprofit, more often used in public policy and administration, implies a particular legal status—501(c)(3)—that is specific to the U.S. context (see also Stroup, 2012). We use the term transnational NGO to refer specifically to NGOs whose primary activity involves delivering services or advocacy across national borders.

2 The voluminous literature on NGOs is too large to cite here; these are examples of seminal works.

3 This number excludes the contributions labeled “various,” “private,” “carry-over,” “unearmarked UN funds,” “World Bank,” and “others” as reported by the Financial Tracking Service (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2014).

4 These numbers are most likely an underestimate

of private foundation giving to the Ebola response because the data is self-reported and does not capture all global giving. (Numbers here are calculated from Ebola Virus Outbreak—West Africa—Table A: List of All Commitments/Contributions and Pledges, as of February 10, 2015 [Data set], retrieved from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Financial Tracking Service website at http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R10_E16506_asof___1502101846.pdf.)

5 See also the rich literature on the comparative advantages of NGOs, states, and other actors and the costs and benefits of partnerships, literature that includes Brinkerhoff, 2002; Brinkerhoff, 2011; Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2002; and Lipsky, 2011.

6 Codebook terms for programs with an “international/global” focus include international, global, comparative, or world. Codebook terms for programs with an “NGO” focus include nonprofit, not-for-profit, nongovernmental organizations/NGOs, philanthropy, philanthropic, public charities/charit-able, third-party governance, third sector, voluntary sector, civil-society organizations (CSOs), or private-public partnerships. We searched for these terms in each program’s course titles and faculty descriptions as indicators of course or research focus.

7 While there were 48 programs listed as specializing in “international/global” studies on the NASPAA website (http://www.naspaa.org/students/graduate/schsearch.asp), our analysis uses subsets of this sample based on the data available on the Internet. Thus, the N available for the core course and faculty data is 45. The elective course data has an N of 35.

8 It is possible that some courses include service-learning components; our analysis only captures in-stances where service learning is a dedicated course.

refereNceS

Anheier, H. K. (2014). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy . New York, NY: Routledge.

Alliance for Peacebuilding. (2015). Peacebuilding evaluation: Measuring, learning, and improving



from our experiences . Retrieved from http://www.allianceforpeacebuilding.org/our-work/about-our-work/peacebuilding-evaluation/.

Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M., & Sell, S. K. (2010). Who governs the globe? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Balboa, C. M. (2014). How successful transnational non-governmental organizations set themselves up for failure on the ground. World Development, 54, 273–287.

Balboa, C. M. (2015). Accountability and legitimacy of international NGOs. In W. E. DeMars & D. Dijkzeul (Eds.), The NGO challenge to international relations theory (pp. 159–187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Balboa, C. M., Berman, A., & Welton, L. (2015). Inter-national NGOs in New York City: A comparative study . New York, NY: Baruch College Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management. Retriev- ed from http://tinyurl.com/INGONYC.

Bansal, P., & Ewart, T. (2007). CARE Kenya: Making social enterprise sustainable . Watertown, MA: Harv-ard Business School Publishing.

Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Beaubien, J. (Narrator). (2015, February 11). The U.S. helped beat back Ebola—only not in the way you might think [Radio broadcast episode]. All Things Considered . Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/02/11/385489704/the-u-s-helped-beat-back-ebola-only-not-in-the-way-you-might-think.

Bell, S. R., Murdie, A., Blocksome, P., & Brown, K. (2013). Force multipliers: Conditional effectiveness of military and INGO human security interven-tions. Journal of Human Rights, 12(4), 397–422.

Bloodgood, E., & Schmitz, H. P. (2013). The INGO research agenda: A community approach to challenges in method and theory. In B. Reinalda (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international organ-ization (pp. 67–79). London, UK: Routledge.

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (Eds.). (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organ-

iza tions since 1875 . Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning of experience. In Campus Compact (Ed.), Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources for faculty (pp. 113–119). Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public Admin-istration and Development, 22(1), 19–30.

Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). David and Goliath: Diaspora organizations as partners in the development industry. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 37–49.

Brinkerhoff, J. M., & Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2002). Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective: Evolution, themes, and new directions. Public Administration and Development, 22 (1), 3–18.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2014, October 17). Ebola crisis: WHO accused of “failure” in early response. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29668603.

Buston, O., & Smith, K. (2013) Global humanitarian assistance report . Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives.

Casey, J. (In press.). The nonprofit world: Civil society and the rise of the nonprofit sector . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Cha, A. E. (2014, November 16). In Ebola fight, private foundations provide critical financial aid. The Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-ebola-fight-private-foundations-provide-critical-financial-aid/2014/11/16/b57ec57e-6109–11e4–9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html.

Cope, S., Leishman, F., & Starie, P. (1997). Globalization, new public management and the enabling state: Futures of police management. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(6), 444–460.

Cutler, C. A., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (1999). Private authority and international affairs . Albany: State University of New York Press.



Deloffre, M. Z. (2014, September 29). Will AFRI-COM’s Ebola response be a watershed moment for international action on human security? The Wash - ington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washington post.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/29/will-africoms-ebola-response-be-watershed-moment- for-international-action-on-human-security/.

Deloffre, M. Z. (2014, October 25). Human security in the age of Ebola: Towards people-centered global governance. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/ 2014/10/25/human-security-in-the-age-of-ebola-towards-people-centered-global-governance/.

Deloffre, M. Z. (2015). Human security, humanitarian response and Ebola. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 13–14.

DeMars, W., & Dijkzeul, D. (2015) The NGO challenge to international relations theory . New York, NY: Routledge.

Dixon, R. (2014, October 16). Aid group has set the gold standard on Ebola safety. Los Angeles Times . Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-ebola-doctors-without-borders-20141016-story.html#page=1.

Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (2007). Global account-abilities: Participation, pluralism and public ethics (pp. 13–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Esty, D. C., & Ivanova, M. H. (Eds.). (2002). Global environmental governance: Options and opportunities . New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Figueroa, C. (2014). Developing practical/analytical skills for doing leadership through mindful class room simulations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(1), 113–129.

Florini, A. M. (Ed.). (2000). The third force: The rise of transnational civil society . Washington, DC: Carne-gie Endowment for International Peace.

Hermann, M. G., Lecy, J. D., Mitchell, G. E., Pagé, C., Raggo, P., Schmitz, H. P., & Viñuela, L. (2012). Transnational NGOs: A cross-sectoral analysis of leadership perspectives. Retrieved from SSRN (Social Science Research Network) at http: //ssrn.com/abstract=2191082 or http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2191082.

Huggett, J. (2012). Patterns of international non governmental organisation’s growth [Policy Brief | Working Paper]. International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement. Retrieved from http://poldev.revues.org/1175. doi: 10.4000/poldev.1175.

Karns, M. P., & Mingst, K. A. (2009). International organizations: The politics and processes of global governance (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics (Vol. 35). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Koppell, J. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.

Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.

Lewis, D. (2007). The management of non-governmental organizations (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Lipsky, A. B. (2011). Evaluating the strength of faith: Potential comparative advantages of faith-based organizations providing health services in sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 25–36.

McNeil, D. G. Jr., & Höije, K. (2014, November 10). In quick response, Mali thwarts an Ebola outbreak. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/health/quick-response-and-old-fashioned-detective-work-thwart-ebola-in-mali.html?_r=0.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). (2014, August 27). Ebola: The failures of the international outbreak response. Le Temps. Retrieved from http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-failures-international- outbreak-response.

Murdie, A., & Hicks, A. (2013). Can international nongovernmental organizations boost government services? The case of health. International Organ-ization, 67 (3), 541–573.

Novotny, T. (2010). Global governance and public health security. In P. F. Diehl & B. Frederking



(Eds.), Politics of global governance: International organizations in an interdependent world (pp. 313–329). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.

Risse, T. (2005). Global governance and communicative action. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Global governance and public accountability (pp. 165–189). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.) (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Salamon, L. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs, 73 (4), 109–122.

Salamon, L., Wojciech Sokolowski, S., & Anheier, H. K. (2000). Social origins of civil society: An overview . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.

Silvia, C. (2012). The impact of simulations on higher-level learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 397–422.

Siméant, J. (2005). What is going global? The inter-nationalization of French NGOs without borders. Review of International Political Economy, 12 (5), 851–883.

Stroup, S. S. (2012). Borders among activists: Inter-na tional NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Swithern, S. (2014). Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2014 . Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/GHA-Report-2014-interactive.pdf.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). Consultative status with ECOSOC and other accreditations [Web page]. Retrieved from http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/displayConsultativeStatusSearch.do?method= search&sessionCheck=false.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2014). Global human-itar ian donations in 2014: Donor totals, financial

tracking service [Data set]. Retrieved from http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R18_Y2014___1501291539.pdf.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Hum an-itarian Affairs. (2014, April). Ebola virus outbreak—West Africa—Table B: Total humanitarian assistance per donor, as of February 10, 2015 [Data set]. Retrieved from http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R24_E16506___1502100301.pdf.

United States Africa Command. (2014). United assistance team makes significant strides. Retrieved from http://www.africom.mil/newsroom/article/23720/ united-assistance-team-makes-significant-strides.

United States Agency for International Development. (2014). 2014 VOLAG: Report of voluntary agencies. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/Volag2014.pdf.

United States Agency for International Development. (2015). Ebola: The response [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/ebola.

United States Department of Defense. (2014, Oct-ober 7). Department of Defense press briefing by General Rodriguez in the Pentagon Briefing Room [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcriptaspx?TranscripID=5515.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2015a). The global health security agenda. Retrieved from http://www.globalhealth.gov/global-health-topics/global-health-security/ghsagenda.html.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2015b). Global health security. Retrieved from http://www.globalhealth.gov/global-health-topics/global-health-security/index.html.

University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs. (2015). “Hubert Project,” Retrieved from http://www.hubertproject.org.

University of Washington, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance. (2015). “Electronic Hallway,” Retrieved from http://hallway.evans.washington.edu.

Wong, W. H. (2012). Internal affairs: How the structure of NGOs transforms human rights . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.



Yearbook of International Organizations. (2014). Ref-erence Reviews, 18(2), 13–14.

York, G. (2014, October 3). Only a few aid agencies willing to help fight Ebola in Africa. The Globe and Mail . Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/aid-agencies-fail-to-mobilize-ebola-resources/article20930983/.

Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative models of govern-ment-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 149–72.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

cristina M. balboa is an assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College, City University of New York and a faculty asso-ciate at Baruch’s Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management. Her research examines the political institutions of private governance—from nonprofits to networks, certification mech-anisms, and global govern ance organizations.

Maryam Z. deloffre is an assistant professor of political science at Arcadia University. Her re-search examines transnational NGO account-ability; NGO relations with states, international organizations, and non-state actors; human security; and humanitarianism. She teaches courses on NGOs and NGO management in Arcadia University’s master’s program in Inter-national Peace and Conflict Resolution.



iNTrOducTiON: STaTiSTicS iN THe Public adMiNiSTraTiON curriculuMThe first day of a statistics class is pivotal. Public administration students—some of whom may have chosen their field as much to avoid certain subject areas as to actively pursue an academic interest—await complex equations with severe trepidation. Imparting the relevance of statistics to public administration and bracing students for its technical dimensions is a challenge for instructors (Smith & Martinez-Moyano, 2012). Arithmophobia can block students’ cognitive pathways, and a case of “quantitative paralysis” may set in when stu dents are confronted with the first mathe ma tical problems they have encountered in several years (Adenay & Carey,

2011). Not every institution has a sufficient math pro ficiency re quirement to ensure student success in a statistics course, but certain public admini stration curricula do have a statistics course requirement that proves to be a persistent obstacle to student success.

The teaching of statistics must contend with contemporary contexts. The information age is escorted by misinformation, with a widening gap between comprehension and cognition when it comes to processing social data (Silver, 2012; Tishkovskaya & Lancaster, 2012). The “pure” statistics taught for mathematics and the natural sciences does not suffer the many variations in presentation seen in the social

Cruel to Be Kind: A Neopragmatist Approach to Teaching Statistics for

Public Administration Students

david Oliver KasdanIncheon National University

abSTracTMany public administration students harbor doubts about their ability to learn statistics. Adoption of a tenet of neopragmatism can realign statistics with students’ cognitive interests and frame it as a method to advance social progress away from cruelty. This approach is rooted in John Dewey’s fusion of educational philosophy with scientific method and Richard Rorty’s postmodern upgrade of classical pragmatism. Neopragmatism recognizes that there are linguistic and contextual challenges to social science research, and that statistics is “translating” what happens around us into a language based on the math logic that is actually common to many of our social phenomena. This eases students’ arithmophobia so they can see the greater challenge as analyzing governance issues to take advantage of the explanatory powers of statistics. Students then focus on figuring out the words, rather than the numbers, that are necessary to improve administrative decisions and reduce cruelty in the world.

KeYWOrdSNeopragmatism, arithmophobia, statistics, public-wellbeing

JPAE 21 (3), 435–448


sciences (Payne & Williams, 2011). Even within one political science department, an instructor with a public administration specialty will concentrate on and frame certain concepts differently than an instructor coming from the comparative politics perspective. Although val-ues of the mean and standard deviation are calculated the same regardless of discipline, sampling methods and p-values hold different weight in disparate research fields (Gal, 2002).

An ideal curriculum would require a general statistics course to be paired with a research design class tailored to the students’ majors, but degree loads and departmental requirements do not allow for such extravagance. With a requirement of more than 30 classes for the bachelor’s degree, public administration stu-dents have neither the leisure nor the inclination to pursue statistics over multiple courses. The minimal math skills necessary are already off-putting to many students; asking them to en-dure pure statistics for a term before seeing how it actually applies to their chosen field would be too much.

Pedagogical theory, framed by the conflict of institutional themes of education as a consumer product (e.g., online degree programs) versus the traditional notion of the academic com-munity (e.g., liberal arts colleges), has divided learning approaches. Do students learn what they are able to learn or what they are receptive to learning? Are some students wired for the abstract while others need practical examples? The trend seems to be that successful teaching depends on engaging students’ cognitive in-terests, which includes those things students think they will be most likely to use later (Zieffler et al., 2008). This controversy is larger than the discussion at hand, but it is worth noting that these views loosely correspond to the foundational logic behind statistics itself: deduction and inference. Some students are better at working from the population to the sample, while other students naturally reason from the sample to the population.

It is possible to conceive of the idea of an epistemic community for statistics in public administration education. That is, these stu-dents’ shared context affects their understanding of statistics (Adenay & Carey, 2011; Garfield, 1995; Tishkovskaya & Lancaster, 2012). That context necessarily includes the means of communication, the extent of application, and the weight that a statistical study holds in the field. For example, students expect to use sur-veys and census data to inform decisions, as well as to be educated consumers of public admini-stration research that presents findings relevant to their eventual practices (Gal, 2002). At the street level, there are endemic misconceptions about some statistical concepts (Zieffler et al., 2008). For example, polls often portray the margin of error as the known interval around a mean value, rather than as the estimate’s samp-ling error (and thus a poll favoring one candi-date over another at 55% to 45% with a 5% margin of error is thought to be a dead heat). Making students in public administration aware of their epistemic com munity helps to stand ard-ize statistical opera tions while still recognizing that those opera tions have an appropriate time and place in research according to the disci-pline’s objectives.

