Critical Applications of Heterogeneity Theories to Power in Nonprofit Human Services Organizations

Abstract

The field of nonprofit studies often assumes that efforts of actors in the nonprofit landscape are beneficial, especially when considering nonprofit human service organizations. However, there are both theoretical and empirical reasons for scholars to adopt a more critical lens when examining these organizations. Taking nonprofit human services organizations as a common setting, the article uses a critical lens to apply classic, “mainstream” theories of the role of heterogeneity in nonprofit sector formation and illuminate risks often neglected in nonprofit human services research. In this way, the article demonstrates that classic social science theories of heterogeneity already offer us the tools we need to critically question dominant assumptions about nonprofit human services provision and challenges the reader to consider why we so rarely use these well-known theoretical frameworks in a critical manner. The article concludes by inviting scholars to utilize additional critical theoretical perspectives in future studies of nonprofit human services.

Keywords

human services critical theory heterogeneity theory power in organizations

The field of nonprofit studies is often grounded on assumptions of the pro-social, beneficial efforts of actors in the nonprofit landscape. However, there are both theoretical and empirical reasons for scholars to adopt a more critical lens and question assumptions that are often taken for granted when examining the nonprofit sector. These assumptions are perhaps even more commonly made of nonprofit human service organizations, which may be viewed as more beneficent than other more overtly politically oriented organizations. The small but growing body of scholarship in critical nonprofit studies (see, for example, Edwards & Hulme, 1995; Mercer, 2002; Shaw & Allen, 2009; Srinivas, 2009), now even found as a central theme in textbooks (see, for example, Eikenberry et al., 2019), gives comparatively little attention to critical perspectives on nonprofit human services organizations (some exceptions being Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014; Hasenfeld & Garrow, 2012).

I contribute to the relatively small body of critical scholarship on nonprofit human services by suggesting that classic, “mainstream” theories of the nonprofit sector can be applied critically to nonprofit human services organizations. Specifically, this analysis employs heterogeneity theories familiar to many readers, using a critical lens. Focusing on power dynamics inherent to nonprofit human services organizations, I discuss how these sites have the potential to exploit the vulnerable, exacerbate inequality, and reproduce patterns of conflict and oppression. I illustrate risks often neglected in nonprofit human services research by harnessing critical aspects of time-honored heterogeneity hypotheses of nonprofit sector formation. Through this theoretical discussion, I remind the reader that classic social science theory already offers us tools to critically question dominant assumptions about nonprofit human services provision and challenge the reader to consider why we so rarely use these well-known theoretical frameworks in a critical manner. After clarifying the unique and challenging power dynamics of nonprofit human services settings, I examine nonprofit heterogeneity theories as applied to human services nonprofits. I follow by discussing problematic behavior that can be explained with these theories and offering an invitation for future critical research.

Power and Choice in Human Services Settings

I lay the groundwork for a discussion of heterogeneity theories in nonprofit human services by first explaining the importance of power in nonprofit human services. Power dynamics between local communities and the organizational field determine what kinds of organizations will provide services and how well-resourced services will be. Power dynamics among organizations mean human services providers compete on unequal footing for scarce resources and a limited number of possible constituents. Finally, the distinctive power dynamics at play between the individual and the nonprofit human services organization make these organizations valuable sites for expanding critical analysis in nonprofit studies as these settings create inherent risks for exploitation and coercion. Of course, nonprofit human services organizations are not the only type of nonprofit organization within which power dynamics merit inquiry. However, these organizations are ripe for examination due to the typically high level of need among service recipients in these settings, which results in acute power differentials between participants and organizations.

Power Dynamics Between Populations Served and the Organizational Field

To be clear, power dynamics are present in all human services settings, not just in nonprofit human services settings. However, this analysis focuses on nonprofit human services organizations because the heterogeneity theories I discuss apply specifically to third-sector organizations. As will be detailed, existing theory suggests that state-sponsored human services organizations are created to meet the demands of the median voter and are less innately responsive to population heterogeneity. In other words, the group of voters with the most political power will be supported by what in many communities is the best funded and most powerful service provider: the state. In democracies, these state-sponsored human services are subject to mechanisms that ensure a degree of democratic accountability to voters.

In contrast, theory suggests that nonprofit human services arise to meet the diverse needs of a multitude of less politically powerful groups of non-median voters. However, structural inequalities mean that not all groups within a society are similarly empowered to demand services, nor do all groups have adequate resources to create nonprofit organizations (M. Kim, 2015; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019; Sandberg, 2019). This is particularly true of resource-intensive service provision organizations such as human services organizations (Garrow & Garrow, 2014; M. Kim, 2015; Minkoff, 2002; Paarlberg & Gen, 2009; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). Nonprofit organizations that meet what the political process has deemed the narrow, “niche” demands of diverse groups are less likely to receive state contracts and support, and these organizations are intrinsically less subject to popular control. Therefore, we expect less politically powerful populations within a society to have poorer resourced human services opportunities.

Power Dynamics Among Providers in the Organizational Field

Power dynamics also exist among service providers within an organizational field, with nonprofit organizations finding themselves in an imbalanced competition for constituents and scarce resources. As will be discussed in more detail, theory suggests that the more diverse a community, the larger the assortment of nonprofits we should find. However, because groups with fewer resources are less likely to create a nonprofit organization to meet their needs, we cannot assume that the body of nonprofit human service providers within a community truly represents all diverse groups in the community. In many cases, less economically advantaged groups are left out of the organizational ecosystem. Even those organizations that emerge and successfully endure to meet a group’s demands for services often find themselves competing with one another for a limited pool of community resources. Differences in the amount of political power and economic resources among groups means that not all organizations will compete with the same success, with less powerful and less well-funded communities often left behind. Groups that have multiple motivated organizational founders, and thus have more organizations representing their needs, unfortunately also may find resources more greatly diluted and constituents more fragmented within their specific community.

