Citizen Participation in Non-profit Governance

Sondra Z. Koff

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351528450
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Nonprofit organizations, their governing structures, boards of directors, and their newest constituency, members who represent the public at large, are the subject of this book. In recent years, new mechanisms have been developed to link citizens with government and with diverse policy-making entities. Earlier, it was assumed that citizens had little interest in policy deliberations, and responsibility for public needs was best left to the experts. Many citizens now believe that they have a legitimate right to infl uence how power is exercised in public organizations. Koff constructs a demographic profi le of public members, their activities, and their opinions about board membership. She also catalogues the perspectives of executive directors about public members, identifi es specifi c problems related to public participation, and suggests strategies to help resolve them. How effectively these bodies perform, and how well they respond to the public, are in part determined by the talents and activities of their members. All of these members, especially public members, need appropriate tools to be able to perform in a superior fashion. Despite the importance of governing bodies to an organization's performance, there has been little examination of board members in general and specifi cally of public members. This is the first book-length study on the subject.

1

The Game and Its Background

Introduction

The performance, vitality, well-being, and effectiveness of a society, its government, and social institutions are related to communitarian involvement, associational development, and voluntarism, among other things. It is these ingredients that, in part, explain a social fabric permeated with trust and cooperation, or social capital, those “features of social life—networks, norms and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam, 1995, p. 664). In a broader interpretation social capital also consists of access as well as resources available to individuals and groups. Being the glue that cements linkages within various constituencies and across and beyond them, enhancing cooperation, and thus, allowing broader interests to be served, social capital is of great import. It is based on the premise that greater contact between people creates more trust and resulting social ties make individuals and groups more productive. The social and economic resources embodied in social networks are enhanced. In essence, these networks create value, the benefits of which serve a variety of purposes and reach beyond persons immediately involved. Moreover, the correlation between social trust and civic engagement is strong (Foley & Edwards, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Feldstein, 2003).

Ever since colonial times Americans of all types have exhibited their propensity to form a wide variety of voluntary associations and their active voluntarism. Tocqueville’s well-known picture of the United States had a prominent place for associational development and the citizens’ capacity for participation. He observed: “In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in America” (Tocqueville, 1946, p. 126). He singled out the United States as the only country in the world where the right of association had been used productively to secure all the advantages that civilization could bestow. For him “the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made” (Tocqueville, p. 381). Voluntary associations are ascribed a significant role in the development of social capital. Moreover, civil societies, consisting of a multitude of these groups that serve as counterparts to formal governmental institutions, are seen as necessary for robust and effective democratic performance (Wollebaek & Selle, 2002).

Voluntarism, another hallmark of American society, nurtures compassion, comradeship, self-confidence, and active public-spirited citizens, all important components of the national culture and fertilizer for social capital. Approximately 56 percent of the American population routinely volunteers and 90 percent makes financial contributions to a galaxy of causes on a regular basis (Giving and Volunteering, n.d.; O’Connell, 1997; Werther, Berman, & Berman, 2001). The United States is the only nation in which contributing and volunteering occur to such an extent. This participation, which also influences political behavior, is of great importance. Through volunteering people develop themselves, their communities, and the public good. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) underscore the significance of voluntarism to an understanding of America. They write:

To understand voluntarism is to understand something important about Americans—how they express their civic and humanitarian concerns and how they pursue their self-interest, for they can do both through voluntary activity. To understand voluntarism is also to understand something important about America. Voluntary activity is not only about individuals—what they do and why they do it. More than in most democracies, voluntary activity in America shapes the allocation of economic, social and cultural benefits and contributes to the achievement of collective purposes (pp. 6-7).

There are different spheres of involvement as well as various degrees of participation. Society, like a car, needs four wheels to run. Each one symbolizes a sector that provides a channel for participation. An important wheel represents government, the public sector, the director of the social unit, and an important employer. A second wheel, consisting of for-profit organizations or business, because of its size and earning power, is an influential social force. The third wheel denotes the volunteer or nonprofit sector. It is composed of a myriad of diverse organizations that serve the public at large or the public good of a defined membership as opposed to the specific self-interests of a constituency. Many of these entities depend on volunteers to provide their services and/or to govern the organization. These associations influence heavily the direction of the societal car. The last wheel stands for the informal sector or units, such as the family, the neighborhood, and the community. Society, like a car, relies on all four wheels for performance (Van Til, 1995). Their individual output and their interaction are significant.