After several terms teaching statistics to under-graduates in the public administration, political science, international relations, and history maj ors, I adopted an approach that helps to alleviate students’ fears by channeling their con cerns into a reframing of the utility of statistics. For those who agree with Lindley’s (2000, p. 294) philo-sophical position that “statistics is essentially the study of uncertainty and that the statis tic-ian’s role is to assist workers in other fields…who encounter uncertainty in their work,” then there is reason to customize statistics for those students who firmly believe themselves to be “workers in other fields.” Indeed, public ad-ministration turns to statistics to quell uncer-tainty, and it is the instructor’s responsibility to suggest when statistics can as sist understanding of problems in “other fields.”

D . O . Kasdan


Neopragmatism is a philosophy that confronts uncertainty in the determination of utility. Util ity is an indicator of social progress, defined as the alleviation of cruelty (Elshtain, 2003; Rorty, 1989, 1991, 1999; Shklar, 1984). From this vantage, statistics becomes a way to calc-ulate utility as the likelihood that a course of action may alleviate conditions of cruelty—argu ably a foundational precept of public ad-min istration. Introducing neopragmatism into a statistics course leads to homework and test problems that focus on issues such as inequity and the protection of democratic values. In my experience, this approach, paired with a sub-stantial emphasis on working realistic examples in class to reinforce the pragmatist value of em-pirical experience, has yielded gains in student performance as well as better course evalua - tions from the students themselves. Stu dents appre ciate the outcome-based perspective, which rele gates the mechanics of statistics to the realm of available methodologies useful in some in-stances (Garfield, 1995), rather than a deon to-logical necessity for understandi ng phenomena.

This paper briefly outlines a philosophical perspective on statistics in social science before explaining the relevant aspects of neopragma-tism in detailed terms. Next comes a description of melding neopragmatism with statistics, fol lowed by a discussion of how this strategy serves the teaching of statistics to public admin-istra tion students. Several statistical concepts will be “neopragmatized” to illustrate the trans-form ation of a math problem into a governance problem, and thus position the numerate calc-ulations into mere operational processes that assist in the answering of a greater concern. Giv-en that students have ready access to calculators, spreadsheet programs, and other means of work-ing the formulae, the teaching objective can now focus on how observations relate to cond itions of cruelty and how the analysis can serve public administration to make the world a better place.

The objective of this paper is to introduce an alternative approach to teaching statistics—an

approach that accounts for students’ interests and competencies while adequately applying the methodological lessons to the practical contexts of public administration. This approach takes a philosophical perspective by integrat ing a core idea of neopragmatism into the coursework. That idea—the inverse relationship between cruelty and social progress—has been tested in the classroom with encouraging results, as described at the end of the paper.

STaTiSTicS iN SOcial ScieNce: a brief PHilOSOPHical cONSideraTiONThe goal of statistics is to explain as much of a phenomenon as possible while also reducing the level of error as much as possible. Good statistics purport to increase the ratio of explan-ation to error up to some level of con fidence that is necessarily shy of certainty. The error term—always present, never under stood—eliminates big “T” truth from our vocabulary, but the concept somehow has remained in the ontology of statistics despite its history of prag-matic guesswork (Pearson, 1990). Statistical conclusions rely on a plethora of qualifying terms—likelihood, probability, uncertainty, margin of error, and so on—that, when used appropriately and consciously, can make the application of statistics more acceptable to the social sciences. Within the academy, Lindley (2000) and commentators give ample credi bi-lity to the continuing philosophical debate over statistics, while popular discourse takes issue with its use and abuse as well (Silver, 2012).

Assigning a number to a phenomenon helps to legitimize and deal with it, especially if the phenomenon concerns the weirdness of human behavior. At the beginning of the 20th century, soon after “Student” codified the values of in-ference for small samples of beer (Pearson, 1990), social scientists adopted statistics as a new tool for making societal advances. The prag matists took note as well, for the basis of utility in their philosophy was the ability to apply lessons learned from their experiences to future practice. Their lessons were often of the trial-

A Neopragmatist Approach to Teaching Statistics


and-error variety, and the expediency of stat-

istical inference for making broad assess ments of utility fit their mission of social pro gress.

Of course, the social sciences ran up against behaviorist and humanist schools when logical positivism crept over from the hard sciences, making demands of rationality that conflicted with experience. The role of the counterfactual in social sciences became especially profound, as Popper demanded that falsification be a criterion of the empirical method against the inertia of conservatism (1959, p. 57). This is seen in how the null hypothesis is framed: it is the condition of the status quo. A scientific revolution (Kuhn, 1996) in the social sciences quietly shifted the idea of progress from an orientation that held the promise of enlighten-ment by accessing the big “T” truth toward the much more realistic objective of absolving researchers of any epistemological limitations that only enlightened the discipline to human errors. Kuhn (1996) proposed that development is truly pushed from the dis satisfaction with current explanations. Thus, the counterfactual is needed to highlight the place that the field is developing away from; falsifiability ensures that possibilities are not limited to past negative experiences, but rather the potential for exper-iences beyond those circumscribed by the con-text of the hypothesis set are created. The goal should not be to seek final answers so much as new questions.

This lineage has left statistics in the social sciences with an unstable sense of identity. Abelson (1995) draws on his years of teaching statistics for psychology students to outline what can and cannot be done with its methods. His prescription for using statistics concludes with a Kuhnian prophecy: “Each new genera-tion of research workers in the social sciences, therefore, is exposed to a more sophisticated scientific culture than the previous cohort” (Abelson, 1995, p. 198). Those cohorts are taking into account contemporary consider-

ations from critics of scientific claims, such as the interpretivists’ warning that “methods-driven research narrows the range of questions that the social sciences can usefully entertain and explore,” and call for “sensitivity to contextually specific meanings” (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006, p. 382).

NeOPragMaTiSM: THeOreTical aNd OPeraTiONal defiNiTiONSThe story that leads to a neopragmatist ap-proach goes back to the common history of statistics and pragmatism at the end of the 19th century. While Karl Pearson, William Sealy Gossett, and other early statisticians were working out the formulae and tables for consistent inference, William James, Charles Peirce, and John Dewey were trying to figure out a philosophy to synthesize experience, truth, and utility. Dewey (1916) was adamant that education be grounded in shared experience—what might be called consensus-based empir-icism—meaning that the classroom lesson had to center on developing an epistemic com mun-ity to understand what is useful in our lives. Dewey’s concept of education emphasizes prac-tice as the object of empirical analysis, which translates to lessons that show concepts through real-world examples and a communal solidarity as to those concepts’ usefulness when seen in different contexts. Both statistics and classical pragmatism appreciate the value of inquiry, trial and error, and the need to qualify the instrumentality of scientific methods in the pursuit of knowledge.

Neopragmatism is based on regular old empir-icism: experience and observation matter, but how we use them necessitates a postmodern update. Richard Rorty is the most prominent of neopragmatism’s champions; his core idea is to reject notions of big “T” truths that we can someday access through advances in science (Rorty, 1979). There are no ethereal foundations to knowledge, just as there is no objective vantage to contemplate them; we just have

D . O . Kasdan


what we can talk about to get us along. Determining the utility of any bit of knowledge is an exercise in building consensus rather than an advancement in our grasp of reality.

Neopragmatism shifts focus from experience to language through the “linguistic turn” (Hilde-brand, 2003) that makes the communication of empirical data into a contested task (Swartz, 1997). The means of representing experience is context specific; one person’s description of an experience may differ widely from another’s, even if they both witnessed the same event. For Rorty (1991), there is no meaningful distinction between the experience and the language because the former is nothing without being represented by the latter. Since the social sciences often observe phenomena that must be described in words rather than measured by an interval scale, it is reasonable to hinge eval ua-tions of utility to reaching agreement on the language of the phenomena.

Moving from the high philosophical theory to social science proper, Rorty (1989, pp. 189–198) builds off Shklar’s (1984) proposition that cruelty is the worst thing that we can do, and goes so far as to propose that there is a level of cruelty that eventually, under the protections of near universal solidarity, becomes a functional (big “T”) Truth. Rorty’s argument is convincing enough to admit that there is some credence to the idea of a “final vocabulary” when it comes to cruelty. For instance, although the Nazi atrocities were widely decried, there were some sadistic SS officers who did not consider their acts to be cruel (e.g., killing a Jewish person was cruel to that person, but was offset by the benefit to Hitler’s regime and, for stout believers, the eventual fortunes of the world). Yet there is surely an unimaginably horrendous level of cruelty that would force those very officers to cry for mercy.

This possibility of a transcendent cruelty then serves as the closest thing we have to an ob-jective vantage from which we can gauge all

else. For practical social science considerations, all human activity can then be fixed at some relative distance from the “universally cruel” cruelty. Thus cruelty is operationalized as the antecedent of any proposition that, for general purposes of utility, is constructed to test one specific social context against another. The reference point for the test is the “true” cruelty that allows us to pass judgment, opening the door for methods of inquiry (such as statistics) that rely on relativism between disparate contexts.

Neopragmatism can become complicated quite quickly, of course, as the intricacies of post-modern, deconstructivist, antiessentialist lang-u age games riddle the social sciences with uncertainties. If neopragmatism and its notions of cruelty and progress take issue with the hard sciences’ claims to big “T” truth (Rorty, 1991), then how does this theory fare in the wispier study of human behaviors? One aspect to keep in mind is that cruelty is not always manifest as the übercruelty that even a Nazi fears. Cruelties may be slight, but the point is that they may extend eventually beyond local contexts and grow their influence toward others. No one wants to wait until another Holocaust is happe-ning to address a cruelty. The key for neoprag-matism is balancing limited experiences with a kind of antifoundational sensitivity as empirical background for action. This means that claims of cruelty are neither absolute nor completely rel-ative; there is no standard of cruelty for reference.

When it comes to the value of science, neo-pragmatism’s antiessentialism implies that the natural “hard” sciences are no more valid than the social sciences; neither school has privileged access to reality nor a better record of accuracy when it comes to correspondence with truths (Rorty, 1979). Baert (2005, p. 141) adds that “from a neo-pragmatic angle, ontological asser-tions can never suffice, as methodological op-tions are at least partly dependent on what is to be achieved.” The best that either school of science has to offer is the ability to identify a set of contextual practices that have helped us



lessen cruelty and advance social progress, as enveloped in our experience as language. In other words, empiricism and scientific meth - ods are communications about conditions of cruelty, not the recording and processing of perceptions with an instrument (Swartz, 1997).

Nonetheless, neopragmatism does value evi-dence and methods, whether they are presented by a doctor in a white lab coat or an academic sporting tweed and paisley. A semblance of reliability can be achieved with some nugget of science that produces the same outcome as we experience and talk about it, but reliability does not equal validity. At best, reliability lends support to notions of internal validity, but repeating scientific experiments only shows the ability to cope with a particular situation. The knowledge achieved with reliability is that the closed system and its proprietary logic work in their present context. This serves to bolster internal validity, but that validity has an expiration date when contexts change to such a degree that a paradigm shift is in order (Kuhn, 1996). The neopragmatist is interested in that kind of knowledge insofar as it can be gener-alized for the good right now .

Social scientists can take this opportunity to feel good about their fields. The natural sciences do help us get by in material ways, but all of that is secondary to the grander human experi-ment conducted in society, as Dewey (1916) and Rorty (1999) see it. This is where external validity is assessed: Does the result of an analy-tical method contribute to human welfare? The correspondence sought through scien tific study is grasping reality as it is experienced.

If there is doubt as to the preeminence of social progress as the ultimate outcome of natural sciences, then consider that the actual cement that undergirds a classroom where social science ideas are theorized is a product of chemistry. Social science is enabled by natural science, but knowing the elasticity projections for poured

con crete does not directly solve problems of equit able health policy or forge a service agreement between neighboring governments. To drive the point home, consider that the studies of astrophysics are done in the broad interests of advancing humankind, not for the sake of another alphanumeric mark on a map that is fully contained and explained within the closed system of instrument-enhanced human visual perception.

More often the social sciences are confronted with violations of civil rights, which neo prag-matism views as cruelty by means of the margin-al ization of a group that does not buy into some predominant idea of objective truth (Abellanosa, 2010, p. 102). This usually occurs when a seg-ment is excluded from participating in consensus building (demo cracy). For ex ample, the Jim Crow laws of the South were based on protecting a foundational ontology full of big “T” truths—blacks were less than whites—that enabled marg inalization. Whites felt that giving equal rights to blacks was cruel; it would upset the social order and be a cruelty to the white man’s natural superiority. In this case, social progress was obviously the reduction of the greater cruelty of violations against black peoples’ civil rights.

THe NeOPragMaTiST aPPrOacH: HOW iS STaTiSTicS cruel?The next step is taking the neopragmatist perspective to figure out how statistics might actually inhibit social progress and thus itself be a cruel practice. The broad-form cruelty of statistics is the assumption that its conclusions are logically sound indicators of the way things really are. Neopragmatism exposes the fallacy that truth is correspondent to reality if the logic behind the truth claims is held to be objectively indisputable. Since much of statistics works from the math logic that exemplifies Cartesian a priori knowledge and is the basis of so much Western thought, the neopragmatist perspective takes issue on behalf of any phenomena that is not of this traditionalist mold.

D . O . Kasdan


This is not to say that math logic is useless—experience shows that it serves human purposes in many ways—but the blind application of math logic to all aspects of human lives is troublesome, especially when used in the context of the oddities of human behavior. The logic that denies us the ability to conceive of a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees, or demands that the product of an odd number and an even number be an odd number, has little to offer in the way of understanding transgender political sensitivities1 or public safety policy compliance rates.

The following subsections divide perspectives on the cruelty of statistics into internal and external understandings. In this context, cruelty is not meant to evoke images of torture or distress, but rather the inhibiting of social progress for students and of the objectives of public administration. More generally, the idea is that the neopragmatist approach can alleviate some of the instances where the use of statistics may in fact produce outcomes that conflict with the intentions of the social sciences.

internal: “Statistics itself is cruel”The internal understanding holds that statistics may produce cruel outcomes, intentional or not, by virtue of its epistemological nature. This understanding includes the notion that statistics is a cruel tool, insofar as it quantifies and generalizes things that may not really be countable or broadly applied. For example, statistics may be used incorrectly to impart influence, as told by the quip attributed to Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Forcing an observation into a value-scheme in order to make probability assertions can also be cruel. Consider the measurement of pain—a wholly subjective human experience—on a Likert scale, where the ordinal values are grossly insuf ficient to reliably convey the myriad character istics of pain (Ariely, 2009, pp. xiii–xvii). This would be statistics as the agent of cruelty, caus ing some

suffering to the world because it is forcibly employed in an inappropriate context.