Power Dynamics Between Individuals and Human Services Providers

Perhaps the most crucial power dynamic is the balance of power between service providers and potential service recipients. Relationships between human services providers and individuals and communities being served are governed by the amount of power each can bring to the exchange; the amount of power a service provider has over the client is a direct function of the client’s ability to obtain aid elsewhere (Handler, 1973, 1979; Hasenfeld, 1987). However, in many communities, the ability to obtain aid elsewhere is little to none. More recent scholarship continues to confirm M. Lipsky and Smith’s (1989–1990) assertion that a substantial proportion of human service nonprofits have a near-monopoly within their service area, sharing a service area with few if any alternative providers (see, for example, Furman et al., 2021; Girth et al., 2012). This dynamic can be more powerful in less economically developed countries, where there may be a dearth of accessible, formal health and human services providers (see, for example, Magidimisha & Chipungu, 2019; Sudhinaraset et al., 2013). Dependence on a single service provider or very small number of providers makes community members exceedingly reliant upon the organizations that provide for their most basic needs. As forgoing access to services is not a realistic option, economic and social conditions oblige individuals to obtain services wherever they are offered (Flanigan, 2006). For all intents and purposes, a fair opportunity for exit from the organization is absent (Fisk et al., 2019). Of course, many nonprofit organizations tread in this social reality thoughtfully and with ample respect for those they serve. Nonetheless, these power dynamics create opportunities to use nonprofit human services to shape participants’ behavior in a variety of ways, some of which are problematic.

From Whence Nonprofit Human Services: Applications of Heterogeneity Theories

Having recognized the distinctive power dynamics of human services organizations, let us move to considering theories regarding the formation of these organizations and their predicted distribution within communities. Theoretical perspectives abound on the historical formation of the nonprofit sector more broadly and the reasons why individual nonprofit organizations are formed. This section considers critical perspectives that arise when applying heterogeneity theories of the origins of the nonprofit sector to health and human services organizations. Heterogeneity plays an important role in both demand-side and supply-side theories of the sector. Existing theories argue that more heterogeneous communities will produce a larger and more diverse set of nonprofit organizations due to greater demands from non-median voters and due to greater supply of nonprofit entrepreneurs committed to forming organizations. Yet scholars give little attention to the ways in which heterogeneity can pose important dilemmas for nonprofit human service provision, which will be discussed further.

Demand-Side Theories and the Heterogeneity Hypothesis

Demand-side theories on the origins of the nonprofit sector are often underpinned by assumptions regarding voter demand and public goods. Economic theorists contend that, in democracies, the state will provide goods demanded by the “median voter,” a voter whose policy preferences have the most overlap with others in their polity (Downs, 1957). Government failure theories indicate that when the government fails to provide a good due to lack of median voter demand, either the private sector or the nonprofit sector will step in as a provider, depending on the nature of the good (Weisbrod, 1977). According to these assumptions, the heterogeneity of the population and the size of the nonprofit sector will be positively correlated in most communities as population heterogeneity generates more diverse preferences for services, many of which will not align with median voter demands (James, 1987; Jeong & Cui, 2020; Y. H. Kim & Kim, 2016, 2018; Liu, 2017; Lu & Xu, 2018; Matsunaga et al., 2010; Matsunaga & Yamauchi, 2004; Rose-Ackerman, 1996; Stater, 2010; Van Puyvelde & Brown, 2016; Weisbrod, 1977). In other words, in more diverse communities, whether by age, ethnicity, income, language, race, religion, or other criteria, heterogeneity theories assert there will be a larger number and variety of nonprofit organizations. This is because greater diversity results in a broader array of nonoverlapping preferences to which the state will not attend.

The heterogeneity hypothesis has been tested widely with inconsistent conclusions, with scholars more recently insisting that government activity must be treated as a mediating variable between heterogeneity and nonprofit service provision (Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). A meta-analysis of studies testing the heterogeneity hypothesis offers general support for a modest but statistically significant heterogeneity effect on the nonprofit sector (Lu, 2017). The heterogeneity effect is at least partially supported by some research specifically focused on nonprofit human services (see, for example, Corbin, 1999; James, 1987; Joassart-Marcelli, 2013; Joassart-Marcelli & Wolch, 2003; M. Kim, 2015; Lu, 2016; Van Puyvelde & Brown, 2016). It is important to consider how this dynamic plays out in nondemocratic contexts, but research suggests that the relationship between population heterogeneity and nonprofit sector size holds true across a number of countries (James, 1993; S. E. Kim & Kim, 2015; Y. H. Kim & Kim, 2016, 2018; Lu, 2017; Matsunaga et al., 2010).

Supply-Side Theories and Heterogeneity

While heterogeneity theories are mostly associated with demand-side perspectives on nonprofit sector formation, heterogeneity plays an important role in supply-side perspectives as well. Scholars argue that demand alone is not enough to generate a larger nonprofit sector; an ability of stakeholders to supply said organizations is also essential (Ben-Ner & Van Hoomissen, 1991). Supply-side theories of the origins of the nonprofit sector argue that growth of the sector is driven by a supply of social entrepreneurs committed to establishing organizations, rather than solely by demand for nonprofit services (Anheier & Salamon, 1998; Frumkin, 2002; James, 1987). Heterogeneity matters for supply-side theories, just as it does for demand-side theories. Consider the expressive function of nonprofits (Frumkin, 2002); if nonprofit organizations exist to give voice to particular population groups or perspectives, it follows that the greater the heterogeneity of the population, the greater the number and kinds of nonprofit organizations (Anheier & Salamon, 1998).

Faith-based nonprofit organizations are a commonly offered example of the ways in which heterogeneity intersects with the supply of nonprofit sector entrepreneurs. As early as Weber (1963) and Durkheim (1912/1954), sociologists have documented the ways in which religious belief motivates social behavior and collective action. Sociology of religion has been integrated into theorizing on many aspects of the nonprofit sector, including altruism (Wuthnow, 1993), civic engagement (Skocpol, 2000), and civil society (Wuthnow, 1999). Religious belief is a powerful driver of involvement in volunteer work (Ebaugh et al., 2003; Hodgkinson, 1990; Hodgkinson et al., 1990; Lam, 2002) and staff motivation and behavior (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013a, 2013b; Flanigan, 2009; Fu et al., 2020; Héliot et al., 2020). For many, faith, mission, and community action are inextricably linked (Bartkowski, 2001; Jeavons, 1994). It logically follows that religious groups are an important supply-side source of social entrepreneurs in the nonprofit sector, particularly in locales with religious diversity and where religious competition exists (Anheier, 1994; Grønbjerg & Paarlberg, 2001; James, 1987; Jeong & Cui, 2020; Marchesini da Costa, 2016; Polson, 2017). Whether for the purpose of helping coreligionists (Benthall & Bellion-Jourdan, 2003; Flanigan, 2010; Salamon & Sokolowski, 2004) or attracting new believers (Anheier & Salamon, 1998; Flanigan, 2010; James, 1989), nonprofit activities often are targeted toward specific populations based on religion.