This work focuses on one of the wheels, the third one, the nonprofit sector. It examines an element of its governing structure, boards of directors, and, more specifically, their newest constituency, that of the public members, the name given to those citizens participating in governance as representatives of the public at large. The study is based on questionnaires administered to public members sitting on the boards of select nonprofit organizations and to the executive directors of these entities. Research objectives were fourfold: (1) to construct a demographic profile of the public member constituency, (2) to inventory the group’s activities and opinions concerning various facets of board membership, (3) to catalogue the executive directors’ perspectives on the public member role and experience, (4) to elicit problems related to citizen participation and strategies to help solve them. It is demonstrated that institutional climate and demography serve to limit the public members’ role in nonprofit governance which is unfortunate, given the many advantages of citizen participation in this sector.

The sampling frame included the universe of units affiliated with the National Organization for Competency Assurance, a nonprofit membership association consisting of certification agencies, testing and consulting firms, as well as individuals involved in professional certification endeavors. It advocates excellence in competency assurance for people in all occupations and professions, and it serves the public interest by promoting adherence to standards that secure supreme competence in certification programs. It is the oldest and largest organization of its type. Its members represent over 150 professions and occupations, including 57 in the health care field and others, ranging from those affiliated with the construction and automotive industries to those identified with the financial world.

There is much variability in membership. This was reflected in the nature of the agencies responding to the questionnaire. They represented the following fields: health broadly defined, education, testing, finance, consumerism, engineering, the environment, safety and security, architecture, interior design, automotive services, insurance, housekeeping, photography, real estate, computers, personnel, consulting, public and private management, illustration, telecommunications, water, electricity, microbiology, lighting, construction, petroleum, landscaping, restaurants, glass, law, convention services, regulation, and crane operation. The list is long.

Two hundred nineteen executive directors of the member organizations were surveyed and the response rate was 77 percent with 168 useable questionnaires returned. A total of 203 public trustees sitting on members’ boards of directors were contacted, generating a response rate of 75 percent with 153 useable instruments. Prior to their administration via e-mail where possible and, if not, by regular mail, the survey instruments, consisting of open- and close-ended questions, were subjected to a pretest.

All respondents were asked to identify the mission(s) of the agency with which they were affiliated. Ninety-five percent of the public members and 76 percent of the chief executive officers cited certification. Both constituencies noted that their organizations provided products and/or services to associations or other entities. This was the case for 16 percent of the executives and seven percent of the public members. Also, seven percent of the former and two percent of the latter reported that their units were affiliated with licensure. The “other” category was negligible in the case of the trustees (less than one percent) and for the executive directors it registered 13 percent and included professional, educational, advocacy, and accreditation activities, in that order of importance.

The concept of representation and the institutionalization of individual efforts have become so engrained in American life that the pattern of organizational control by a board of directors has been firmly established. These boards have provided a significant outlet for the spirit of immediate and direct social participation. Moreover, as government has come to rely more and more on organizations in the nonprofit sector, its success depends on the performance of these units, which, in turn, is determined, in part, by the talents of the boards of directors. Yet, in spite of their importance, there is a dearth of literature that focuses on board members, and, especially, on the newly arrived citizen participants, the public members (Hage, 1998; Herman & Renz, 2000; Houle, 1989; Kang & Cnaan, 1995; C. Oliver, 1999). This work is intended to help fill that void.

The public member cannot be understood in terms of the current balance of social relations. Social institutions, being historically rooted, one cannot study any element without studying its context. Present day phenomena have their roots in various stages and facets of the past. Thus, before pursuing the main focus of this work, the general nature of the third sector will be briefly explored so that the reader will be able to relate the major theme to a broader perspective.

The Third Sector: Its Nature and Characteristics

Activities of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors have never been mutually exclusive, even though historically they have been somewhat distinct. Their role, for the most part, mirrors their objectives and the social, economic, and political parameters within which they operate. Although nonprofit organizations exist in most countries of the world, it is generally acknowledged that their numbers, proportions, autonomy, and impact are greatest in the United States. This facet of society is known by various labels: the voluntary sector, the third sector, the independent sector, the not-for-profit sector, the nonprofit sector, the social sector, and the nongovernmental sector, among others. Cushioned between the marketplace and economic enterprise, on the one hand, and government and the state, on the other, organizations in this sector are great in scope and importance. In spite of this, they are often thought of as forming a sphere secondary to the private and public sectors (Brudney, 2001; Ferris & Graddy, 1989).