At first blush, arithmophobic students may identify with this understanding because they think that having to learn the theory and meth-ods of statistics is a cruel practice on the part of their institution. They may condemn statistics as abusive because it appears incommensurable with their cognitive interests (Zieffler et al., 2008). After all, statistics depends on rigid rules that the social sciences eschew, in contradistinc tion to the laws of natural science that frame the episte-mologies of physics, chemistry, and the like. Furthermore, the statistics instructor may be seen as cruel because she is forcing a system into students’ lives that they expect never to use again. Add in that the abuse of statistics is rampant in social science—another quip that students appreciate is attributed to Mark Twain: “Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics”— and conveying the qualified utility of statistical methods becomes even more difficult.

The neopragmatist approach, as a creature of postmodern deconstructionism, avers that a binary view of the world is insufficient; the languages we use are built on the logic of dichotomies that do not do justice to our experiences in the world. Statistical probability is an obvious culprit of this offense. Yes, a coin flip necessarily turns up heads or tails and an event either happens or does not happen. The Type I and Type II errors are also dichotomous (to themselves), as is the dependent variable in a logistic regression. But the outcomes of these dichotomies are not the end of the story: Do we have to accept a two-sided coin as the decision maker? Can we imagine room for compromise in the world?

Mind, most statistics taught in public admin is-tration curricula are parametric; the distribu tions are assumed to be normal, Gaussian, and have a nice curve of probability. (Some spe cial ized and higher-level statistics courses may intro-duce Bayesian probability, but students are not



normally exposed to this.) Since this is not always the case for a distribution of a population, we are making an assumption about the world that may not hold up. It is a convenient assumption that can make for difficulties in the future when the model is not commensurate with observations.

A relevant example of the potentially cruel outcomes from the use of statistics played out in my past teaching context in Michigan. Many students in the Detroit metro area come from families with auto industry backgrounds and are now looking at careers in government—these are two job sectors that have traditionally offered workers defined-benefit retirement plans. Both sectors have seen their pension funds dwindle far below their needs in recent years, however, causing a popular backlash against defined-benefit plans because they are now unsustain able. These plans depend on actuarial projections that have proven inadequate at accounting for the errors extant with such applications. The context of the retired American worker has changed—due to longer life expectancies and a sustained recessionary period—and the statistics used by the pension managers are underspecified because the needs are too dynamic for quanti-tative analysis alone.

The cruelty here is that the experienced results do not resemble the projections from the numbers; the projected likelihoods have fallen short, and the output-outcome discrepancies will mean tangible reductions in my students’ parents’ retirement quality of life, and perhaps even these students’ own ability to pay for their college education.

A more theoretical but nonetheless poignant instance of the cruelty in statistics may be found in the hypothesis test. It is cruel to students because it is counterintuitive; as Abelson (1995, p. 9) states, “A null hypothesis test is a ritualized exercise of devil’s advocacy.” (Indeed, “rejecting the null hypothesis” is one of the few times a double negative is institu-

tionalized.) Consider this arrangement as akin to the justice system, albeit with the twist that a defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The status quo condition in the null hypothesis is the default that would be more naturally positioned as the lesser option for an administrative application. It is a cruel evaluation process, cruel because it puts the burden of proof on imperfect forecasts of a decision’s chance for success—thus it stifles social progress when the null hypothesis is the condition of cruelty that is known and suffered right now. Better the devil that we know than the devil we do not, unless accompanied by a qualified p-value! This boils down to the conservative versus progressive debate that frustrates the student who hopes to improve society.

external: Statistics determines “What is cruel?”The external understanding is more amenable to classroom instruction: in this approach, stat-istics can be used to assess cruelty by assign ing indicators of cruelty to phenomena and then looking for patterns of predictability. If a phenomenon can be plausibly observed by a quantified measure of cruelty, then statistics is the principal of cruelty because it serves to pro-vide an understanding of the cruel pheno men-on. For example, public health studies often include a variable for the infant mortality rate into their calculus as a proxy for many types of cruel conditions (or at the least, conditions that do not foster social progress).

Although the previous section argued that the hypothesis test is structurally cruel because it puts the burden of proof on the wrong side of social progress, that same fault works to the neopragmatist’s advantage in determining what is cruel. The hypothesis test—as a discursive measure to gain consensus among those who are trying to lessen cruelty—is a clear way to make decisions in the face of uncertain contexts. Neopragmatism holds that we should avoid cru elty without dictating a more concrete objec tive to move toward. “Run away!” as the

D . O . Kasdan


conclusion of a situational analysis is often a useful recommendation.

The goal of lessening cruelty in the world pins down human experiences of the past while leaving the future open for assessment. If there were five instances of beatings yesterday, then one might hope for less than five today. There is no replacement or exchange going on with this hope, but rather the meager desire to have less of something that is not desired. Mind, this ap-proach avoids a dichotomous mind-set, which neopragmatism discredits for forcing a right-or-wrong view of the world. The opposite of five beatings is not five kisses, but entertaining the alternative of four beatings or fewer is most definitely a better outcome. The neopragmatist perspective can only say what is preferred in contrast to what has been experienced.

Neopragmatism has a grasp of the null that is as firm as the consensus behind its recognition. That is, all can agree that there were five unpleasant beatings yesterday. An alternative to the null is simply defined as being the “not null” con di-tion—less cruelty is not the opposite of cru elty—and thus opens up options for social pro gress. Quibbling over this difference may seem like so many language games, yet that is exactly what is experienced of the world once an actor tries to do anything beyond just being in the world (Rorty, 1979, 1999). Those who embark on the study of phenomena that are contingent on words for their measurement, as is usually the case in the social sciences, are playing language games that cannot be justifiably summarized by a t-test for significance.

Other components of statistics may be neo-prag matized for public administration students. For example, randomness is a concession to the practical limits of the “language” of statistical methods, to represent how weird and unpre-dictable phenomena really are. Random is the side door to the error term; incorporating ran-dom ness into statistics is implicit agreement that the method does not access big “T” truth.

Similarly, a neopragmatist perspective recon-ciles its distrust of the truth-reality corres pon-dence construct with statistical inference by positioning the p-value as the possibility that randomness overcame the methodology being used, within the acceptable allowance for things not being what they appear. Lindley (2000, p. 295) makes a special note that “the definition of randomness is subjective; it depends on you. What is random for one person may not be random for another.” For example, when con-sidering what most polling services would call a random sample of respondents for a pol itical survey, students know that the selection pool is inherently nonrandom. Ameri cans have con-flicted feelings about political privacy, and only certain types—often those whom we con ven-tion ally think of as outliers on the political spec-trum—are wont to disclose their voting choices.

THe claSSrOOM PracTice Of NeOPragMaTiSMFitzpatrick (2000) and Smith and Martinez-Moyano (2012) suggested some neopragmatist values in their prescriptions for effective ped-agogy: using real examples, keeping the utility of the practice in mind, and minding that the interpretation of results is paramount. What can be added, to fill out the neopragmatist approach, is realizing that all of these things are contestable and subject to democratic discourse.

That is not to say that my classroom is a forum for entertaining alternative mathematics, but rather that the answers to the questions do not end with “fail to reject the null.” The mayor does not care what the p-value is. The U.S. Census, despite its name and intentions, does not do an actual head count of every person in the country. A bad purchasing decision affects every citizen’s welfare, even for something as inconsequential as a pressure gauge at a nuclear reactor. These and myriad other factoids spur-ring off the intersection of statistics and public administration illustrate that the outputs of a study need to be closely related to the outcomes



and then put into the context of the admini-strative objectives.

My teaching of statistics for social science stu-dents retains the formal trappings of the trad -itional approach, such as stating the alpha and insisting on a clear diagram of the confi dence interval on a normal distribution curve. Yet these must be supplemented with not only an interpretation of the statistical answers, but also an extension of the conclusion into its potential effect on administrative practice and, ultimately, social welfare. I continually remind students that statistics will not reveal big “T” truths or illuminate metaphysical certainties, but it can demonstrate the utility of some things within qualified circumstances.

My classroom experience teaching in the “traditional” method—that is to say, without explicitly introducing and emphasizing the neopragmatist consideration of cruelty—felt dis-connected. Students are always concerned with their grades, but earlier, non-neopragmatist iterations of the course found students to be more fixated on their answers being correct as determined by the answers on the key. Student responses to interviews and their open-ended comments on course evaluations expressed con-cerns with their technical aptitude for statistics. By contrast, in later sections of the class taught with an explicit neopragmatist approach, some students still struggled with the mechanics of statistics, but there was a palpable difference in that their frustrations were directed not so much at the complexities of calculating the standard error as at the fact that the difficulties of statistics could lead to cruelties. These stu-dents’ concern was for the appropriate applica-tion and interpretation of statistics, a long-term orientation that is much more satisfying than just mastering the operations to pass a test.

This shift in understanding was illustrated by the popularity of an assignment that I intro-duced under the neopragmatist approach to the class: to write a research proposal. I positioned

the assignment as a “grade-saver” insofar as it was a sizable portion of the course grade that called on the students to apply the theoretical properties of statistics to an everyday problem without concern for doing the actual number crunching. In essence, I asked students to make a coherent argument to analyze a current issue of public administration using statistics, paying special attention to how the quantitative research design would fit the context with explicit consideration of the social progress im-plications of its potential conclusions. In other words, they had to propose the right tool for the job and give a thorough explanation of how it could improve the world.

In the context of public administration, this goes toward what Carl Friedrich (1940) called “publicity,” meaning the bureaucrat’s respons-ibility to provide clear justification for decisions and action. A result of this assignment (as an exercise in neopragmatism) was the interesting variables and models that students proposed as they sought ways to measure and reduce cruelty. For instance, one student operationalized a mea-sure of “destitution” to indicate how sus cept ible immigrants would be to gang influences in metropolitan Detroit. Another student outlined a survey to capture the experienced effects of a neighborhood stabilization program on long-term residents in the neighborhood; a far cry from relying on median home values, tax assess-ments, and the proportion of owner-occupied properties to evaluate the equity of such public policies on distressed urban areas.

Statistics is a technique that must be justified for each use, regardless of whether the problem is a relatively straightforward calculation for person-nel allocation or a murky quandary over sewer routing. An example of a classroom exercise that I liked to use would be to ask students to assess the effectiveness of police shifts (i.e., five 8-hour shifts or four 10-hour shifts). As this kind of administrative action is happening in almost every state, there are other studies and data available. But the issue is loaded with

D . O . Kasdan


context-specific ramifications for a government as well as citizens that need to be considered when trying to design a model to capture dimensions of equity, social progress, and potential cruelties. These considerations could take form in police force absenteeism, increases in harassment complaints, or even unexpected wear on equipment (“Like coffeemakers!” one student joked). All of these aspects speak to broader concerns than the cost savings or other administrative indicators that most often drive such decisions. The neopragmatist approach serves to ensure that these things are given due consideration; the question of police shift length is multifaceted and open to the debate that is incumbent on public administration to entertain.

Another example of this approach is a lesson, always effective for students, about the implications of using the median or the mean to understand income inequality. News coverage and policy action taken with “the average income” in mind is fraught with problems, as the outliers are either marginalized (median) or overindulged (mean). To make the discussion in class especially prescient, I use the university’s published salary data for faculty and staff to illustrate what it means when there are labor negotiations over a cost-of-living increase or a proposed increase in tuition. Suffice it to say, students often gain awareness of a previously unknown cruelty when they see the salary difference between a professor and a basketball coach. The neopragmatist angle to such a lesson is that summary statistics and inferences based on such can be horri - bly misleading if not outright wrong. The construction of a hypothesis around the issue, such as, “Faculty salaries are fairly competitive for university employees,” shows how statistics can contribute to—but not conclude—issues in the real world.

The most simple neopragmatist advice for teaching statistics to public administration students is to enforce the objective through an appendage. That is to say, every question,

problem, and answer should include the phrase “as it reduces cruelty in the world.” Before signing off on a community needs assessment survey, contextualize the questions as they would inform a course to improve social pro-gress. After analyzing the racial demo graphics of a city to determine the effectiveness of an urban renewal campaign, ensure that the rejection of the null hypothesis is accompanied by the indication of confidence as well as a meaningful statement of how that campaign has affected the level of inequality for citizens. Students begin to anticipate and appreciate this predication as a sort of neopragmatist condi-tioning that keeps statistics within the realm of their academic and practical interests. In the spirit of the philosophy’s antifoundationalist attitude, the teaching approach is to provide tools (i.e., the formulae of statistics) and then open discourse to allow consensus by the students as to the utility of those tools for a variety of administrative contexts.

cONcluSiON…aS iT reduceS cruelTY iN THe WOrldThe statistics teacher has long struggled to apply lessons to students’ experiences (Smith & Martinez-Moyano, 2012; Zieffler et al., 2008); this struggle is exacerbated when the class is the sole quantitative study course in the public administration curriculum. In essence, there is an extenuating obstacle in what public administration students consider to be their cognitive interests and their need to pass a required course that, on the surface, might not directly inform those interests. For many students, numeracy ended with high school algebra and home economics. For many more, statistics is some sort of scientific witchcraft that is better left to specialists. Part of the challenge of teaching statistics is to engage the students in the subject’s pertinence to many endeavors, as well as to convey statistics’ access-ibility to even the most arithmophobic learner.

As the neopragmatist approach demonstrates, a method’s validity and utility is a shared



determination (Rorty, 1991); without a democratic discourse about statistics, it will remain a tool for a particular subset of intellects who will command the definition of cruelty within their own narrow interests. Neoprag ma-tism is an approach to research design and justification in public administration, rather than a full-fledged call for a scientific revolution to re-create quantitative analysis in postmodern terms. Whereas traditional science puts validity first and foremost as its objective, a neoprag ma-tist approach promotes the alleviation of cruelty as the ultimate goal and subjugates validity as an ancillary, context-dependent, and discur sive ly determined outcome. This positioning helps students see the data of public policy problems as a potentiality for informing useful outcomes.

Neopragmatism’s ironic epistemology—that we are all in on the joke but still act as if our lang-uage has something to do with the world when all it really has to do with is communication about our language—lightens the mood of quant itative analysis. If students treat statistics as a language puzzle rather than a positivist chore battered by a never-ending list of eponymous tests, then they can more easily accept it in their cognitive framework. Dewey (1916) makes a concerted effort to discuss how “interest and discipline” hinge on students’ connectedness to the subject, which is the instructor’s respons-ibility to ensure. If challenged with a classroom of recalcitrant public administration students and the equation for the correlation coefficient, such an instructor would point out that “the problem of instruction is thus that of finding material which will engage a person in specific activities having an aim or purpose of moment or interest to him, and dealing with things not as gymnastic appliances but as conditions for the attainment of ends” (Dewey, 1916, p. 155). Teaching statistics for social science students can be a successful endeavor from Dewey’s perspective by bridging the divide, unifying “an independent mind on one side and an inde p - en dent world of objects and facts on the other” (1912, p. 162).