While religion is the perhaps the most commonly discussed supply-side source of social entrepreneurs, other groups also generate individuals driven to form organizations. Such organizations abound in communities, such as organizations focused on language and language preservation, immigrant communities and cultural preservation, age-oriented services and activities (e.g., preschools, senior centers, youth sports teams, and bridge clubs), or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others (LGBTQ+) community centers. Whereas some of these organizations are created due to diverse community demand, ample organizations also are established due to the devotion of committed founders from these various communities.

Considering Heterogeneity With a Critical Lens

Underpinning examinations of heterogeneity theories is an assumption that a proliferation of nonprofit service providers meeting the varied needs of a diverse population is desirable and beneficial to communities. Certainly, no one would argue that a distinct community’s needs, whether ethnic, gender, migrant, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise, should remain unmet. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all groups within a society are equally empowered to demand services as non-median voters, nor to create their own organizations as supply-side nonprofit entrepreneurs. Structural inequalities, such as homophobia, nationalism, poverty, racism, sexism, and numerous others, shape which voices are successful in making demands upon political systems and which groups have sufficient resources to create nonprofit organizations (M. Kim, 2015; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019; Sandberg, 2019), especially resource-intensive service provision organizations (Garrow & Garrow, 2014; M. Kim, 2015; Minkoff, 2002; Paarlberg & Gen, 2009; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). These structural inequalities, combined with the substantial resources needed to create service-providing organizations, mean that we cannot assume that the constellation of nonprofit human service providers that emerges within a community is a perfect reflection of the needs and preferences present among diverse groups in the community. Heterogeneity theories do not explicitly attend to the ways in which structural inequalities can result in unequal distribution of organizations.

This assertion of unequal distribution of organizations is reinforced by the fact that diversity often is associated with an increased number of nonprofit organizations where users pay for services they will use themselves (e.g., religious schools), but is associated with fewer nonprofits that provide services that benefit others (e.g., poverty-related services; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). Groups with more resources are better able to opt into creating a nonprofit organization to meet their needs, whereas less economically advantaged groups are left out of the supply-side equation. Providing services that benefit nonpaying others seems to require a base level of social cohesion more commonly seen in more homogeneous communities (Alesina et al., 1999). Scholars acknowledge the limitations of heterogeneity perspectives, of course, for example, observing that government activity has a mediating effect between heterogeneity and nonprofit service provision (Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). Challenges of heterogeneity also are noted by scholars who suggest that population heterogeneity might limit the supply of nonprofit organizations due to lower participation in civic life (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000), difficulty in organizing collectively in the face of diverse preferences (Habyarimana et al., 2007; M. Kim, 2015; Miguel & Gugerty, 2005; Paarlberg & Gen, 2009; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019), and lower levels of social trust and concomitant community engagement (Putnam, 2007).

Despite these acknowledgements of the limitations of heterogeneity theories, discussions of the ways in which the nonprofit sector responds to diversity rarely acknowledge the many challenges that come from service provision in heterogeneous localities, much less make this question central to research. Identification with a particular identity group can be, and often is, accompanied by exclusion of other identity groups. Although this may not be a crucial consideration in a perfectly segregated or homogeneous locality, many communities are more mixed and complex. In heterogeneous communities, not all residents have equal opportunity to choose to exit government service provision or to create alternative service structures (Paarlberg & Gen, 2009; Paarlberg & Zuhlke, 2019). As will be discussed in the following section, not all organizations created by other groups of residents will be appropriate for those who are left out of the organizational ecosystem.

Heterogeneity: Social Bonds Versus Social Boundaries

Implicit in heterogeneity theories is the idea that smaller subgroups of a population can organize and act collectively on behalf of a common set of interests. Demand-side theories assume that nonprofit organizations will be formed to meet the shared interests of subgroups of non-median voters whose interests are not met by the state. Supply-side theories assume that nonprofit entrepreneurs within a subgroup of the population will be committed to forming organizations that express certain shared values or meet certain niche community needs. This type of collective voluntary action is a central tenet of nonprofit research. Indeed, social capital theories are frequently attended to in nonprofit scholarship (see, for example, Brown & Ferris, 2007; Graddy & Wang, 2008; Schneider, 2007, 2009).

However, this theoretical attention to the potential for communities to build social bonds and bridges (Coffé & Geys, 2007) neglects the ample social science research on the ways in which group cohesion may also lead to walls between subgroups within heterogeneous societies. As political scientist Stephen Saideman explains, ties that bind can become ties that divide (Saideman, 2001). Sociologists like Charles Tilly (2003) examine the ways in which groups differentiate between within-group and across-group interactions, and how this differentiation is heightened when groups become polarized. Polarization involves a widening of social or political space between groups, which makes us–them boundaries more salient. As boundaries between groups become more salient, social interactions increasingly organize around these boundaries, and actors increasingly differentiate between within-boundary and across-boundary interactions. Tilly (2003) calls this process “boundary activation” (p. 21). The role of boundary activation between identity groups in nonprofit service provision has been given relatively little attention (some exceptions being Flanigan, 2010; Weisinger & Salipante, 2005) although scholars do give attention to ways in which heterogeneity can limit other conditions supportive of the nonprofit sector, such as social trust and interaction (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Costa & Kahn, 2003; Putnam, 2007), participation in civic activities (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000; Anderson & Paskeviciute, 2006; Costa & Kahn, 2003), and philanthropic donations (Andreoni et al., 2016; Fong & Luttmer, 2009; Miguel & Gugerty, 2005; Okten & Osili, 2004). The utility of adopting more critical theoretical perspectives that consider barriers between groups is illustrated when considering heterogeneity theories of the nonprofit sector.