Manifesting differing organizational identities, degrees of visibility, power, and activities, as well as variance in scope, structure, and specific purposes, these nonprofits display common general objectives. First, as noted, they serve the public good. They undertake activities that the other two sectors, business and government, do not, are not doing well, or are not doing with adequate frequency. More specifically, nonprofits are formed for any of the following objectives: to perform responsibilities assigned to them by the state, to perform tasks of a public nature for which there is an unfulfilled demand, to influence the direction of policy in the state, the for-profit sector, or other nonprofit organizations (P.D. Hall, 1987; LeRoux, 2004).

The goals and functions of the sector have been divided into two categories. Although they overlap, one is primarily private and the other public. Focusing on individual wants, needs, and gratifications, the former includes activities that foster self-improvement, individual professionalism, personal services, and self-fulfillment through participation with others. The latter is based on the traditional American suspicion of big government and it centers on societal problems, the maintenance of the American democratic value system, and the ideals of justice, liberty, and opportunity (Eisenberg, 1983). The principal categories of nonprofits are many. For example, they are concerned with community service and action, health, education and instruction, personal growth, self-development and improvement, arts, culture, communication and information dissemination, science, technology, and engineering; social welfare, self-help for the disadvantaged and minorities, political action, the environment and ecology, consumerism, international and transnational affairs, occupations and professions, expressive-leisure, religion, criminal justice, fund-raising and fund distribution, among other things. The list is long. In fact, Section 501(c) of the tax code catalogues more than twenty-five categories of nonprofits, the principal ones being charities, foundations, social welfare organizations, and professional and trade associations.

All groups in the third sector are private and do not operate for profit. A trait that distinguishes the nonprofit sector from the profit sphere is that associations in the former are prohibited from allotting profits or residual earnings to members or owners. These units do make profits, but they are not allowed to distribute these surpluses by issuing dividends or repurchasing shares of stock. Excess revenues are reinvested in the organization. In addition, the two sectors are distinguished on the basis of mission. In the for-profit sphere the objective is to grow market capitalization through products and services, whereas for the nonprofit arena it is, as noted, principally to serve the public interest and to deliver services to key constituencies. Depending on their legal status, voluntary associations are also concerned with empowerment of the people and advocacy for social change. These organizations, not being intent on maximizing financial gains, do not prioritize activities on the basis of potential to generate profit as in the private sector. Whereas financial performance is the key measure for the private sector, for nonprofit organizations this measure is balanced with others.

The social instruments utilized by the public, private, and independent sectors differ as well. The first relies on coercion based on law, custom, and a wide variety of financial inducements and incentives, such as taxes, grants, etc. The second employs the tool of exchange and the third, voluntarism. This last mechanism is vital to the life of nonprofit organizations. It means that they “are the vehicles by means of which people pursue together goals that are not primarily remunerative and they are not forced to pursue” (D.H. Smith, Baldwin, & White, 1988, p. 13). Also organizations in the third sector have traditionally been free from the usual instruments of accountability and popular control. Thus, they have enjoyed a great deal of discretion. Additional differences relate to size, leadership, board composition and structure, and what is expected of board members. The governing body of a nonprofit organization tends to be larger, its chief executive officer more autonomous, board members more diverse, and their turnover rate higher. In addition, board roles are less predictable as are the hours involved in service and most board members are usually not paid for their services (Bowen, Nygren, Turner, & Duffy 1994; Cole, 1981; Hodgkinson & McCarthy, 1992; Levitt, 1973; McFarland, 1999).

Most recently the traditional boundaries between the nonprofit and private business sectors have eroded and a blurred gray zone has emerged. Many organizations in the former, in an attempt to diversify and strengthen their financial bases, have undertaken earned income ventures which, growing rapidly, have become a, if not the, principal source of nonprofit revenues (Light, 2002; Young, 2003). For-profit firms, manifesting a sense of social responsibility, have assumed new social missions and engaged in philanthropy. They have developed missions and services that are almost interchangeable with those of voluntary associations. Also, they have partnered with voluntary organizations to address socioeconomic issues and have funded them as well. Consequently, multisector networks have developed. Traditional boundaries have become distorted with this overlap of sector roles. One commentator observes: “Nonprofits and for-profits have more opportunities to learn from each other than either might traditionally think, and both seem to be becoming more like the other” (Rosenblatt, 2000, p. 2).