For students, it is a far leap from deriving the standard error of the sampling mean to know-ing that one can get an “irregular” group of respondents on any particular day that might warp one’s explanation of a phenomenon. Stu-dents sometimes feel as though statistics is something wholly different from their disci-pline, rather than accepting it as a tool within their field’s pursuit of understanding. Abelson notes, “For many students, statistics is an island, separated from other aspects of the research enterprise. Statistics is viewed as an un-pleasant obligation, to be dismissed as rapid ly as possible so that they can get on with the rest of their lives” (1995, p. xii). In other words, he holds that teaching is the illumination of how thinking and doing are connected, foreshadowing our contemporary pedagogical buzzword: engagement.

This paper offers an approach that extends the findings of previous studies about the difficulties of teaching statistics in both the general (Adenay & Carey, 2011; Garfield, 1995; Payne & Williams, 2011; Tishkovskaya & Lancaster, 2012; Zieffler et al., 2008) and specific (Fitzpatrick, 2000; Smith & Martinez-Moyano, 2012) public administration contexts. The findings from using a neopragmatist approach are anecdotal: I tried it in three iterations of an introductory statistics course at a single institution. Yet there has been positive feedback, if not a measurable difference in outcomes (analyzing grades is inconclusive and inappropriate). Responses to open-ended questions on the course evaluations for sections that emphasized a neopragmatist approach were encouraging: students acknowledged that framing statistics as a means to assess cruelty was helpful to their understanding, as well as recognized that the idea of statistics as just a tool to make help make administrative decisions was conducive to their success in the course.2

Fixing the objective as “less cruelty” leads to utility and operational truths being assessed by their assistance in getting humankind closer to

D . O . Kasdan


that goal. If quantitative empirical analysis can advance social progress to a state of less cruelty, then it is useful.

NOTeS

1 A real example of this drove the point home: During my first term teaching the graduate course in quantitative methods, I intended to use some basic demographic data about the students in the class to introduce the concept of a dummy variable (0 = male, 1 = female). One of my students was transgender.

2 I taught three sections of the undergraduate in-troduction to quantitative methods course while conscientiously using a neopragmatist approach, in comparison to two earlier sections of the course that I taught in the “traditional” format. The “sample” was from a single institution from 2012–2013 with 58 students completing the course. An analysis of grades or other metrics to show a relationship be tween the neopragmatist and “traditional” ap proaches of teach ing statistics to public admin istration students would be inappropriate, given the issue of academ-ic records privacy and the myriad variables in the course content that would confound any results for the sample size. Nonetheless, direct conversations with select students after the course was completed reinforced the positive sentiments about the neo-pragmatist approach.

refereNceS

Abellanosa, R. (2010). Rorty’s philosophy of education: Between orthodoxy and vulgar relativism. Kritike, 4(2), 87–104.

Abelson, R. (1995). Statistics as principled argument . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Adenay, K. & Carey, S. (2011). How to teach the reluctant and terrified to love statistics: The importance of context in teaching quantitative methods in the social sciences. In G. Payne & M.

Williams, (Eds.), Teaching quantitative methods (pp. 85–98) . London, UK: Sage.

Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Baert, P. (2005). Philosophy of the social sciences: Towards pragmatism . Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Elshtain, J. (2003). Don’t be cruel: Reflections on Rortian liberalism. In C. Guignon and D. Hiley (Eds.), Richard Rorty (pp. 139–157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Friedrich, C. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy, 1(1), 1–20.

Fitzpatrick, J. (2000). What are our goals in teaching research methods to public administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24 (1), 173–181.

Gal, I. (2002). Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70 (1), 1–51.

Garfield, J. (1995). How students learn statistics. International Statistical Review, 63 (1), 25–34.

Hildebrand, D. (2003). The neopragmatist turn. Southwest Philosophy Review, 19(1), 79–88.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chica- go Press.

Lindley, D. (2000). The philosophy of statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 49, 293–337.

Payne, G. & Williams, M. (Eds.). (2011). Teaching quantitative methods . London, UK: Sage.

Pearson, E. (1990). ‘Student .’ Oxford, UK: Claren- don Press.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery . New York, NY: Routledge.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope . London, UK: Penguin Group.

Shklar, J. (1984). Ordinary vices . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise . New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Smith, A. & Martinez-Moyano, I. (2012). Techniques in teaching statistics: Linking research production and research use. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(1), 107–136.

Swartz, O. (1997). Conducting socially responsible research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tishkovskaya, S., & Lancaster, G. (2012). Statistical education in the 21st century: A review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform [Online]. Journal of Statistics Education, 20(2). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v20n2/tishkovskaya.pdf

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.) (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Zieffler, A., Garfield, J., Alt, S., Dupuis, D., Holleque, K., & Chang, B. (2008). What does research suggest about the teaching and learning of introductory statistics at the college level? A review of the literature [Online]. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v16n2/zieffler.html

abOuT THe auTHOr

david Oliver Kasdan is assistant professor of public administration at Incheon National Uni-versity in South Korea. His research interests include neopragmatism, behavioral economics, disaster management, and social justice.

D . O . Kasdan


Public employee unions have been a center of state and national political conflict and media attention in recent years. Despite some labor successes in California, Georgia, North Caro-lina, Oklahoma, and Texas (Greenhouse, 2013), new state laws—notably in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Jersey—have rolled back the power of organized labor by enacting collective bargaining restrictions, right-to-work statutes, pay freezes, and/or bene-fit cuts. The most dramatic of related events was the spontaneous working-class uprising in Wisconsin during the winter of 2010–2011, the

size and intensity of which had not been seen in generations.

A self-induced Wisconsin state budget shortfall, resulting from corporate tax breaks, was used to curtail public employee rights and scale back pay and benefits (“Governor Walker’s Pretext,” 2011). The surprise introduction of a bill that would decimate collective bargaining led to more than 10,000 people demonstrating at the state capitol in three weeks of around-the-clock protests. Some legislators fled to Illinois in an effort to forestall passage of the bill, but a late-

Labor-Management Relations in Public (and Business) Administration:

A Textbook Case?

James S. bowmanFlorida State University

Jonathan P. WestUniversity of Miami

abSTracTUnions are a perennial topic of controversy in American society. This article examines the attention that labor-management relations receive in introductory public administration textbooks. These publications define the focus of the field, its paradigm, and its essential elements; they also likely affect how the subject is presented in the classroom. Given the interest in labor-management relations and their place in the administrative state, how is the topic portrayed in beginning texts? This investigation provides an overview of contemporary union activity and a description of the methodology used, followed by the study findings. While all books reviewed give some attention to employer-employee relations, the context and content of the coverage is, at best, modest. The analysis briefly compares public and business administration texts in each subsection of the findings, and generally reveals small differences between them. The conclusion discusses the implications of the data.

KeYWOrdSPublic sector unions, labor-management relations, public administration textbooks, business administration textbooks

JPAE 21 (3), 449–466


night party-line vote, with little debate on the 140-page bill, ensured that it became law. When the state supreme court narrowly upheld the statute, recall elections of four key legis la tors, and later the governor, took place; the governor won, while two lawmakers did not (Buhle & Buhle, 2011; Nichols, 2012).

At the national level, organized labor has been un able to secure passage of the long-sought Em ployee Free Choice Act (to strengthen the ability of workers to organize and to seek in-junc tions against unfair labor practices). Pro-union forces also lost a hotly contested union elec tion at a Tennessee Volkswagen assembly plant in 2014. Additionally, in Harris v . Quinn (2014), the Supreme Court, in permitting part-time employees to opt out of union membership, made it more difficult to organize workers.

The labor movement has been able, however, to block, and even repeal, legislation detrimental to employees (e.g., reforms at the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Sec-urity; see Brook & King, 2011; Tobias, 2010). In addition, some 50,000 Transportation Security Agency airport personnel were unionized in 2011. A year later, the Chicago public school strike led to a 17% salary increase for teachers. Finally, 2014 witnessed several important events: the National Labor Relations Board issued a landmark complaint against Walmart, accusing the corporation of violating labor law in its treatment of striking workers (Kolker & Drawbaugh, 2014); the National Labor Rela-tions Board also ruled, in the spring, that college football players have a right to form a union and to collectively bargain (Rhoden, 2014); and University of Connecticut graduate student assistants successfully unionized (Green-blatt, 2014).

These developments are best understood in the larger context of the long-standing deteriora-tion of the labor movement in the country. It has stemmed from use of part-time temporary workers in full-time positions, outsourcing of jobs to private contractors, relocation of plants to right-to-work states, shipping of jobs overseas, and depressed wages and benefits for union

members and nonmembers alike. If the Great Depression of the 1930s invigorated unions, the Great Recession of contemporary times evis cer-ated them. In Wisconsin, for example, the new law could have simply abolished collective bar-gaining completely. Instead, the state legislature enacted numerous incentives for employees to quit their unions. This had the effect of making it seem that the destruction of the unions was their own fault (Greenhouse, 2014).

By 2013, the percentage of workers in unions fell to 11.3%, the lowest level since 1916 (Greenhouse, 2013). Public servants (notably teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, and postal personnel) now account for more than half of unionized employees, as nearly four in 10 government personnel are union members compared with fewer than one in 10 corporate workers. This reflects the dissolution of the post–World War II social contract at work as both private and public sector employees confront restrictive systems of labor control. As Meyerson (2013b) writes, “traditional collective bargaining has all but vanished from the economic landscape—taking raises, benefits, job security, and much of the American middle class with it” (para. 2).

Deep-seated corporate antiunion animus, regu-latory systems indifferent to worker rights, the disappearance of the labor beat from the mass media, union excesses, and a union role conver-sion (from collective action to benefit all work-ers to providing services for existing members) have undermined the support and legitimacy of the labor movement (Burns, 2011; Richards, 2008). Indeed by 2013, just 51% of Americans had a favorable view of unions as contrasted with 72% in 1936 (Boris, 2012; Meyerson, 2013a). “Organized labor,” write Richard C. Kearney and Patrice Mare schal, “has not told a compelling story of why today’s workers should want to join a union, nor has it manufactured the positive public image and support necessary to nurture a receptive audience” (2014, p. 13) —although the trendsetting millennial gener-ation holds much more favorable attitudes about unions compared to older Americans (Green-blatt, 2014, p. 20).

J . S . Bowman & J . P . West


Notwithstanding their precarious state today, unions remain a political force and play a role in promoting economic development, health care, and education, and in mobilizing voters in political campaigns. There are few other nationwide organizations that support the broad range of middle-class economic interests. Yet Riccucci asks, “is there a ‘there’ there?” finding that public administration research on labor relations “is sporadic and uneven, perhaps negligible” (2011, p. 203; see also Francia, 2006). Riccucci notes that work on government labor-management relations is done by scholars in law, economics, and business, but seldom by public administration scholars. Chester A. Newland—in a question-and-answer session following Elaine Kamark’s keynote spe ech on the failure of management in the federal government at the 2014 Annual Meet ing of the American Society of Public Administration—stated that the profession had no one to blame but itself for this state of affairs, as it had abandoned administration and implementation problems in the last generation to focus on public policy issues.

Given the considerable interest in the topic of labor-management relations—at least outside of the public administration academy—this study examines the attention that com pre hen-sive introductory works devote to it. Such works define the proper domain and focus of a dis-cipline, its paradigm, and its essential ele ments. These publications are unique be cause they ex-pose readers to “proper thinking” about the subject, and as such, they must strive to be “impeccable” (Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, quoted in Henry, 2013, p. vii). Introductory texts also likely affect how workplace relations are presented and under stood in the classroom. Their significance is enhanced by the fact that many graduate public policy and public ad-ministration programs do not require human resource management or employee relations coursework in their curriculum. As a rough indicator, just three of the top 20 Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs require a core human resource management course; none require labor-management relations. Thus, the initial master’s degree class may be one of

the few opportunities for students to examine the topic.

Labor-management relations is a seminal field in the study of public administration because it performs a sanctioning role (Klingner, Nal ban-dian, & Llorens, 2009) by defining the terms of the employer-employee interaction. The field authorizes, through collective bargaining, the work ing conditions and activities of the ad-ministrative state, the effects of which are visible throughout society. Its domain includes the employer and employee capacity to run the machinery of government, thereby helping to complete agency missions and achieve the goals of democratic governance. As such, the found-ations of the discipline of public administration, as well as its functions, have been and will be, directly or indirectly, affected by labor-manage-ment relations. All textbooks, accordingly, dis-cuss the subject, and it is reasonable to ask what is, and might be, included. Such self-portraits have important implications for public admin-istration and the citizens it serves.1 The same, of course, can be said for business administration and its customers.

The data reported here should be of concern to the entire profession: those involved in standard setting and accreditation (who could encourage consideration of the subject), practicing mana-gers (who sometimes wonder about the efficacy of academic treatises), book authors and pub-lishers (who might review topical coverage in their publications), and students and instructors (who may wish to check the adequacy of the text they use). The current investigation con-tinues with an overview of contemporary union activity. The conceptual framework used in the research is then presented, followed by the findings from the study. This article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the data.

bacKgrOuNd: OVerVieW aNd diMeNSiONS Of eMPlOYee relaTiONSGiven the central place of labor relations in public management, it is useful to briefly can-vass labor relations’ role in current public ad-ministration theory and practice. Three specific topics are discussed below: contemporary

Labor-Management Relations


history, pertinent laws, and collective bargaining processes. Many of the comments here pertain to the field of business administration as well.

The final quarter of the 20th century was a time of economic flux and uncertainty: energy crises, stagflation, and the beginnings of the demise of the labor movement during the 1970s; global competition and deindustrialization in the 1980s; and the “new economy” of the 1990s. What emerged, through programs of dereg-ulation and privatization, were doctrines and policies advocating reliance on the market to allocate society’s resources. This approach saw its fullest expression in the initial decade of the new millennium, when markets were regarded as good, efficient, nonpartisan, and objective. Public provision of goods and services was seen as an obstacle to economic development as neoliberalism became the dominant ideology through which economic activity was to be understood. Government policies to buffer cit-izens from the business cycle were altered in the name of market-based strategies. New Public Management prescriptions aimed at the welfare state sought to reduce government’s capacity to act; weaken merit system protec tions, job security, and worker rights; and privatize much of the civil service.

The rise and decline of unions in contemporary history is well documented: representing over one third of the workplace by midcentury, they were a countervailing power against business and government in American democracy (Early, 2013; Galbraith, 2010; Reich, 2007). Viewed as the champion of the underdog, organized labor was influential in many policy debates (e.g., trade, taxes, fair labor standards, social security, civil rights, public education, health care, equal pay for women, workplace safety). Its gains went well beyond on-the-job concerns, transforming the lives of all Americans and helping build the middle class.