As discussed earlier, it is understood by many scholars that heterogeneity generates a more diverse array of nonprofit organizations exactly because these organizations focus on meeting the distinct needs of their own community. What often follows is a constellation of nonprofit organizations that serve populations within certain identity groups, but not necessarily across group boundaries. Group identity and allegiance often motivate pro-social behavior (Simon, 1993) and it is not unusual for voluntary activity to be explicitly focused on within-group giving and activities that benefit others with a shared identity. Much research on nonprofit organizations and philanthropy more broadly shows that voluntary organizations pinpoint specific target populations based on group traits, such as shared religion (Anheier & Salamon, 1998; Ilchman et al., 1998; James, 1989; Smith et al., 1999), race (Joseph, 1995; Smith et al., 1999), ethnic or tribal identity (Smith et al., 1999), kinship ties (Abdel-Samad & Flanigan, 2019; Flanigan, 2018; Smith et al., 1999), or national origin (Orozco & Lapointe, 2004; Smith et al., 1999).

Research on the benefits of within-group giving and mutual aid abounds. Identity-based nonprofit activity has been crucial to the uplift of migrant communities and communities of color (see, for example, Ramakrishnan & Bloemraad, 2008; Smith et al., 1999). Mutual aid and philanthropy have been critically important to African American communities (see, for example, Dubois, 1909; Fairfax, 1995), Latinx communities (see, for example, Cortés, 1995, 1999), and immigrant communities (Cortés, 1995; Orozco & Lapointe, 2004). Diaspora philanthropy is an often-cited example of the benefits of within-group nonprofit activity (Abdel-Samad & Flanigan, 2019; Brinkerhoff, 2008, 2014; Flanigan, 2017, 2018; Flanigan & Abdel-Samad, 2016; Werbner, 2002). This article in no way intends to refute the beneficial and protective effects of these types of mutual support and service provision.

However, when considering within-group giving, it is worth bearing in mind the ample research that shows that heightened in-group identity and activated boundaries can bring negative consequences and lead to intentional or unintentional exclusion. Even when human services organizations are open to serving residents from across diverse communities, research shows that some individuals do not seek services from identity-based organizations because of an assumption that they would be unwelcome due to not sharing the same ethnicity or religion (see, for example, Flanigan, 2010). Particularly, in contexts of ethnic, racial, or religious tension, perceived barriers to service access can pose real dilemmas in vulnerable communities. As Paarlberg and Zuhlke (2019) articulate,

Weisbrod (1977)’s seminal argument may have limited explanatory power in the United States where the historical legacy of racism may make the American case an exceptional case. The American case of diversity and collective action may be one in which diversity breeds conflict, which reduces the propensity of collective action to benefits others. (p. 119)

Paarlberg and Zuhlke’s statement about the U.S. context is apt, given the widespread institutionalized racism highlighted by the Black Lives Matter movement and nearly unprecedented political polarization. However, one can argue that ethnic, nationalist, and racial divisions plague national politics in many parts of the world, and thus the American case may not be as exceptional as one would hope.

Although I agree with Paarlberg and Zuhlke’s (2019) characterization, my argument differs from their assertion somewhat. I contend that, while we normally do not use Weisbrod’s work and related heterogeneity theories to analyze inequalities and divisions among nonprofit organizations and the communities they serve, his work and its underlying presumption of group difference offers us precisely the tools we need to do so. Heterogeneity theories are underpinned by an assumption that population subgroups are different enough in nature that they must create alternative structures to serve their needs and express their values. It logically follows that these alternative structures would not always be appealing, accessible, or even open and available to members of other groups.

Heterogeneity and Power in Human Services Organizations

My analysis thus far assumes that nonprofit human services organizations are well-intended and engage in ethical practices, even if there may not be sufficient organizations to represent all subsets of a community in the ways that heterogeneity theories suggest. However, it is important to recall that human services organizations are characterized by power dynamics that leave the vulnerable with little choice for exit, especially in communities where there are few service providers. These service environments become sites where there is a potential for organizations to compel certain behaviors from service recipients, be it intentionally or unconsciously. While I do not argue that this risk is ubiquitous, it would be naïve for scholars of the nonprofit sector to assume that the organizations we study are immune to social forces that affect so many other types of organizations and social groups. As Sandberg (2019) cautions us, by assuming nonprofit organizations “are inherently legitimate and good for society” (p. 27, italics in the original text), we disregard the larger social forces that influence organizations and the fallibility of the people working within them.

A simple to understand and relatively well-documented example of power dynamics in nonprofit human services provision is the case of religious practice and proselytization in faith-based organizations. Religious nonprofit organizations offer many advantages to the clients they serve and there is a rich literature documenting these benefits (Chaves & Tsitsos, 2001; Ebaugh et al., 2005; Flanigan, 2009, 2010; Frumkin, 2002; A. Lipsky, 2011; Monsma, 1996; Nichols, 1988; Sherman, 1995). However, some scholars assert that religious groups create nonprofit organizations not solely because of altruism, but also for the instrumental purpose of recruiting new followers (Rose-Ackerman, 1996). Nonprofit services are a means by which religious groups can gain adherents; those in need of education, health care, or other basic supports will come to adopt the faith of those who provide such services (Anheier & Salamon, 1998). Although many faith-based nonprofits operate with clear respect for their participants and do not engage in proselytization (Flanigan, 2010), challenges of proselytization have been documented by a number of scholars (Anheier & Salamon, 1998; Flanigan, 2010; James, 1989; Rose-Ackerman, 1996). Any desire to proselytize is greatly aided by the power dynamics of human service settings. With no real option to decline services in contexts of sole service provision, vulnerable populations find themselves in a position where they must accept services along with any concomitant religious activities that might be required (e.g., group prayer, reading of religious texts). Low-income individuals seeking services may feel excluded (intentionally or unintentionally) from the service environment due to not being of the same faith group as the provider, as documented in international fieldwork (e.g., Flanigan, 2010). Alternatively, individuals may feel compelled to participate in faith practices while receiving services, such as participating in prayer or reading of religious texts before a free meal, attending religious worship before or after receiving services, and the like (e.g., Flanigan, 2007, 2010).

The implications of the power dynamics inherent to human services settings in many cases may seem minor. A vulnerable individual who cannot opt out of services may feel a bit uncomfortable or out of place, or may be asked to participate in a religious or cultural practice that is not his or her own. However, more extreme examples of power in service provision exist, such as to include using nonprofit human services to win elections, to convince communities to accept violent activities, and to even recruit militants (Flanigan, 2006, 2008; Flanigan et al., 2015; Flanigan & O’Brien, 2015; Szekely, 2015, 2016). While these examples may be less widespread, considering the extreme case allows us to reflect on the myriad other problematic ways in which power can create challenges in human services organizations.

