Government verses the nonprofit sector- the wrestling match of our times

Compare and contrast the following three readings, in terms of key findings and explanations for how the nonprofit sector relates to government. After doing so, identify a nonprofit organization and briefly consider and discuss its relationship to government:

Young, D.R. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 149-172.

Gazley, B., and J. L. Brudney. 2007. “The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit Partnership.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(3): 389-415.
Van Slyke, D.M. (2007). Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration, Research, & Theory, 17 (2), 157 - 187.


In reviewing the articles of Young, Gazley, and Van Slyke, interesting perspectives in regard to institutional attitudes and culture between the governmental and nonprofit sectors as well as observed frameworks to describe these tensions are put forth.

Young teaches us to historically and cross culturally view the relationships through the instrument of three different lenses - complementary, supplementary, or adversarial lenses. It can be seen that throughout modern history that nations have addressed the intersection of government and nonprofit sectors in ways that say much about the national culture, while also illustrating a complex mix of tensions in complementary, supplementary, and adversarial ways that still precipitate a normative way of "doing business". What we are left with is a taxonomy that is flexible and dynamic.

Gazley's study shows surprising results in the attitudinal preconceptions and enduring viewpoints that collaboration between these sectors come "prepackaged" with and leave for future public administrators and executive directors to consider when entering into collaboration. "Are the attitudes I have based on reality, hearsay, or past experience with certain governmental or nonprofit entities." Unfortunately, it is precisely these attitudinal shifts and biases that not only cloud the communicative abilities between the sectors, but lead to frameworks for approaching each other that preclude "getting to know each other and work as equals".

Van Slyke's observations in regard to principal-agent and principal-steward theories of management of collaborations by public officials left me shaking my head in some mixture of dissapointment, incredulity, and a tiny bit of disgust. Principal-agent theory as described may match well with preconceived ideas and misunderstandings of public officials about the nonprofit sector, or understandings based on bad history, and it may represent this tension between adversarial and complementary/supplementary forces that Young observed. However, the theory is based in an unequal power dynamic that is paternalistic in nature, tends to create overhead contraints upon the agent that may distract from mission alignment, and is horribly inefficient in terms of working towards mutual goal accomplishment. That being said, I understand that it is a tool based in reality and on experience with a diverse, divisive, and complex sector (ie, nonprofits).

Let me break it down in a totally different way. As we have been reading about the nonprofit sector, volunteerism, and motivations for engagement in this sector I have been to my first board meeting for Equality Texas. In 2009 I have a give/get goal of XX dollars to raise for the organization. This requirement I accepted and understood. Nevertheless, it is a constant stressor at the back of my mind as an obligation I must meet. Despite the training that other members of the board have encouraged they will help me with, I find the process daunting. To mitigate the fears surrounding success or failure in this venture, I have mulled over approaches in my corporate life that are employed by the advertising team I work with. I have thought about the approach my partner uses in working with clients in the retail world.

Moreso, I have begun to try and gird myself with training I learned through experience in the early 1990's in public radio in regard to interviewing talent and organizations for an Arts radio show we produced. What i have arrived at is the memory of how I approached clients then. Talent was brought in, made to feel comfortable, and engaged in coversation that allowed them to move from surface information to more in-depth topics in a way that was "natural" and mutually beneficial. The interview, as a vehicle, became something created neither by me or by the talent, but by us in joint communion while discussing the topic at hand. It was a best method in communication.

And so, coming back to these readings, I have to admit that I am a fan of the principal-steward approach, because the immediate assumption in regard to a client (in the case of public official collaborating with nonprofit org) should be that we are going to build something together. To accomplish that, communication should be encouraged from the outset and mechanisms for stress mitigation (accomplishment of goals, meeting benchmarks, etc) should by mutually arrived at in a creative atmosphere.

I know, easier said that done.

To me though, the principal-steward framework is a tool that needs to be sharpened more readily in the training of public officials. In a time in which a new president is interested in public works that engage more citizens, it is going to be ever important that government and nonprofits work in a creatively collaborative environment that has a balanced power dynamic.

To turn back to Equality Texas in this discussion of a nonprofit example and its approach to government ( www.equalitytexas.org) it must be understood that the organization is an advocacy organization and so is seemingly on the surface adversarial in relationship to government. In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Equality Texas takes perhaps a supplementary approach to government in regard to
educating the public on the civil rights needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, and our allies. However, it takes a collaborative approach in matters of actually getting legislation proposed, passed, and worked through.

This is not unlike what other advocacy organizations in our state may do, on both sides of an issue.

Equality Texas seeks out fair-minded, and equality-open individuals from both political parties and both conservative and liberal ideologies to frame and discuss legislation. In some cases, a more cautious and protective approach - such as with guaranteeing safe schools for all students should be taken. This approach may look at working with conservative minded persons to enable best options to pursue this avenue. In other initiatives such as guaranteeing equal work rights for everyone, a more "liberal" approach may need to be tempered with incentive amendments that make legislation more tasteful to all parties impacted. Still, at other times, we may deal with persons that we are diametrically opposed to in some legislation, but have supported other initiatives that they themselves were passionate about and we must work with them to make sure that initiative is still running at proper capacity. In these ways, stewardship WITH government in regard to the needs of our stakeholders is accomplished.