The achievements made by private sector unions did not go unnoticed by civil servants. A surge in public service unionism resulted from President John F. Kennedy’s 1962 executive order authorizing federal worker unionization and limited collective bargaining

rights, as well as from laws passed in 41 states granting collective bargaining or meet-and-confer rights to all or part of their workforce.2 Overall, compensation and productivity doub-led in American society during the first 30 years after World War II.

During the next 30 years, labor’s clout di-minished as the effects of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (outlawing actions by unions not involved in a dispute and undermining unions in “right-to-work” states) and the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 (allowing hiring of non-union workers and permitting them to vote in union certification elections) became mani fest. Historian Colin Gordon (2013) writes:

And labor continued to reel through the con cessionary bargaining of the 1970s and 1980s—an era highlighted by the fili-bust er of labor law reform in 1978, the Reagan administration’s crushing of the PATCO [Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization] strike, the Chrysler bailout (which set the template for “too big to fail” corporate rescues built around deep concessions by work-ers), and the passage of anti-worker trade deals with Mexico and China [in the 1990s]. (p. 34)

Perhaps the single most telling event was the 1981 PATCO strike:

Abraham Lincoln valued organized labor; Grover Cleveland sent the army to sup-press it; Harry Truman challenged the right to strike in coal, rail, and steel; Lyndon Johnson acted on issues of work-place health. But it was left to Ronald Reagan, the nation’s fortieth president, to do what none had done before: destroy a labor union. Reagan’s deci mation in 1981 of PATCO would prove a seminal failure of labor-management relations in America, one from which the labor movement has never fully recovered.…the showdown with the nation’s air traffic controllers would reveal the extent to which the ground had weakened under labor’s feet. (Dray, 2011, p. 616)



The results of this erosion of worker rights have been palpable and deleterious: the shift of eco-nomic risk from employers to employees has caused hardship and anxiety in the workforce, the fear of fringe benefit and/or job loss leaving large segments of society feeling financially in-secure (Hacker, 2006; West & Bowman, 2008). The union movement, in fact, has been on the defensive to protect fair labor standards established during the New Deal, given that pay and benefits have largely reached a plateau during the last 30 years.

Victim of its earlier success in improving com-pensation and working conditions, organized labor came to be viewed as just another special interest unsuited to a changing economy and unjustly protective of marginal employees. The National Labor Relations Board did little to curb businesses’ union-busting strategies. Rele-vant laws made it very difficult for workers to organize, union-avoidance consultants enabled firms to operate union-free, and when offenses occurred, companies were seldom penalized (Bronfenbrenner, 2009; Getman, 2012; Gree-nhouse, 2009; Logan, 2006).3

In the public arena, after the dramatic rise in the 1960s and 1970s, union membership flat-lined in the 1980s, and has remained stagnant since that time, due to chronic fiscal stress, limited government growth, privatization, and taxpayer hostility. While these trends occurred earlier in the business sector, in both private and public administration, the market—absent a strong labor movement—does not assure that employees will share in the benefits of increased productivity and economic growth.4 Indeed, the combination of suppression of employee organizations, weak enforcement of labor laws, and violations of worker rights in the United States is unique among advanced nations (Delaney, 2005; Kearney & Mareschal, 2014, p. 32).

In short, important facets of labor-management relations include its evolution, legal basis, and collective bargaining procedures. These found-ational elements help inform the analysis below.

THe STudYIncluded here are elementary public admini-stration textbooks currently in print (n = 11, see Table 1); not considered are supplemental works (e.g., Fry & Raadschelders, 2008), readers, and casebooks (e.g., Stillman, 2010), as well as instructor manuals and teaching materials that sometimes accompany beginning texts. These primary works, as noted, are an appropriate barometer because they certify the significance of labor relations in the profession. In addition to the public administration textbooks, six of the many beginning business administration textbooks (see Table 2) were considered to provide an adequate basis for brief comparisons.

The next section reports raw data on the context of management-union relations material in the publications: the amount and placement of the topic, the use of graphics, and sources cited. The three-part interpretive framework below was used to evaluate the content of relevant coverage in the texts. The following categories focus on employer-employee relations in the field—why it is essential, what it is, and how it is presented.

1. The stated (or implied) importance of the topic (the nature of the justification for inclusion in the text).

2. The definition of labor-management relations (the presence of an explanation of the term).

3. The style of the discussion (the descrip tive or normative quality of the narra tive).

While the taxonomy facilitates the task at hand, it is certainly not definitive; the classifications are, however, reasonable and useful for exploratory purposes. The present authors independently evaluated the texts; ambiguous cases were discussed and resolved. Since the purpose is to provide an overview of the general treatment of the subject, individual texts are not evaluated separately (for a review of public administration texts, see Beckett-Camarata & Dudley, 2010; also refer to Rouse, 2013); examples from the database, however, are used to illustrate the inquiry.



Table 1summary of labor-Management relations in public Administration Texts

Textbook title, edition, author names and

year publishedChapter or section title

Page range(s) relevant pages

Total N pages in book

% Relevant pages

The Craft of Public Admini-stration (10th ed.), by Berkeley & Rouse (2008)

Public Sector Labor Relations

162–202 359 11.42

Public Administration: An Action Orientation (7th ed.), by Denhardt, Denhardt, & Blanc (2014)

The Changing Charac ter of Labor-Management Relations

224–232 445 2.02

Public Administration: A Three-Dimensional Approach (1st ed.), by Hill & Lynn Jr. (2009)

Unions

Whistleblowers

NLRB

Department of Labor

Collective Bargaining

Public Employees

Teachers

84, 86

108, 201, 206, 297–299

109

136

155–156

155, 353

157, 359, 415

418 3.83

Public Administration and Public Affairs (12th ed.), by Henry (2013)

The Collective System

279–282 482 .83

Public Administration: An Introduction (1st ed.), by Holzer & Schwester (2011)

Creating a Quality Work Environment

127–130 490 .82

Public Administration: Part- nerships in Public Service (4th ed.), by Johnson (2009)

Public Employee Organizations & Bargaining

244–246 390 .77

The Politics of the Admini-strative Process (6th ed.), by Kettl (2015)

Civil Service

Human Capital

207–211

233–235, 255–257

612 1.80

Administration in the Public Interest: Principles, Policies, and Practices (1st ed.), by King & Chilton (2009)

Processes of Person-nel Administration

Historical Precedents

Process of Labor- Managment Relations

180

181

182

375 .80

Public Administration in America (11th ed.), by Milakovich & Gordon (2013)

Collective Bargaining & Personnel Relations

301–312 672 .45

Public Administration: Under standing Manage-ment, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector (4th ed.), by Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin (2009)


Labor-Management Partnership

Conclusion

242–246

246–247

247

580 1.03

Introducing Public Admini-stration (8th ed.), by Shafritz, Russell, & Borick (2013)

Public Sector Labor Relations

413–426 572 2.45

TOTALS 5,395 2.28

Notes. All texts are listed with full publication data in the References section. NLRB = National Relations Board.



Textbook title, edition, author names and

year publishedChapter or section title

Page range(s) relevant pages

Total N pages in book

% Relevant pages

Business (11th ed.), by Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor (2012)

Enhancing Union-Management Relations

307–329 634 3.63

Business: A Changing World (9th ed.), by Ferrell, Hirt, & Ferrell (2013)

Labor as HR

Manufacturing vs. Service

Managing Unionized Employees


Resolving Disputes

Labor Unions

8

245

317

318

319–321

332, 444

549 1.64

Contemporary Business (15th ed.), by Boone & Kurtz (2012)


250–254 649 .77

The Personal MBA: Master the Art of Business (Reprint ed.), by Kaufman (2012)

Next Best Alternative

Negotiations (generic)

111–118

119–121

376 2.93

Business Essentials (9th ed.), by Ebert & Griffin (2012)

Labor (HR)

Dealing with Organ ized Labor


7

257

258–261

459 1.31

Understanding Business (10th ed.) by Nickels, McHugh, & McHugh (2012)

Labor as a Factor of Production

Labor Productivity

Ethical Values in Employee Manage- ment Relations

Fairness in Employee Management

Sweatshop Conditions

Employee Management Relations in Small Business

Helping vs. Coaching

Apprentice Programs

Unions

Issues of Employee Management

Impact of Technology in Employee Manage-ment Relations

9–10

15

94–96, 205

102

106–108

169–170

270

304–305

322–337

340–345

B–19

656 5.95

TOTALS 3,323 2.80

Notes. All texts are listed with full publication data in the References section. HR = human resources.

Table 2summary of labor-Management relations Con tent in business Administration Texts



fiNdiNgS

contextBy definition, the introductory texts typically pre-sent parameters of the profession by de voting chapters to the broad scope of the field. (The average length of public admin istration books is over 490 pages vs. 553 pages in business administration books; see Tables 1 and 2.) In public administration this includes such topics as the political environment, history of the field, democracy and bureaucracy, organi zation theory and behavior, inter governmental rela-tions, human resource manage ment, planning-implementation-evaluation, budgeting and fin-ance, policy decision making, productivity and performance management, leadership, account-ability, and cognate subjects. These issues are covered in a span of 10 chapters (one text) to 14 chapters (four books).

Public sector labor-management relations ap-pear as a part of a human resource management chap ter in eight of the 11 reviewed public ad-min istration volumes:

•Johnson (2009), three pages.•King and Chilton (2009), three pages.•Henry (2013), four pages.•Holzer and Schwester (2012), four pages•Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, and Clerkin

(2009), six pages.•Denhardt, Denhardt, and Blanc (2014),

nine pages.•Milakovich and Gordon (2013),

12 pages.•Shafritz, Russell, and Borick (2013),

14 pages.

Kettl (2015) contains two human resource chapters that address the topic in a total of 11 pages. One work, Berkley and Rouse (2008), devotes a separate, 41-page chapter to employ-ment relations (see Table 1). The total coverage constitutes 2.28% of the total page count of the 11 publications (123 of 5,395 pages).5

The texts, when considered together, include subject matter such as historical development of unions, differences in public-private unioni-

zation, federal-state-local issues, collective bar-gain ing, impasse procedures, and strikes, as well as specific topics such as air traffic controllers, teacher unions, and union-busting. Landmark laws and executive actions (e.g., the Lloyd-La-Follette Act of 1912, the National Labor Rela-tions Act of 1935, President John F. Ken nedy’s 1962 Executive Order 10988, and the Civ il Service Reform Act of 1978) also can be found in some of these narratives. In addi tion, com-monly found index listings in selected volumes include at-will employment, American Federa-tion of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Professional Air Traffic Control-lers Organization (PATCO), union density, pay pre miums, and work stoppage alternatives.6

Most labor-management discussions are illu-stra ted by various kinds of graphics (e.g., tables, charts, figures, exhibits, cases, cartoons, photos), although five books have none. While Berkley and Rouse’s (2008) chapter has 10 tables, three exhibits, and two figures, the relevant material in most books has one graphic (although Mila-kovich and Gordon [2013] supply four and Kettl [2015] offers three). The coverage was substantiated by considering the number of citations (ranging from 3 to 67); six books have a suggested human resource management read-ing list, but only one includes labor-manage-ment sources in it. The references comprise a variety of sources (e.g., human resources and labor relations texts, Bureau of Labor Statistics, anthologies, journal articles, and newspaper stories authored by scholars, government offi-cials, and journalists).

Business administration texts likewise discuss the history of labor unions, current trends in their membership, collective bargaining, nego-tiating tactics available to management and labor, and the laws regulating labor-manage-ment interactions. Only one of the six textbooks examined devotes a separate chapter to the topic of labor-management relations (Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor, 2012), though another both dedicated a final section of its human resource chap ter to labor-management relations and gave it pride of place in the chapter title (“Human Resource Management: From Recruitment to Labor Rela-tions,” Chapter 8 in Boone & Kurtz, 2012).



Three of the other four books—Ferrell, Hirt, and Ferrell (2013); Nickels, McHugh, and Mc-Hugh (2012); and Ebert and Griffin (2012)—offer their remarks on these issues throughout the text, while the fourth discusses strategies that would be useful in collective bargaining, but without mentioning either labor or man-agement by name (Kaufman, 2012). Also like their public administration counterparts, most of the business administration textbooks (in fact, all but one) make use of graphs, charts, tables, and photos in their coverage of topics and supplement conceptual discussions with concrete examples and cases. Nichols and col-leagues (2012) include seven pictures, five figures, and one cartoon; Pride and colleagues (2012) provide seven pictures, three graphs, two figures, and three cases; Ferrell and colleagues (2013) feature two figures, one picture, and one case; Boone and Kurtz (2012) display one figure and one picture; Ebert and Griffin (2012) provide only one figure. The number of citations ranged from zero (Kaufman, 2012) to 53 (Nichols et al., 2012). Three of the books (Boone & Kurtz, 2012; Ebert & Griffin, 2012; and Nichols et al., 2012) include separate columns in the text with for-mal definitions of terms. Nichols and colleagues (2012) also include review/dis cus sion questions and skill-building exercises.

While labor-management relations represented 2.28% of total coverage in public administra-tion textbooks, the coverage in business admin-istra tion was 2.80% of the total pages in the six textbooks (93 of 3,323 pages; see Table 2).

contentWith the descriptive background data in hand, the focus now shifts to the content of the liter-ature: how the books perceive labor-manage ment relations. Using the framework outlined earlier —the rationale for considering the topic, its definition, and the style of presentation—the findings are shown below.

Importance and Definition. Eight of the public administration publications contain a stated justi fication for examining the subject, ranging from (a) its pervasive nature to (b) the value of amicable employee relations, (c) cost con cerns,

(d) the importance of limits on collective bar-gain ing, (e) equity problems, (f ) the need for em ployee protections, (g) the corrective for asym metric power relations, and (h) the desir-ability of avoiding strikes. Thus, Denhardt and col leagues (2014, p. 224) observe that labor-man agement relations (notably the rise and de cline of unions) “cuts across the field of human resource manage ment.” King and Chil-ton (2009, p. 180) indicate that “protection of public personnel rights and responsibilities is the focus” of collective bargaining, a function that can affect “the public through indirect and direct economic, social, and political means” and can reorder “the power relations between man-age ment and labor.” Similarly, Hill and Lynn (2009, pp. 155–156) highlight the signi ficance of the “protection principle,” stress ing “the con-tinued necessity of rules constraining man ag-erial discretion” and how provisions in col lec-tively negotiated labor contracts can protect employees from “reprisals or arbitrary decisions by public officials.” Holzer and Schwester (2012, p. 127), in turn, emphasize that “public administration scholars… agree that harmonious labor-management relation ships are central to improving employee performance.”