It is essential that any analysis acknowledges the tremendous difficultly that can exist when trying to identify power dynamics in human services organizations, when attempting to determine where the line between invitation and coercion lies, and whether that line has been crossed. These are not simple questions to answer; in many cases, views may vary based on perspective. The free breakfast program and other services provided by the Black Panther Party in the United States may be perceived as social activism and consciousness raising by some (Pope & Flanigan, 2013) or as political manipulation by others. Facilitating service provision when running for office could be a public relations tool to gain votes, a means of “buying” a vote, or simply a way to assist one’s constituents (Abdel-Samad, 2009; Flanigan et al., 2015). Service provision by armed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah could be a way of mobilizing support for violent activities or merely attempts at legitimate governance (Asal et al., 2020; Flanigan, 2006, 2008; Flanigan & O’Brien, 2015; Szekely, 2015, 2016). One person’s proselytization may be another person’s warm and friendly introduction to faith. These tensions and gray areas mean understanding service recipients’ perspectives is paramount, with a recognition that service recipients are aware of their own interests and deserve dignity and respect.

The Importance of the Service Recipient’s Experience

This article is undergirded by an assertion that recipients’ experiences with human services organizations matter. Service recipients’ experiences are important not only out of concern for equity and distributive justice, but also because human services organizations serve as sites for political learning (Soss, 2002). Individuals’ experiences in service systems can influence their beliefs about the responsiveness of government (and of the nonprofit organizations with which governments partner), their feelings of self-efficacy, and their decisions about their own participation in civic life (Soss, 2002). This observation extends assertions by scholars that nonprofit organizations serve as “incubators of democratic citizenship competencies” (Saidel, 2002, p. 4) beyond organizational staff and volunteers to the realm of service recipients.

Identity-based and expressive functions of the nonprofit sector mean that human service organizations may become exclusive of those of other identities or reproduce aspects of identity politics that reinforce communal conflicts or replicate colonial power structures. If potential service recipients are excluded by nonprofit service providers on the grounds of identity, or feel that their identity is not respected due to efforts at evangelizing or other efforts to shape and control behavior, citizens’ negative experiences as service recipients may cause them to view the nonprofit sector as enforcing and reproducing community divisions. Particularly, in communities where a sole nonprofit provider offers a particular service, the impacts of exclusion, including self-exclusion by community members who may feel uncomfortable about approaching the organization, are real and worthy of greater discussion in our field.

Conclusion

I assert that Weisbrod’s (1977) scholarship and related heterogeneity theories offer us the tools required to critically analyze inequalities and divisions among nonprofit human services organizations and the communities they serve, even if we rarely use these theories for that purpose. Future research can employ heterogeneity theories in a critical manner to investigate these dynamics and consider how other mainstream, classic nonprofit scholarship might be applied using a critical lens.

Critically examining power dynamics in nonprofit human services organizations demands several directions for future research. First, and perhaps most importantly, our field needs more empirical research that focuses on the experiences of service recipients themselves. Although such research exists, a great deal more work focuses on nonprofit staff, board members, fundraising, and other organizational dynamics. Research with services recipients, particularly from vulnerable communities, can be more expensive (e.g., research incentives) and logistically challenging (e.g., maintaining contact with individuals over time) than other types of nonprofit sector research. Nonetheless, it is essential for understanding the consequences of power dynamics in human services organizations. In addition, we need more scholarship that carefully attends to the tensions between the social or political goals of service providers and what may be perceived as pressure or coercion among service recipients. We need research that engages with these gray areas and helps us identify where and how the line should be drawn between organizations’ expressive function and recipients’ experiences of services.

Acknowledging that not all groups within a heterogeneous community are equally equipped to form nonprofit alternatives to the state, future research should also interrogate in more depth the underlying mechanisms that allow groups to create organizations and how we can facilitate groups’ ability to create organizations despite structural inequalities. This is particularly needed in terms of the unequal capacity to create resource-intensive service provision organizations. Scholarship must examine practices within nonprofit human services organizations, which are both culturally specific and inclusive of other groups, in an effort to develop a set of best practices that balance organizations’ freedom of expression and recipients’ experiences. Along the way, we must think carefully about existing theory, whether it offers us the tools to engage in critical analysis, and how we might do so.

Applying mainstream theories critically should not imply that we disregard the growing body of critical scholarship toward the nonprofit sector. As scholarship on the third sector in the global South grows, postcolonial theory and decolonial theory (Escobar, 1995; Quijano, 2000) have lessons to offer nonprofit scholars. In colonial and neocolonial periods, charities—and later nonprofit organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—have played a central role in the global North’s project of civilizing “savage others” from the global South (Childs & Williams, 1997; Sandberg et al., 2019). Nonprofit human services organizations have been long-running partners in the project of poverty governance (Katz, 1997), which disproportionately affects communities of color (Goldberg, 2007; Lieberman, 1998; Schram, 2005; Schram et al., 2009, 2011; Wacquant, 2009), and can benefit from analysis through the lens of critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Critical feminist theory and work that makes intersectionality central is also of great importance as women are disproportionately represented as participants in many human services organizations (Hicks, 2015), are usually assigned greater blame and responsibility than men (Hicks, 2015; Orme, 2001; Scourfield, 2010), and are subjected to regulation of child-rearing, family arrangements, household guests, and even their sex lives (Abramovitz, 1988; Gordon, 1994; Keiser & Soss, 1998; Soss, 2002). While critical race theory and feminist theory are being embraced by an increasing number of nonprofit scholars (see, for example, Feit, 2019; Greene, 2007; Heckler, 2019; Sandberg & Elliot, 2019; Willner, 2019), nonprofit human service provision sorely needs more investigation through these critical lenses, given the frequent interface between these providers, women, and communities of color. However, as we embrace these critical perspectives, scholars of nonprofit human services organizations must also reflect carefully on the critical tools hidden within existing theoretical perspectives on the sector.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank members of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, and reviewers for Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, for helpful feedback on previous iterations of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shawn Teresa Flanigan

Author Biography

Shawn Teresa Flanigan, PhD is a professor at San Diego State University. Her research focuses on service-seeking behavior by vulnerable populations, and health and human service provision by public and nonprofit organizations. She has conducted field research in South Asia, Europe, the Southwest Asia and North Africa (SWANA; Middle East and North Africa [MENA]) region, and North America.