In fact, each sector has transformed. Business has redefined performance. Government has reinterpreted its methods and objectives. Nonprofits have been straining to respond to an increased demand for service and nongovernmental social action. Organizations in the third sector that have created revenue generating enterprises have reported a positive impact on mission, services, and programs. Also, in addition to generating revenue, these ventures have produced valuable publicity, aid in retention of staff, enhanced prestige for parent organizations, and a way for staff to supplement income, to cite a few benefits (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2003). This new stance of the political economy resulted, in part, from increased pressure on nonprofits to show long-term financial sustainability, the emergence of a new generation of leaders wed to entrepreneurial and market values, and globalization.

Institutions have a number of effects on social life. Even though many of America’s Founding Fathers were skeptical of voluntary associations, the third sector has been important to the nation’s development. Its benefits and accomplishments, having been extensively documented, are well-known. Reflecting American pluralism, this institutional configuration meshes well with the political culture. In addition to providing vital services to a large number of people from diverse social strata, one of its formidable attributes is its role in the distribution of power. The authority of the state and its agents is tempered by the power of this constituency. Moreover, it distributes influence to a vast populace and, in addition, serves as a channel for these people to bring influence and demands to decision-making processes. Civil society, by giving citizens the means to control forces impacting their lives and to generate social capital, restricts the role of government in such a way that citizens become participants (Chrislip, 2002). This phenomenon highlights the significance of nonprofit organizations. In addition, the third sector provides a mechanism for pattern maintenance functions, the articulation of countervailing definitions of reality, self-fulfillment, extensive societal goal attainment, both operational and change-oriented; the creation and dissemination of new ideas, the initiation of social change, social integration, the affirmation of values, and protection of the public (Adler, 1988; Pearce, 1993; D.H. Smith, 1966). All of these elements underscore the import of citizen participation in the governance of associations in the third sector in the form of the figure of the public member.

The importance of nonprofits also derives from the fact that they offer an environment for innovation. Many phenomena of significance have issued from their confines and their contributions to broad-scale social and scientific advances have been widely recognized. Closely related is their tradition of independence and relative freedom from constraints that allows for innovation and criticism. Relying on this tradition, the third sector has also functioned, as indicated above, as a check on government and as a corrective to some of its deficiencies. Furthering active citizenship, political engagement, the development of social, civic, and organizational skills, as well as such civic virtues as charity, community, reciprocity, trustworthiness, active participation, and cooperation, nonprofits contribute to the health of public institutions and the functioning of democracy. They also serve as a coordinating hub in a wheel that unites the three sectors. They have coordinated efforts of business and government. In a sense, this sector reinforces the other two. Furthermore, given their intermediate position, third sector organizations have acted as mediators between the organized economic interests of the market and labor and the political interests and constituencies of state agencies. The social impact of the nonprofit sector has been and is immense (Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, 1983; Gardner, 1983; Nielsen, 1983; O’Connell, 1983; Seibel & Anheier, 1990; D.H. Smith, 1988). It can be viewed as a mechanism that links government, economy, and civil society. In terms of a power distributional perspective, it reflects the saliency and vibrancy of civil society and from a cultural point of view, the spirit of voluntarism, self-governance and the propensity to form associations. Its effects are both internal and external, influencing the larger polity as well as participants themselves.

The Third Sector: Its Development

In a comparison of nations the United States emerges as the one with the clearest concept of a distinguishable third sector (Salamon & Anheier, 1995). Modern associational forms of voluntary effort were stimulated by the Reformation and its concomitant movement toward freedom of association. In the United States the historical roots of the civic community...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1: The Game and Its Background
• Chapter 2: The Playing Field and the Public Member Team
• Chapter 3: Playing Ball: Batting Averages
• Chapter 4: Public Members: Maximizing Their Potential
• Chapter 5: Conclusion: The Score and the Standings
• References
• Index