Johnson (2009, p. 246) suggests, with some cav-eats, that unionized workforces increase government costs, arguing that “nearly all observers believe that collective bargaining has increased the expenditures of government.” 7 Rosen bloom and colleagues (2009, p. 244) write that “the main point of limited scope of bargaining is to ensure that matters of public policy are deter-mined by representative government institu tions rather than through a special process that shares political authority with private organizations.”

Kettl (2015, pp. 206–207), meanwhile, focuses on equity concerns and public/private union i-za tion differentials, maintaining that “the norm of equity calls for similar treatment for people in similar situations [including compen sa tion] … and for the right … to organize and bargain collectively.” And last, Shafritz and colleagues (2013, p. 414) point out that the significance of the subject “is painfully evident to anyone who has ever sniffed through a garbage strike, walked through a transit strike, or suffered thro-



ugh the blue flu [sic].” The other three works simply continue their discussions of personnel management functions and civil service systems by adding employment relations topics.

How, then, do the texts interpret the term labor-management relations? Most do not attempt a formal, “textbook-like” definition; in fact, eight volumes provide no specific explanation, per haps seeing it as self-evident, but proceed with historical development, dynamics of col-lec tive bargaining, and current controversies. The re maining three publications, however, proffer the definitions quoted below:

•Labor-management relations: formal set - ting in which negotiations over pay, work-ing conditions, and benefits take place. [This definition is supplemented by these complementary explanations: (a) “labor- management relations represent a form of organizational participation permitting individuals and groups other than formal leaders to have a voice in directing the organization,” and (b) “an essential ele - ment of labor-management relations is the phenomenon of structured relationships between formally organized participants in a shared management process.”]

(Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p. 300)

•Labor relations: the term for all of the in teractions between union leaders (repre-senting the employees) and management (representing the corporation/jurisdic tion).

(Shafritz et al., 2013, p. 414)

•Labor-management relations: the center-piece of such formal relations [collective bargaining] to work out economic and work-related differences between labor and management.

(King & Chilton, 2009, p. 180)

In short, while there are negative, neutral, and affirmative reasons offered for including labor-management relations in these volumes, it is often seen as unnecessary to directly define the term.

Examination of the business administration books reveals similar portrayals of the import-

ance of the subject, though a few of the texts put a distinctively business-oriented interpret-ation on these shared themes. This overlap begins with the fact that the business books approach the topic in the context of human resource management. Thus, for example, Fer-rell and colleagues (2013) echo Denhardt and colleagues (2014) when they justify their dis-cussion of collective bargaining by observing that, due to the past success of union organizing in major industries, “significant aspects of HRM [human resources management], parti-cularly compensation, are dictated to a large degree by union contracts at many companies” (Ferrell et al., 2013, p. 317). This is comple-mented by Boone and Kurtz (2012, p. 250), who argue that organized labor’s lasting effects on the nature of the workplace and the business en vironment require the close attention of hu-man resources professionals, and the emphasis in Pride and colleagues (2012, p. 308) on the need for cooperation between labor and manage-ment in order to realize mutual benefits.

The other two books that directly address labor-management relations depart from this relatively neutral assessment. Although Nickels and colleagues (2012) stress how these issues require “goodwill,” the authors nevertheless seem to consider such issues to be just another set of “managerial challenges” in which the “hard decisions” businesses must make to max-imize profit “[limit] managers’ chances to win popularity contests with workers” (p. 324). Meanwhile, Ebert and Griffin (2012) more explicitly view the issue through the additional lens of productivity. They close their discussion of the subject by noting that “differences in employee talent and productivity” are not as “easily copied” by competing firms (vs. equip-ment and technology), and that therefore “most well-managed companies today recognize the value provided by their employees and strive to ensure that the human resource function is managed as efficiently and effectively as pos-sible” (Ebert & Griffin, 2012, p. 261).

Lastly, with respect to definitions, while all six of the business books define key terms such as



union (and distinguish between different types of unions), collective bargaining, labor contract, and others, only two offer explicit definitions of labor-management relations, and both do so in uncontroversial terms (see Ebert & Griffin, 2012, p. 257; Pride et al., 2012, p. 308). With these basics in hand, is the subject matter itself offered in a generally descriptive-objective or normative-subjective style, or in a blend of both by the public and private sector books?

Presentation Style . As befits a professional field, it might be anticipated that the publications would include normative views to complement the factual narratives customary in beginning textbooks. Berkley and Rouse (2008), for example, observe that

trade unionism, according to its detractors, erodes the concepts of government work as a public service. Unions perpetuate some of the worst features of personnel systems.…[In contrast,] history shows that labor union membership contribut-ed significantly to the relative affluence and attendant independence of middle-class Americans. (p. 194)

They argue that “unions are still needed to pro-tect the worker. Evidence shows that as unions decline, the gap between executive and worker pay is growing” (Berkley & Rouse, 2008, p. 193).

Yet descriptive material predominates in nearly all of the public administration publications reviewed here. Indeed, the typical approach is to provide an expository account, in various degrees of detail, of the topics noted earlier (e.g., the evolution of unions, their legal foundation, differences between the United States and other nations, contrasts between government and business arenas, the scope of union activity, collective bargaining, effects of organized labor). Holzer and Schwester (2012, p. 127 and following pages), however, do not include these subjects; instead they advocate fos tering labor-management cooperation, part-nerships, and productivity as part of “creating a quality work environment.”

By and large, the business management textbooks mirror the neutral, descriptive style of the public administration texts. With the exception of the occasional business-oriented language described in the previous section, their coverage proceeds by dispassionately des-cribing the needs and interests of both labor and management, their sometimes fraught history, their relative standings in the current economic environment, and the theoretical un-derpinnings of their relationship. Apart from that, the only other significant difference is that when first introducing labor, almost all of the business texts do so by describing it as a “factor of production” and, typically, following up with a discussion of labor productivity (see Ebert & Griffin, 2012, p. 7; Ferrell et al., 2013, pp. 8, 245; Nickels et al., 2012, pp. 9–10, 15). This is, of course, to be expected from pub lications oriented toward the successful man age ment of a business; however, it does not seem to unduly color their portrayal of org an ized labor. This finding nevertheless reinforces the fact that such texts necessarily approach the issue with a preconceived set of concerns, in which labor is sometimes a means rather than an end in itself.

To summarize briefly, few books contained a stated or implied logic for including the topic of labor-management relations; many did not provide a rigorous definition of it; and in all but one (Berkley & Rouse, 2008), the discus sion was characterized largely by a descriptive style.

A Finale? In the end, did the authors offer read-ers a conclusion, a normative statement (vs. factual summary), and/or speculative comments about the impact and/or future of employer-employee relations in public service? Six public administration books ventured an envoi on the centrality of labor-management relations in government; such concluding remarks focused on issues such as the effects of labor law, the reputation of unions, or the antagonistic char-acter of employer-worker interactions. Thus, Berkley and Rouse (2008, pp. 191–192) raise the question, “Decline, Transformation, or Re - for mation?” early in the chapter of that name,



concluding that labor law has had important outcomes and including the fol lowing points:

•Economic benefits and economic costs do not necessarily explain when states enact-ed unionization laws,

•Unionization raises compensation in non-union jobs as well as union jobs, and wag es are noticeably higher in right-to-strike states (but not higher in those states that have compulsory arbitration statutes), and

•Arbitrators tend to “split the difference” be-tween management and union proposals.

They also suggest that prospects for the labor movement rest on changes in the legal environ-ment, public attitudes, and economic condi tions, and imply that demographic trends, if not the political climate, could benefit organ ized labor (Berkley & Rouse, 2008, pp. 192–193).

Second, Rosenbloom and colleagues (2009, p. 247) posit three possible futures for human resource management: greater flexibility, priv ati-zation, or abandonment of civil service. While all have ramifications for labor-manage ment rela tions, the authors comment on only the flexibility scenario, opining that

if labor relations partnerships can sub sti-tute for traditional collective bargaining approaches, [then] rigid work rules, griev-ances, and complaints of unfair labor prac tices should be reduced and less adversarial methods of problem solving should be adopted. Traditional personnel systems designed for unskilled industrial workers are not the best fit for today’s well-educated, information-age public em-ployees. (Rosenbloom et al., 2009, p. 247)

Next, Johnson (2009) writes that

public employee unions have long oper-ated in an adversarial role toward govern-ment, as in the private sector, which has given unions a less-than-favorable pop-ular image. They also have the reputation, sometimes deserved, of protecting mem-bers’ jobs by blocking needed reforms for greater efficiency. (p. 246)

Referring to changes at the Defense and Home-land Security departments, Milakovich and Gordon (2013, p. 312) find that “the future of public-sector unions and collective bargaining is likely to be a confrontational one.” Fifth, Shafritz and colleagues (2012), citing business pro fessor Raymond Horton, predict that org-anized labor would continue to be a formidable political force until

politicians developed the political will to challenge them…This finally happened in a big way and in many parts of the nation at the same time in 2011…for two reasons: the sheer expense of union dom-i nance and the fact that the public sec - tor unions had overwhelmingly aligned them selves with the Democratic Party. (pp. 424–425)

With particular reference to the public service “pay poor/benefit rich” compensation package, Shafritz and colleagues (2012, p. 425) argue that pensions will be “severely constrained”; traditional, union-negotiated defined benefit pen sions will be replaced by defined contri-bution 401(k) plans; and employees will have to manage their own pension assets.

Finally, Kettl (2015), in the context of the Wisconsin controversy (discussed above), be-lieves that the

struggle over the future of public em-ployee unions helped stoke other blazes around the nation. Public employee union leaders said they were determined not to give in. Those seeking to weaken their power were just as determined to use the budget battles to redefine the unions’ role—in both public admini stra-tion and the nation’s politics. (p. 257)

In short, when taken as whole, the public ad-ministration textbook authors discuss the past and current impacts of organized labor and the hostile nature of employment relations. They forecast a heightened confrontational political environment as the role of unions, and the benefits they provide to their members, are being reassessed by lawmakers.



The business administration textbooks do not con clude their discussions of labor-management relations by reflecting on recent political battles. Instead, they overwhelmingly focus on the challenges facing unions in light of structural changes in the economy, suggesting ways in which “labor unions [can] change to maintain their relevance” (Boone & Kurtz, 2012, p. 253). Surprisingly, they tend to be relatively opt im is-tic about labor’s prospects. Pride and col leagues (2012), for instance, claim that “antagonism now seems to be giving way to cooperation in union-management relations” (p. 308), and although they express doubt as to “whether unions will be able to regain the prominence and power they enjoyed” in their heyday, they do not doubt that unions “will remain a powerful force in particular industries” (p. 313).

Moreover, the business textbook discussions are fairly detailed on these challenges and op-portunities for labor; none, however, provide a comprehensive examination of the totality of these factors, opting instead to mention a select few. The challenges described range from the more obvious, such as the shift toward a “service and knowledge-work economy” (Nickels et al., 2012, p. 337) and an increasingly “global eco-nomy and diverse workforce” (Boone & Kurtz, 2012, p. 253), to less frequently noted trends, such as a “geographic shift in the U.S. economy” in which “businesses have moved their oper-ations to the south and southwest, areas that do not have a strong union heritage” (Ebert & Griffin, 2012, p. 258). In general, then, the business administration books provide an even-handed analysis of the “crossroads” at which organized labor presently finds itself, and chart productive paths forward without necessarily privileging business interests.

cONcluSiON: MiSSiNg iN acTiON?By portraying the nature of the public administration field, the writers of the volumes under review are owed a debt of gratitude by the profession. In addition to addressing a diverse set of topics, they examine the context and content of labor-management relations in government. All offer some coverage of it, and most discuss a broad group of laws and values, illustrate their work with several graphics, and

provide references. There is generally an im-plied or stated rationale for including the topic, but not necessarily an explicit definition of it. The narratives, as might be expected, are pri-marily descriptive in nature. A slim majority posit a conclusion about the impact and/or future of the labor movement. The baseline data reported here sheds light on the pre-sentation of labor relations in the profession. What can be said of these findings?

First, regarding the context within which con-sideration of employer-employee interaction occurs, the sheer quantity of discussion can be described, at best, as modest. The authors of the present study cannot quantify what volume of relevant materials should be found in introductory texts—after all, quality is more important, and no one expects their writers to discuss everything. What might be anticipated, however, is that lengthy textbooks could pinpoint the axial role of labor-management relations in the administrative state and canvass key topics and developments.

As it stands, the existing amount is not overwhelming: four books supply four pages or less each, and just one book offers chapter-length treatment, with the balance of the authors supplying eight to 14 pages of narrative. Such limited coverage of employer-employee relations may reflect Riccucci’s (2011) concern, noted earlier, that the field is characterized by a dearth of scholarship. Benchmarking against business administration coverage reinforces this conclusion of scant attention given to labor-management relations in texts and helps to identify parallels in the topical coverage in business and public administration books.

Second, the location of the material in the books perhaps signals its significance in the profession: Is it positioned either a capstone to the entire work or as keystone close to the beginning? An inspection of the texts reveals that neither appears to be the case. Discussions of the topic most commonly appear in the broad middle parts of the texts (e.g., Chapter 6 in an 11-chapter book); the earliest it appears is in Chapter 3 of one 14-chapter text, and the latest, in Chapter 11 of a 14-chapter volume.



Judging from the tables of contents and indexes in the books,8 employment relations sections that are near the center of a book seem like just one more topic to be included at the expense of a strategic rationale for placement. Sections near the end of a book often look more like an add-on than a culmination, as they seldom flow from the foregoing discussions; in a similar manner, the discussions that appear near the beginning do not usually affect topics found elsewhere. If the subject is pivotal in the study of the field, then it does not receive the recognition appropriate to a cardinal subject matter in public administration.

Again, using the private sector texts as a reference point for comparison, they, too, briefly define key concepts and adopt a neutral or, in some cases, slightly business-oriented slant to their assessment, stressing the manag-ement challenges and productivity implications of good employer-employee relations. Like the public administration texts, they devote limited space and prominence to the subject relative to other topics. With less than two exhibits in the public service books, the variety of topics, provocative commentaries, and controversial case studies seem underrepresented. In terms of context, then, while there may be marginally satisfactory volume of coverage in some texts, there is something of a lacuna with respect to the impact of the material (wherever it is placed) on the rest of the book.

Concerning substantive content, most of the public administration works (eight) include a criterion of inclusion for the topic. As noted, these include the nature of employee relations, cost issues, equity concerns, limits on bargain-ing, employee protection, counter balance to power relations, and strikes. The second con-tent factor, definition of the term, was met by three books; the rest did not offer a definition, perhaps regarding it as self-defining.

Third, the overriding style of presentation was factual exposition. Little difference was found in the way business texts presented material: they also generally lacked compelling cases, commentaries, and issue analyses. The business

management books varied on providing a justification for topic inclusion, typically inter-spersed occasional references to labor-manage-ment relations in less prominent places through-out the book, and usually lacked systematic or formal definition of labor-management relations.