References

Abdel-Samad

(2009). Exchanging favors: The predominance of casework in legislators’ behavior in Jordan and Lebanon. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 420–438.

Abdel-Samad

Flanigan

(2019). Social accountability in diaspora organizations aiding Syrian migrants. International Migration, 57(1), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12494

Abramovitz

(1988). Regulating the lives of women: Welfare policy from colonial times to the present. South End Press.

Alesina

Baqir

Easterly

(1999). Public goods and ethnic divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1243–1284.

Alesina

La Ferrara

(2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904.

Alesina

La Ferrara

(2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234.

Almog-Bar

Schmid

(2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.

Anderson

C. J.

Paskeviciute

(2006). How ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects for civil society: A comparative study of citizenship behavior. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 783–802.

Andreoni

Payne

A. A.

Smith

Karp

(2016). Diversity and donations: The effect of religious and ethnic diversity on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 47–58.

10.

Anheier

. (1994). A comparative analysis of institutional development and NGOs in West Africa. In Sandberg

(Ed.), The changing politics of non-governmental organizations and African states (pp. 139–168). Greenwood.

11.

Anheier

Salamon

(1998). The nonprofit sector in the developing world. Manchester University Press.

12.

Asal

Flanigan

Szekely

(2020). Doing good while killing: Why some insurgent groups provide community services. Terrorism and Political Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2020.1745775

13.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2001). The promise and peril of charitable choice: Faith-based initiatives in Mississippi. Harvard.

14.

Ben-Ner

Van Hoomissen

(1991). Nonprofit organizations in the mixed economy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519–550.

15.

Benthall

Bellion-Jourdan

(2003). The charitable crescent: Politics of aid in the Muslim world. St. Martin’s Press.

16.

Bielefeld

Cleveland

(2013a). Defining faith-based organizations and understanding them through research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 442–467.

17.

Bielefeld

Cleveland

(2013b). Faith-based organizations as service providers and their relationship to government. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 468–494.

18.

Brinkerhoff

(2008). Diaspora philanthropy in an at-risk society: The case of Coptic orphans in Egypt. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(3), 411–433.

19.

Brinkerhoff

(2014). Diaspora philanthropy: Lessons from a demographic analysis of the Coptic diaspora. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 969–992.

20.

Brown

Ferris

(2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85–99.

21.

Chaves

Tsitsos

(2001). Congregations and social services: What they do, how they do it, and with whom. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(4), 660–683.

22.

Childs

Williams

(1997). Introduction to post-colonial theory. Routledge.

23.

Coffé

Geys

(2007). Toward an empirical characterization of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 121–139.

24.

Corbin

J. J.

(1999). A study of factors influencing the growth of nonprofits in social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 296–314.

25.

Cortés

(1995). Three strategic questions about Latino philanthropy. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1995(8), 23–40.

26.

Cortés

. (1999). Do Hispanic nonprofits foster Hispanic philanthropy? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1999(24), 31–40.

27.

Costa

D. L.

Kahn

M. E.

(2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103–111.

28.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

29.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.

30.

Dubois

W. E. B.

(1909). Efforts for the social betterment among Negro Americans. Atlanta University Press.

31.

Durkheim

(1954). The elementary forms of the religious life. Free Press. (Original work published 1912)

32.

Ebaugh

Pipes

Saltzman Chafetz

Daniels

(2003). Where’s the religion? Distinguishing faith-based from secular social service agencies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(3), 411–426.

33.

Ebaugh

Saltzman Chafetz

Pipes

(2005). Faith-based social service organizations and government funding: Data from a national survey. Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 273–292.

34.

Edwards

Hulme

(1995). Non-governmental organizations—Performance and accountability: Behind the magic bullet. Earthscan.

35.

Eikenberry , et al. (2019). Reframing nonprofit organizations: Democracy, inclusion, and social change. Melvin & Leigh.

36.

Escobar

(1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton University Press.

37.

Fairfax

J. E.

(1995). Black Philanthropy: Its Heritage and Its Future. In Hamilton

C. H.

Ilchman

W. F.

(Eds.), Cultures of giving II: How heritage, gender, wealth and values influence philanthropy. Jossey-Bass, Inc.

38.

Feit

(2019). Addressing racial bias in nonprofit human resources. In Eikenberry

Mirabella

Sandberg

(Eds.), Reframing nonprofit organizations: Democracy, inclusion, and social change (pp. 66–75). Melvin & Leigh.

39.

Fisk

Dean

Alkire

Joubert

Previte

Robertson

Rosenbaum

(2019). Design for service inclusion: Creating inclusive service systems by 2050. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 834–858.

40.

Flanigan

(2006). Charity as resistance: Connections between charity, contentious politics, and terror. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 29(7), 641–655.

41.

Flanigan

(2007). Paying for God’s work: A rights-based examination of faith-based NGOs in Romania. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(2), 156–175.

42.

Flanigan

(2008). Nonprofit service provision by insurgent organizations—The cases of Hizballah and the Tamil tigers. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 31(6), 499–519.

43.

Flanigan

(2009). Staff perceptions of the benefits of religion in health and human services nonprofits: Evidence from international development. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 32(2), 164–194.

44.

Flanigan

(2010). For the love of god: NGOs and religious identity in a violent world. Kumarian Press.

45.

Flanigan

(2017). Crowdfunding and diaspora philanthropy: An integration of the literature and major concepts. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9755-7

46.

Flanigan

(2018). Advantages of Syrian diaspora aid to refugees in Middle Eastern states of the global south. Journal of Muslim Philanthropy and Civil Society, 2(2), 35–66.

47.

Flanigan

Abdel-Samad

(2016). Syrian diaspora members as transnational civil society actors: Perspectives from a network for refugee assistance. Contention: The Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Protest, 4(1–2), 51–65.

48.

Flanigan

Asal

Brown

(2015). Community service provision by political associations representing minorities in the Middle East and North Africa. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1786–1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9516-4

49.

Flanigan

O’Brien

(2015). Service seeking behavior, perceptions of armed actors, and preferences regarding governance: Evidence from the Palestinian territories. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 38(8), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1030194

50.

Fong

C. M.

Luttmer

E. F. P.

(2009). What determines giving to Hurricane Katrina victims? Experimental evidence on racial group loyalty. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(2), 64–87.