Those public administration books that do not attempt a conclusion about the significance of workplace relations in government would do well to do so—if for no other reason than to fortify and enhance the previous material, as well as to inspire students. The importance of such an initiative should be evident: Rights to just working conditions are derived from con-stitutional freedoms of speech and assembly, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights. Without these rights, employee organizations cannot be created or sustained. In stark contrast to other Western industrialized democracies, the failure to uphold worker rights is a singularly American phenomenon (Gross, 2010).9 As Robert Creamer (2014) writes, “Every worker should have the right to be in a union in exactly the same way that every American has the right to vote.” Such rights, while they may differ in specifics from public to private sector, deserve greater attention than they currently receive in business administration texts as well. In short, it is premature to conclude the death of the labor movement, because the battle for workers’ rights will always exist (Mihelich, 2014).

There are, then, several implications of the findings for stakeholders in the public ad min-istration field …(many of which apply to bus-iness management). Instructors, first, may wish to change reading assignments, expand lecture material, and/or suggest to authors and pub-lishing representatives that additional consider-ation be given to the topic. Scholars and their publishers, accordingly, can help readers un-derstand that labor-management relations is critical to administering the public’s business. Managers and union officials, too, can contribute by vol unteering as guest speak ers, becoming adjunct professors, pro viding intern ship oppor-



tunities, and attending pro fes sional conferences to bring real-world em ployment rela tions to academe. Accrediting bodies can serve in all of these endeavors by promoting engage ment in labor-management relations and enforc ing—as well as strengthen ing—their standards.

While there may be no clear analogue for the role of labor-management relations in the private sector, labor relations is a key to the identity and legitimacy of public service. It is not suggested that a robust examination of the topic in beginning texts would or could be some sort of magic bullet. But the relevant coverage found in most of these books is small and represents, in many programs, the only chance for students to explore the subject. Enhanced treatment would provide readers with an occasion to consider the role of employer-employee relations in American gov ernment and the daunting issues it confronts: divided government, fiscal austerity, labor and man age-ment ideologies, the human capital crisis, and rapid technological change (Masters, 2004).

Put differently, the employment relationship is one of life’s most critical relationships for both the employer and the employee. More analysis of this interaction will help students better understand their careers, as they may be asked to join, or not join, a union and in so doing help shape the future of the American workplace. For now, the material found in primary textbooks represents a missed opportunity to study collective action at work in some depth. This is all the more reason to heed Riccucci’s (2011, p. 207) call for a rebirth of labor-management relations research to change the “dismal” state of the field.

NOTeS

1 Portraits in other areas of interest include Cigler and Neiswender (1991), on bureaucracy, and Bowman, Berman, and West (2001).

2 The collective bargaining process involves three se-quential activities: organizing to bargain, bar gain-ing, and contract administration. The organizing phase includes defining procedures for establishing the bargaining unit, conducting a representation election, and selecting the bargaining team. The bargaining phase involves determining a negotiating strategy (whether to engage in adversarial bargaining or problem-solving bargaining).

When an impasse occurs during negotiations and cannot be resolved, neutral third-party mediators might be called upon to serve as a catalyst to bring the parties together. Alternatively, a fact finder may be used to hold hearings, assess arguments, and issue opinions regarding grounds for settlement. A last resort, arbitration might be required to achieve final resolution. If all else fails, then an employee strike or employer lockout might ensue. Should the bargaining process, however, be successful and a contract ratified, the contract administration phase is entered, and the roles of union stewards and first-line supervisors become paramount. Disagreements over contract interpretations or other matters can result in the filing of a grievance.

3 Bronfenbrenner (2009) found that companies had engaged in dubious and illegal tactics to ward off unionization, including requiring employee attendance at antiunion meetings, using outside consultants to run aggressive union-free campaigns, and/or retaliating against workers interested in organized labor.

4 The fact that union density in the government sector is much higher than in business has meant that some industry workers resent the compensation package available in the civil service. They believe that, as taxpayers, they are paying the kind of good wages and benefits to bureaucrats that they once enjoyed.

5 Several authors (Henry, 2013; Hill & Lynn, 2009; Milakovich & Gordon, 2013; Rosenbloom et al., 2009) have passing references to employee relations in other parts of their books, but they are sufficiently brief as to not affect the overall volume of relevant coverage in the texts.

Further, it should be pointed out that the data in this paragraph are affected by several factors. On the one hand, selected data are underestimated, given that Henry’s (2013) four-page labor-management discussion in his human resource management chapter has a two-column format (in addition, Kettl [2015] has two double-column exhibits, and



Milakovich and Gordon [2013] have two-column endnote pages). On the other hand, some data are inflated because Berkley and Rouse’s (2008) labor-management chapter devotes over twice as much space to the topic as the other books.

6 As a follow-up to the role of the PATCO strike in the marginalization of unions, six books did not mention it, three provided one paragraph, and two devoted a page and half to the event.

7 Kearney and Mareschal (2014) take a more nuanced view on this issue, concluding that:

The nature, size, and significance of the union effects…are variable, complex, and multi-faceted…[viz.]…(1) that whereas unions have exercised an upward influence on budgeting and compensation outcomes, the overall effects have been moderate and not as substantial as the monetary impacts of unions in the private sector, and (2) that the magnitude of the impact varies greatly over time, function, and jurisdiction. (p. 154)

8 The thematic approach taken by Rosenbloom et al. (2009)—management, politics, law—does result in more index listings in different areas of the text; yet many of these citations are only passing references to labor-management relations in those discussions.

9 Airline and railroad employees, who are covered not by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 but by the stronger Railway Labor Act of 1926, have much higher unionization rates (Kahlenberg & Marvit, 2012).

refereNceS

Beckett-Camarata, J., & Dudley, L. (2010). Educating American public administrators: Texts for the introductory course. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 634–636.

Berkley, G., & Rouse, J. (2008). The craft of public admin-istration (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2012). Contemporary business (15th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Boris, M. B. (2012). Public perceptions of unions. Labor Studies Journal, 37 (1), 5–6.

Bowman, J. S., Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (2001). The profession of public administration: An ethics edge in introductory textbooks? Public Administration Review, 61 (2), 194–205.

Bronfenbrenner, K. (2009). No holds barred: The intensification of employer opposition to organizing . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Brook, D. A., & King, C. L. (2011). Enactment and implementation of the national security personnel system: Policy made and unmade. Public Admin-istration Review, 71 (6), 900–908.

Buhle, M. J., & Buhle, P. (Eds.). (2011). It started in Wisconsin: Dispatches from the frontlines of the new labor protest . New York, NY: Verso.

Burns, J. (2011). Reviving the strike: How working people can regain power and transform America . Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing.

Cigler, B. A., & Neiswender, H. L. (1991). “Bur eau-cracy” in the introductory American government textbook. Public Administration Review, 51(5), 442–450.

Cole, P. F., Megivern, L., & Hilgart, J. (2010). American labor in U .S . history textbooks: How labor’s story is distorted in high school history textbooks . Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Creamer, R. (2014, July 9). Why collective bargaining is a fundamental human right. The Huffington Post . Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-collective-bargaining_ b_5570047.html

Delaney, J. T. (2005). Ethical challenges in labor relations. In J. W. Budd & J. G. Scoville (Eds.), The ethics of human resources and industrial relations (pp. 203–228). Champaign, IL: Labor and Employ- ment Association.

Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Blanc, T. A. (2014) . Public administration: An action orientation (7th ed.). Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.

Dray, P. (2011). There is power in a union . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Early, S. (2013). Save our unions: Dispatches from a movement in distress . New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.



Ebert, R. J., & Griffin, R. W. (2012). Business essentials (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ferrell, O. C., Hirt, G. A., & Ferrell, L. (2013). Business: A changing world (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Francia, P. L. (2006). The future of organized labor in American politics . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2008). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Galbraith, J. K. (2010). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power (1952) . Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.

Getman, J. G. (2012). Restoring the power of unions: It takes a movement . New Haven, CT: Yale Univer - sity Press.

Gordon, C. (2013). Growing apart: A political history of American inequality . Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies.

Governor Walker’s pretext. (2011, February 18). The New York Times, A30.

Greenblatt, A. (2014). The state of the unions: Millennials may bring a new energy to organized labor. But they want to do it on their own terms. Governing, 25(10), 24–30.

Greenhouse, S. (2009). The big squeeze: Tough times for the American worker . New York, NY: Anchor.

Greenhouse, S. (2013, January 23). Share of the workforce in a union falls to a 97-year low, 11.3%. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/ business/union-membership-drops-despite-job-growth.html

Greenhouse, S. (2014, February 22). Wisconsin’s legacy for unions. The New York Times . Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/wisconsins-legacy-for-unions.html

Gross, J. A. (2010). A shameful business: The case for human rights in the American workplace . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hacker, J. S. (2006). The great risk shift . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Harris v . Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014).

Henry, N. (2013). Public administration and public affairs (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hill, C., & Lynn, L. (2009). Public management: A three dimensional approach . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Holzer, M., & Schwester, R. W. (2011). Public admin-istration: An introduction (1st ed.) . Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Johnson, W. C. (2009). Public administration: Partnerships in public service (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Kahlenberg, R. D., & Marvit, M. Z. (2012, February 29). A civil right to unionize. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/a-civi l-r ight-to-unionize.html

Kaufman, J. (2012). The personal MBA: Master the art of business (Reprint ed.) . New York, NY: Port- folio/Penguin.

Kearney, R. C., & Mareschal, P. M. (2014). Labor relations in the public sector (5th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kettl, D. F. (2015). The politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage/CQ Press.

King, S. M., & Chilton, B. S. (2009). Administration in the public interest: Principles, policies, and practices . Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2009). Public personnel management: Contexts and strategies (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kolker, C., & Drawbaugh, K. (2014, January 16). Analysis: Walmart case seen a key test in struggle over worker rights. Thomson Reuters . Retrieved from http://sustainability.thomsonreuters.com/2014/ 01/17/analysis-wal-mart-case-seen-key-test-struggle- labor-rights/

Logan, J. (2006). The union avoidance industry in the United States. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (4), 651–675.

Masters, M. F. (2004). Federal sector unions: Current status and future directions. Journal of Labor Research, 25 (1), 55–82.



Meyerson, H. (2013a, July 8). The state of the unions. American Prospect . Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/state-unions-0

Meyerson, H. (2013b, September 11). Labor embraces the new America. The Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-at-afl-cio-convention-labor-embraces-the-new-america/2013/09/10/cd820a54-1a2a-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon. G. J. (2013). Public administration in America (11th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Mihelich, M. (2014, April 6). Union, maybe. The future of labor-management relation is as complicated as ever. Workforce . Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com/articles/topic/97?page=2

Nichols, J. (2012). Uprising: How Wisconsin renewed the politics of protest, from Madison to Wall Street . New York, NY: Nation Books.

Nickels, W. G., McHugh, J. M., & McHugh, S. M. (2012). Understanding business (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R. (2012). Business (11th ed.). Independence, KY: South-Western/Cengage Learning.

Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism . New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Rhoden, W. C. (2014, March 26). A victory for athletes as university employees. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/a-victory-for-athletes-as-university-employees.html?_r=0

Riccucci, N. M. (2011). Public sector labor relations scholarship: Is there a “there” there? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 203–209.

Richards, L. (2008). Union-free America: Workers and antiunion culture . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Rouse, J. (2013). Public administration past and present: Tales from textbooks. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 530–532.

Rosenbloom, D., Kravchuk, R., & Clerkin, R. (2009). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenfeld, J. (2014). What unions no longer do . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shafritz, J., Russell, E. W., & Borick, C. (2013). Introducing public administration (8th ed.) . New York, NY: Pearson.

Stillman, R. (2010). Public administration: Concepts and cases . Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage.

Tobias, R. M. (2010). Working with employee unions. In S. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (3rd ed., pp. 379–401). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

West, J. P., & Bowman, J. S. (2008). Employee benefits: Weighing ethical principles and economic imperatives. In C. Reddick & J. Coggburn (Eds.), Handbook of employee benefits and administration (pp. 29–53). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

abOuT THe auTHOrS

James S. bowman is professor at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. He is the author of over 100 journal articles and book chapters, as well as editor of six anthologies. He was the inaugural editor-in-chief of the journal Public Integrity (1995–2014). His most recent book, with Jonathan P. West, is Public Service Ethics: Individual and Institutional Responsibilities (CQ/Sage, 2015)

Jonathan P. West is professor and chair of political science and director of the graduate program in public administration at the University of Miami. West has published nine books and over 100 articles and book chapters. He was the man-aging editor of the journal Public Integrity for 16 years.



In his foreword to Susan T. Gooden’s book Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government, Samuel L. Myers Jr. notes that the significant growth, in terms of absolute numbers, of racial and ethnic minorities serving in the public sector since 1970 belies the important reality that there remains “an uncomfortable, poorly articulated, and difficult to navigate divide between racial and ethnic minority group members and white public servants.” Gooden’s book focuses on reasons and methods to reduce these divides and is a timely contribution to the public administration literature.

With this book, Gooden counters the growing trend of academic scholarship published on “diversity,” choosing instead to use “race” in the title of her book. This is significant, primarily because the overarching premise of Gooden’s work is that public sector organizations, if they are to successfully eliminate cultural and struct-ural discrimination, must address the topic of racial inequity head-on. This can only be done if public administrators acknowledge and un derstand that this is an area fraught with un comfortable emotions that make more difficult the necessary discussions about racial inequity. It is, as Gooden puts it, “a nervous area of government.”

In the first four chapters of the book, Gooden focuses on the who, what, where, when, and why of this “nervous area of government.” In these chapters Gooden reminds us that public administrators are to be guided by the demo-

cratic principles set forth in the U.S. Con sti-tution and provides evidence of the extent to which critical areas of public service are satur-ated with racial inequity.

These first chapters also explain how the ner-vousness experienced by public administrators when discussing race is expressed and the ways it leads to the continuation of inequity in public institutions. Having been compounded across the centuries, this inequity has generated real societal implications. Here, too, Gooden drives home the point that nervousness in government stifles both the skills development of public administrators and the service delivery of public organizations. The fear of having direct discussions about race, Gooden notes, “thwarts essential discussions needed to advance social equity.” Gooden rightly asserts that public organizations will be unable to ensure equitable governance if they cannot directly engage the topic of racial equity.

It is in these first chapters, too, that Gooden provides illuminating explanations of the dom-inant contexts of structural racism, the need to utilize race-conscious rather than race-neutral actions to achieve racial equity, and the need for public administrators to understand the damage caused by racial inequity. Additionally, these chapters serve to explicate the importance of public sector organizational structure and lead-ership in achieving progress toward racial equity both internally and for the public they serve.