51.

Frumkin

(2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press.

52.

Cooper

Shumate

(2020). Do U.S. faith-based social service organizations resist collaboration? Examining the role of religiosity and operational capacity in interorganizational partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50, 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020952167

53.

Furman

Gibelman

Winnett

(2021). Navigating human services organizations: Essential information for thriving and surviving in agencies. Oxford University Press.

54.

Garrow

E. E.

Garrow

S. H.

(2014). White flight and the presence of neighborhood nonprofit organizations: Ethno-racial transition, poverty, and organizational resources. Race and Social Problems, 6(4), 328–341.

55.

Girth

Hefetz

Johnston

Warner

(2012). Outsourcing public service delivery: Management responses in noncompetitive markets. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 887–900.

56.

Goldberg

(2007). Citizens and paupers: Relief, rights, and race, from the Freedmen’s Bureau to Workfare. University of Chicago Press.

57.

Gordon

(1994). Pitied but not entitled: Single mothers and the history of welfare 1890–1935. Free Press.

58.

Graddy

Wang

(2008). Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 392–412.

59.

Greene

(2007). Beyond diversity and multiculturalism: Towards the development of anti-racist institutions and leaders. Journal of Nonprofit Management, 11, 9–17.

60.

Grønbjerg

K. A.

Paarlberg

(2001). Community variations in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector: Theory and preliminary findings. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(4), 684–706.

61.

Habyarimana

Humphreys

Posner

D. N.

Weinstein

J. M.

(2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101(4), 709–725.

62.

Handler

J. F.

(1973). The coercive social worker: British lessons for American social services. Rand McNally College.

63.

Handler

J. F.

(1979). Protecting the social service client: Legal and structural controls on official discretion. Academic Press.

64.

Hasenfeld

(1987). Power in social work practice. Social Service Review, 61(3), 469–483.

65.

Hasenfeld

Garrow

(2012). Nonprofit human-service organizations, social rights, and advocacy in a Neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 86(2), 295–322.

66.

Heckler

(2019). Whiteness and masculinity in nonprofit organizations: Law, money, and institutional race and gender. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 266–285.

67.

Héliot

Gleibs

I. H.

Coyle

Rousseau

D. M.

Rojon

(2020). Religious identity in the workplace: A systematic review, research agenda, and practical implications. Human Resource Management, 59, 153–173.

68.

Hicks

(2015). Social work and gender: An argument for practical accounts. Qualitative Social Work, 14(4), 471–487.

69.

Hodgkinson

V. A

. (1990). The future of individual giving and volunteering: The inseparable link between religious community and individual generosity. In Wuthnow

Hodgkinson

V. A.

, & Associates (Eds.), Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America’s voluntary sector (pp. 284–312). Jossey-Bass.

70.

Hodgkinson

V. A.

Weitzman

M. S.

Kirsch

A. D.

(1990). From commitment to action: How religious involvement affects giving and volunteering. In Wuthnow

Hodgkinson

V. A.

, & Associates (Eds.), Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America’s voluntary sector (pp. 93–114). Jossey-Bass.

71.

Ilchman

W. F.

Katz

S. N.

Queen

E. L., II.

(1998). Philanthropy in the world’s traditions. Indiana University Press.

72.

James

(1987). The public/private division of responsibility for education: An international comparison. Economics of Education Review, 6(1), 1–14.

73.

James

(1989). The nonprofit sector in international perspective: Studies in comparative culture and policy. Oxford University Press.

74.

James

(1993). Why do different countries choose a different public-private mix of educational services? Journal of Human Resources, 28, 571–592.

75.

Jeavons

(1994). When the bottom line is faithfulness: Management of Christian service organizations. Indiana University Press.

76.

Jeong

Cui

T. S.

(2020). The density of nonprofit organizations: Beyond community diversity and resource availability. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 213–226.

77.

Joassart-Marcelli

(2013). Ethnic concentration and nonprofit organizations: The political and urban geography of immigrant services in Boston, Massachusetts. International Migration Review, 47(3), 730–772.

78.

Joassart-Marcelli

Wolch

J. R.

(2003). The intrametropolitan geography of poverty and the nonprofit sector in Southern California. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 70–96.

79.

Joseph

J. A.

(1995). Remaking America: How the benevolent traditions of many cultures are transforming our national life. Jossey-Bass.

80.

Katz

(1997). Improving poor people: The welfare state, the “underclass,” and urban schools as history. Princeton University Press.

81.

Keiser

Soss

(1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1133–1156.

82.

Kim

(2015). Socioeconomic diversity, political engagement, and the density of nonprofit organizations in US counties. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(4), 402–416.

83.

Kim

S. E.

Kim

Y. H.

(2015). Measuring the growth of the nonprofit sector: A longitudinal analysis. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 242–251.

84.

Kim

Y. H.

Kim

S. E.

(2016). Testing an economic model of nonprofit growth: Analyzing the behaviors and decisions of nonprofit organizations, private donors, and governments. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2937–2961.

85.

Kim

Y. H.

Kim

S. E.

(2018). What accounts for the variations in nonprofit growth? A cross-national panel study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 481–495.

86.

Lam

P. Y.

(2002). As the flocks gather: How religion affects voluntary association participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 405–422.

87.

Lieberman

(1998). Shifting the color line: Race and the American welfare state. Harvard University Press.

88.

Lipsky

(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, 25–36.

89.

Lipsky

Smith

S. R.

(1989–1990). Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 625–648.

90.

Liu

(2017). Government decentralization and the size of the nonprofit sector: Revisiting the government failure theory. American Review of Public Administration, 47(6), 619–633.

91.

(2016). Governing diversity: The impact of social heterogeneity on human service delivery. Public Organization Review, 16(2), 153–166.

92.

(2017). Does population heterogeneity really matter to nonprofit sector size? Revisiting Weisbrod’s demand heterogeneity hypothesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 1077–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9915-4

93.

(2018). Complementary or supplementary? The relationship between government size and nonprofit sector size. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 454–469.

94.

Magidimisha

Chipungu

(2019). Spatial planning in service delivery: Towards distributive justice in South Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.

95.

Marchesini da Costa

(2016). What influences the location of nonprofit organizations? A spatial analysis in Brazil. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(3), 1064–1090.

96.

Matsunaga

Yamauchi

(2004). Is the government failure theory still relevant? A panel analysis using US state level data. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(2), 227–263.

97.

Matsunaga

Yamauchi

Okuyama

(2010). What determines the size of the nonprofit sector? A cross-country analysis of the government failure theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 180–201.

98.

Mercer

(2002). NGOs, civil society and democratization: A critical review of the literature. Progress in Development Studies, 2(1), 5–22.

99.

Miguel

Gugerty

M. K.

(2005). Ethnic diversity, social sanctions, and public goods in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics, 89(11), 2325–2368.

100.

Minkoff

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

101.

Monsma

S. V.

(1996). When sacred and secular mix: Religious nonprofit organizations and public money. Rowman & Littlefield.

102.

Nichols

(1988). The uneasy alliance: Religion, refugee work, and U.S. foreign policy. Oxford University Press.

103.

Okten

Osili

U. O.

(2004). Contributions in heterogeneous communities: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Population Economics, 17(4), 603–626.

104.

Orme

(2001). Gender and community care: Social work and social care perspectives. Palgrave.

105.

Orozco

Lapointe

(2004). Mexican hometown associations and development opportunities. Journal of International Affairs, 57(2), 31–49.

106.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Gen

(2009). Exploring the determinants of nonprofit coproduction of public service delivery: The case of K-12 public education. American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 391–408.

107.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Zuhlke

(2019). Revisiting the theory of government failure in the face if heterogeneous demands. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(2), 103–124.

108.

Polson

E. C

. (2017). Religious environments and the distribution of anti-poverty nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(1), 156–174.

109.

Pope

Flanigan

(2013). Revolution for breakfast: Intersections of activism, service, and violence in the Black Panther Party’s community service programs. Social Justice Research, 26(4), 445–470.

110.

Putnam

R. D.

(2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

111.

Quijano

(2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views From South, 1(3), 533–580.

112.

Ramakrishnan

Bloemraad

(2008). Civic hope and political realities: Immigrants, community organizations, and political engagement. Russell Sage Foundation.

113.

Rose-Ackerman

(1996). Altruism, nonprofits and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–726.

114.

Saidel

J. R.

(2002) Nonprofit organizations, political engagement, and public policy. In Reid

E. J.

Montilla

M. D.

(Eds.), Exploring Organizations and Advocacy (pp. 1–18). Urban Institute.

115.

Saideman

S. M.

(2001). The ties that divide: Ethnic politics, foreign policy, and international conflict. Columbia University Press.

116.

Salamon

Sokolowski

(2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Kumarian Press.

117.

Sandberg

(2019). Critical perspectives on the history and development of the nonprofit sector in the United States. In Eikenberry

Mirabella

Sandberg

(Eds.), Reframing nonprofit organizations: Democracy, inclusion, and social change (pp. 26–36). Melvin & Leigh.

118.

Sandberg

Eikenberry

Mirabella

(2019). Critical perspectives on nonprofit and voluntary organization management: Introduction to the textbook. In Eikenberry

Mirabella

Sandberg

(Eds.), Reframing nonprofit organizations: Democracy, inclusion, and social change (pp. 1–10). Melvin & Leigh.

119.

Sandberg

Elliot

(2019). Toward a care-centered approach for nonprofit management in a neoliberal era. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 286–306.

120.

Schneider

(2007). Connections and disconnections between civic engagement and social capital in community-based nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 572–597.

121.

Schneider

(2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 643–662.

122.

Schram

(2005). Contextualizing racial disparities in American welfare reform: Toward a new poverty research. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 253–268.

123.

Schram

Fording

Soss

(2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.

124.

Schram

Soss

Fording

Houser

(2009). Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74, 398–422.

125.

Scourfield

(2010). Gender and child welfare in society: Introduction to some key concepts. In Featherstone

Hooper

Scourfield

(Eds.), Gender and child welfare in society (pp. 1–25). Wiley-Blackwell.

126.

Shaw

Allen

(2009). “To be a business and to keep our humanity”: A critical management studies analysis of the relationship between a funder and nonprofit community organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(1), 83–96.

127.

Sherman

A. L.

(1995). Cross purposes: Will conservative welfare reform corrupt religious charities? Policy Review, 58–63.

128.

Simon

(1993). Altruism and economics. American Economics Review, 83(2), 156–161.

129.

Skocpol

(2000). Religion, civil society, and social provision in the U.S. In Bane

Coffin

Thiemann

(Eds.), Who will provide? (pp. 21–50). Westview Press.

130.

Smith

Shue

Vest

J. L.

Villarreal

(1999). Philanthropy in communities of color. Indiana University Press.

131.

Soss

(2002). Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. University of Michigan Press.

132.

Srinivas

(2009). Against NGOs? A critical perspective on nongovernmental action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 614–626.

133.

Stater

K. J.

(2010). How permeable is the nonprofit sector? Linking resources, demand, and government provision to the distribution of organizations across nonprofit mission-based fields. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 674–695.

134.

Sudhinaraset

Ingram

Lofthouse

Montagu

(2013). What is the role of informal healthcare providers in developing countries? A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 8(2), Article e54978. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/93bc7847-5c4e

135.

Szekely

(2015). Doing well by doing good: Understanding Hamas’s social services and political advertising. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(4), 275–292.

136.

Szekely

(2016). The politics of militant group survival in the Middle East: Resources, relationships, and resistance. Palgrave Macmillan.

137.

Tilly

(2003). The politics of collective violence. Cambridge University Press.

138.

Van Puyvelde

Brown

W. A

. (2016). Determinants of nonprofit sector density: A stakeholder approach. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(3), 1045–1063.

139.

Wacquant

(2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.

140.

Weber

(1963). The sociology of religion. Beacon Press.

141.

Weisbrod

(1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. Lexington Books.

142.

Weisinger

Salipante

(2005). A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 29–55.

143.

Werbner

(2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making of chaordic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), 119–133.

144.

Willner

(2019). Organizational legitimacy and managerialism within social justice nonprofit organizations: An interest divergence analysis. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 225–244.

145.

Wuthnow

(1993). Altruism and sociological theory. Social Service Review, 67(3), 344–358.

146.

Wuthnow

(1999). Mobilizing civic engagement: The changing impact of religious involvement. In Skocpol

Fiorina

(Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy. Brookings Institution.