Book Review

Review of Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government

by Susan T. gooden Paperback: 214 pages

M . E . Sharpe (2014), Armonk, NY paperback ISBN: 978-0-7656-3719-2

REVIEW AUTHOR

Wes groomsUniversity of Louisville

JPAE 21 (3), 467–468


Chapters 5 through 7 convey assessments con-ducted by Gooden of city, state, and federal equity programs, and essentially serve as the evidence that forays into the “nervous area of government” can succeed. Especially inspira-tional is the case study presented in Chapter 5, which describes the racial and social justice program implemented by the city government of Seattle, Washington, in 2004. Here Gooden conveys not only the deep commitment of for-mer Mayor Nickels (the initiator of the program), but the difficult racial equity work completed by almost all of Seattle’s city employees and the significant advancement of social equity exper-ienced by both public sector employees and the citizens served by these employees.

Additional benefit comes from Gooden’s in clu-sion of items such as the guiding principles and sample work plans of Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative. The descriptions of dedi cated administrators’ concerns about whe ther the initiative would be continued when Nickels was not reelected as mayor in 2009, and the stories told by various city employees of their initial nervousness about the initia tive and their commitment to it after completing the pro-gram, are instructional as well. Gooden sagely includes a quote from former Mayor Nickels, who in 2012 said, “Lots of people told me not to do this—it will only make people angry. But, I thought we had a responsibility to do it.”

Chapters 8 through 10 communicate other im-portant considerations about the “nervous area of government.” One of these consider ations is the assessment of racial equity in government. For example, Gooden cites research that shows that efficiency often works counter to equity. Mod ern approaches to demonstrating the value of the pursuit of equity, such as return-on-investment studies, which identify the signi-ficant economic costs of inequity to society, are cited as well. Gooden’s discussion of racial equity assessment in government goes beyond evalu-ation of equity program design and implement-ation to include a look at minority impact legislation and the evaluation of racial equity performance as well.

Gooden provides a focus on overcoming “racial nervousness” within MPA programs. This is a critical topic, as many public administrators

receive their education credentials via MPA pro-grams at universities across the United States. Here Gooden provides personal insights on the challenges of addressing racial inequity, gleaned from her many years in the academy. It will come as no surprise to readers that she notes that MPA “programmatic norms and practices related to diversity may comply with legal or university guidelines but actively do little to advance diversity from a cultural standpoint.” However, she goes on to provide suggestions and tools for conducting a cultural audit and using the results to create a racially equitable MPA program culture.

In the final chapter of the book, Gooden ends with the principles for conquering nervousness in government that she developed while con-ducting her important work in this new area of public administration education. The ten prin-ci ples are addressed individually throughout the book as each is identified, but they take on extra usefulness when assembled together to educate and guide administrators and educators in this difficult but necessary work.

This book is an important contribution to the field of public administration. It is a must-read for practicing public administrators and public administration educators wishing to enhance understanding of the causes and results of structural inequity within public sector organi-zations. It can be expected to generate enhanced interest in, and commitment to, conducting the work necessary to reduce these inequities through its illumination of a way through the “nervous area of government.”

abOuT THe reVieWer

Wes grooms is currently a PhD student and grad uate research assistant in the Department of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Louisville, where his work and research inter ests include social equity, equitable sustainabil ity prac tices, governmental and economic systems structure, and the effects of the built environ-ment on human well-being.

Review by W . Grooms


Any discussion of new sources of revenue to address today’s complex social and environ-mental problems will surely grab the attention of nonprofit organization and community leaders. No longer can nonprofit organizations depend solely on traditional philanthropic methods such as donations and grants to fund their programs and activities. These dollars are stagnating as the competition for scarce resources continues to swell. At the same time, the nonprofit sector has long been plagued by a risk-averse climate that limits their work—a climate built upon the idea that nonprofits are charged with stewarding their donors’ dollars.

Lester M. Salamon’s latest book, Leverage for Good: An Introduction to the New Frontiers of Philanthropy and Social Investment, offers an important look at emerging strategies for combining financial and social investment. The book provides both the conceptual framework and a beginning map for examining new sources of capital for needed social investment. The 162-page monograph is a companion to New Frontiers of Philanthropy: A Guide to the New Tools and New Actors That Are Reshaping Global Philanthropy, edited by Salamon, but not reviewed here.

Salamon, one of the preeminent scholars of the nonprofit field, is a professor at The Johns Hopkins University and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. His work, published in a long list of books and articles, has influenced how the nonprofit sector is studied and described. In Leverage for Good, Salamon covers topics that are outside of the normal purview for courses in public and nonprofit administration, public affairs, and pub lic policy. The teaching focus is all too often on what is already known, rather than on how to assess and manage what is happening right now. This book offers a clear, concise, and well-written account of the innovative tools and expanding roster of players in the world of philanthropy and finance.

The book begins by describing the vast array of tools and institutions with the potential to support and leverage philanthropy and social investment. Salamon proposes that the field is in the midst of a paradigm shift, moving away from traditional philanthropy that focuses on established actors (such as donors and found-ations), the acquisition of operating revenue, the primary role of nonprofit organizations, and a charitable mind-set. The “new frontiers

Book Review

Review of Leverage for Good: An Introduction to the New Frontiers of Philanthropy and Social Investment

by lester M. Salamon 162 pages

Oxford University Press (2014), New York, NY cloth ISBN: 978-0-19-937652-0

paperback ISBN: 978-0-19-937653-7

REVIEW AUTHOR

dorothy Norris-TirrellUniversity of Central Florida

JPAE 21 (3), 469–470


of philanthropy” paradigm, on the other hand, broadens the set of actors, roles, tools, and targets to create investment capital and fund longer-term development. The overall goal is to open up new avenues for funding while at the same time producing a greater impact for each dollar in societal benefits, including poverty alleviation, environmental improve-ment, strengthened civil society, and improved life chances (p. 7).

The book’s middle chapters briefly cover the actors and tools emerging to implement the new frontiers paradigm. The actors discussed include social-impact financial-investment insti-tutions (ranging from capital aggregators to quasi-public investment funds), social-impact support institutions (e.g., enterprise brokers and capacity builders), and new types of grantmak-ing entities (e.g., corporate charitable funds and conversion foundations). The tools, including loans, credit enhancements, and fixed-income securities, take on new dimensions for social-impact investment and philanthropy. In addi-tion, Salamon identifies the current conditions that suggest the new paradigm. The companion volume, New Frontiers of Philanthropy, discusses these topics in more detail, drawing conclusions about their utility for social-impact investment.

One of the most important chapters in Leverage for Good is Chapter 5. After solid coverage of the financial topics, Salamon offers a frank and important discussion of the obstacles to and criticisms of social-impact investment. For ex-am ple, more useful and reliable assessment strategies that move beyond financial indicators are needed for determining what projects and enterprises deserve to be supported. Parti-cularly questionable is how social movements, which Salamon acknowledges have led to the most significant societal changes, fit into this new funding paradigm.

The book has high ideals in presenting a new philanthropy and social investment paradigm that the author hopes can resolve many of today’s intractable problems. In the strictest sense, the new frontiers presentation is not so

much a paradigm shift as a possible alternate or complementary path. The author fully acknow-ledges that traditional philanthropy is not going away any time soon, while arguing that organizations with social missions need to take advantage of the funding opportunities pre-sented to remain relevant. This includes op-portunities presented by governments, whose funding and other forms of assistance (e.g., tax credits) have encouraged private sector investors to consider social-impact investments.

Overall, Leverage for Good is an important book for today’s nonprofit leaders and for students of the fields of public and nonprofit administra-tion. It is a strong resource for those with no or moderate knowledge of social-impact investing. The diagrams and examples provided will be useful for students learning to frame the issues and understand the contest. The nonprofit sector leaders of today and tomorrow must think creatively about how to solve societal problems and how to fund these solutions. Certainly innovation in funding opportunities does not guarantee innovation and success in social-impact programming; however, the status quo is not acceptable. This book should prove useful to both students and faculty for learning about alternative revenue strategies as well as new partners and tools for achieving social impact.

abOuT THe reVieWer

dorothy Norris-Tirrell is associate professor at the School of Public Administration at the Univer-sity of Central Florida. Her teaching, research, and outreach focus on nonprofit organization governance and resilience, volunteerism, and cross-sector collaboration. She has extensive ex-perience as a scholar, teacher, administrator, board member, and volunteer. She is coauthor of the book Strategic Collaboration in Public and Nonprofit Administration: A Practice-Based Approach to Solving Shared Problems (CRC Press, 2010).

Review by D . Norris-Tirrell

Kristina Lambright Binghamton University SUNYLaura Langbein American University Ya Li Beijing Institute of Technology

Scott Lazenby City of Sandy, OregonSteven R. Maxwell Florida Southwestern State College

Barbara McCabe University of Texas-San AntonioLorenda A. Naylor University of Baltimore Ashley Nickels Rutgers University-Camden

Michael Popejoy Florida International University David Reingold Purdue University

Dahlia Remler Baruch College CUNYNadia Rubaii Binghamton University SUNY

Meghna Sabharwal University of Texas at Dallas Michelle Saint-Germain California State University, Long Beach

Jodi Sandfort University of MinnesotaRobert A. Schuhmann University of Wyoming

Patricia M. Shields Texas State UniversityJessica Sowa University of Colorado Denver

Kendra Stewart College of CharlestonGiovanni Valotti Università BocconiDavid Van Slyke Syracuse University

Karel Van der Molen Stellenbosch University, South AfricaBlue Wooldridge Virginia Commonwealth University

Firuz Demir Yasamıs American University in the Emirates

Archil Abashidze Ilia State University, Georgia Muhittin Acar Hacettepe University, TurkeyMohamad Alkadry Florida International UniversityBurt Barnow George Washington UniversityPeter J. Bergerson Florida Gulf Coast UniversityRajade Berry-James North Carolina State UniversityJohn Bohte University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeEspiridion Borrego University of Texas Pan AmericanLysa Burnier Ohio UniversityDouglas Carr Oakland University Barbara Crosby University of MinnesotaRobert B. Cunningham University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleDwight Denison University of KentuckyAnand Desai Ohio State UniversityJames W. Douglas University of North Carolina at CharlotteSusan Gooden Virginia Commonwealth UniversityCynthia Jackson-Elmoore Michigan State UniversityRichard Greggory Johnson III University of San FranciscoMeagan Jordan Old Dominion UniversityJ. Edward Kellough University of GeorgiaDon Kettl University of Maryland, College ParkJohn Kiefer The University of New OrleansWilliam Earle Klay Florida State UniversityChris Koliba University of Vermont

BOARD OF EDITORS

INFORMATION FOR ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS

The Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE ) is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). JPAE is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, policy analysis, public administration, public management, public policy, and nonprofi t administration. We work to improve teaching methods and individual courses as well as public affairs program design, management, and assessment.

The goal of JPAE is to publish articles that are useful to those participating in public affairs education throughout the world. Articles should be clear, accessible, and useful to those in the public affairs fi elds and subfi elds. The editors are particularly interested in articles that (1) use rigorous methods to analyze the relative effectiveness of teaching methods, and (2) have international or comparative compon ents. Articles submitted for publication in JPAE must not already be submitted or published elsewhere. Articles that have been presented at conferences are welcome.

Submissions should be made online at www.edmgr.com/jpae. At the site, you will be instructed to createan account if you have not already done so or to log in under your existing account.

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the following JPAE guidelines:

• Not include author(s) names either on title page or in body of the manuscript in order to allow for anonymous peer review.

• Not exceed 30 pages in length, including notes, references, and tables.

• Be typed in a standard 12-point serif font (such as Times New Roman), double spaced, with margins of no less than one inch on all sides.

• Use APA-style in-text citations and references. More information on APA style can be found at www.apastyle.org/.

Submitting authors will be asked for contact information, names of any additional authors, up to three subject classifi cations to which the manuscript relates, and an abstract of approximately 150 words. Additional instructions for registration in this system and submission of manuscripts can be found at www.edmgr.com/jpae or the JPAE website at www.naspaa.org/jpae. Authors will receive acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript and can follow its progress through the review process at www.edmgr.com/jpae.

All articles are given an initial review by the editorial team. Articles must meet basic criteria including writing quality, reasonable conformity with these guidelines, and interest to JPAE readers before they undergo external, double-blind peer review. If accepted for publication, manuscripts cannot be published until they conform to APA style and all of the authors have provided copyright transfer authority, full contact information, and short biographies (of about 5 lines).

Questions about the manuscript submission, review, and publication process may be addressed to the editorial team at [email protected].

Because of its mission, the Journal of Public Affairs Education allows educators to reproduce any JPAE material for classroom use, and authors may reproduce their own articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce any part of JPAE in all other instances.

NASPAA The Global Standard in Public Service Education

J. Edward Kellough, President C. Michelle Piskulich, Vice President

Ethel Hill Williams, Immediate Past PresidentLaurel McFarland, Executive Director

JPAE Oversight CommitteeJonathan Anderson, Jack Knott, Ed Jennings

David Schultz Co-Editor, Hamline University Marieka Klawitter Co-Editor, University of WashingtonAshley Sonoff Editorial Assistant, University of Washington

COPY EDITORS Connie Chaplan and Kyra Freestar, Tandem Editing LLC PUBLICATION LAYOUT AND DESIGN Val Escher, Freestyle Communications

The Journal of Public Affairs Education is published quarterly by NASPAA, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration. Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Institution, $125; Individual, $50; Student, $40; Non-U.S., add $20 to applicable rate. JPAE articles can be accessed at www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger. CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Please notify us and your local postmaster immediately of both old and new addresses. Please allow four weeks for the change. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to JPAE, c/o NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517. EDUCATORS AND COPY CENTERS: Copyright 2015. NASPAA. All rights reserved. Educators may reproduce any material for classroom use only, without fee, and authors may reproduce their articles without written permission. Written permission is required to reproduce JPAE in all other instances. Please contact JPAE, c/o NASPAA, 1029 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517, 202-628-8965, [email protected]. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. JPAE is abstracted or indexed in JSTOR, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Education Full Text Index. ISSN 1523-6803 (formerly 1087–7789).

Edgar Ramirez Delacruz Center for Research andTeaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico

Charlene M. L. Roach University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus

CORRESPONDENTS

H. George Frederickson Founding Editor, University of KansasDanny L. Balfour Grand Valley State UniversityMarc Holzer Rutgers University-NewarkEdward T. Jennings University of Kentucky

James L. Perry Indiana University, BloomingtonMario A. Rivera University of New Mexico

Heather E. Campbell Claremont Graduate University

EDITORS’ COUNCIL

JPAE 21_02 041515 NEW cover for 168 pp.indd 2 4/15/15 4:13 PM

NASPAA – The Global Standard in Public Service Education1029 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005-3517

[email protected] • www.naspaa.org

journal of public affairs education

volu

me 21 n

o. 3

sum

mer 2015

Summer 2015The journal of NASPAA — The Global Standard in Public Service education

JPAEjourNAl of Public AffAirS educAtioN

volume 21 Number 3

Documents

Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public