Interorganizational relationships among nonprofits in the aftermath of welfare reform.

Reisch, Michael ; Sommerfeld, David

One of the most significant consequences of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P. L. 104-193) was its impact on the decades-old partnership between the state and the voluntary sector. It affected relationships among nonprofit organizations as well as those between nonprofit agencies and public welfare departments (Bloom, 1997; Burt, Pindus, & Gapizzano, 2000; Cnaan, Wineburg, & Boddie, 1999). Little research has assessed how the legislation affected the patterns of interorganizational relationships that have emerged among providers (Allen & Kirby, 2000; Besharov, Germanis, & Rossi, 1997; Hassett & Austin, 1997; Perlmutter, 1997).

Most recent research on the organizational effects of PRWORA has focused on public agencies (Carnochan & Austin, 1999), with only a few studies examining its effects on private nonprofit organizations (Alexander, 2000; Withorn, 1999). Research on community well-being, however, has long established the importance of organizational infrastructure at the neighborhood level (Etzioni, 1996; Figueira-McDonough, 1995; Warren, 1970). Other research has revealed how changes in nonprofits' external environment produce new patterns of intraorganizational behavior and interorganizational relationships, including alternative resource development strategies and the creation or expansion of collaboratives and networks (Alexander; Bischoff, 2001; Bischoff & Reisch, 2000; Bielefeld & Scotch, 1998; Reitan, 1998).

Frameworks for analyzing the degree of competition or cooperation among nonprofits often assume that alterations in the political-economic environment are reflected in the nature of their interorganizational ties (Bailey & Koney, 1996; Bardach, 1998; Withorn, 1999). Research on such relationships is critical at this juncture because of the unforeseen consequences of welfare devolution (Baker & Doorne-Huiskes, 1999; Bielefeld, 1996; Brown, 1997; Young, 1999). These consequences include an increase in the demand for nonprofits' services, particularly emergency services, even as welfare caseloads have declined since the mid-1990s (Brunner, 1996; DiPadova, 2000; Eisinger, 1999; Withorn). Building on this research-which appears to reflect a shift in responsibility for social support from the public to the nonprofit sector, we analyzed the effect of PRWORA on interorganizational relationships among 90 nonprofit human services organizations in two counties in southeast Michigan. We hypothesized that a policy change of this magnitude was likely to alter the pattern of interorganizational relationships among nonprofit human services agencies, particularly those that serve low-income populations (Abramovitz, 2002; Bischoff, 2001).

Welfare and Welfare Reform in Michigan

The state of Michigan passed several significant welfare reforms before the 1996 federal changes. To some extent Michigan's reforms served as one of the models for PRWORA. Beginning in 1992, four years before the passage of PRWORA, the state shifted the emphasis of its welfare policies from entitlement to personal responsibility. As a result nonprofits in Michigan have had more time than their counterparts in most other states to acclimate to the changes produced by welfare reform. The findings from this study may, therefore, underestimate the effect of PRWORA on nonprofits in other states, because the data collected used 1996 as the baseline year.

The agencies in this study were drawn from two adjacent, yet very different, counties in southeastern Michigan. Wayne County (population about 2.1 million, dominated by the city of Detroit) is much more populous and demographically diverse than Washtenaw County (population about 323,000), which comprises smaller cities such as Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and some rural areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The proportion of Wayne County's African American population is more than three times that of Washtenaw County (42 percent compared with 12 percent); Washtenaw County has considerably higher median household income ($51,286 compared with $35,357) and substantially lower rates of poverty (8.7 percent compared with 18 percent) and child poverty (12 percent compared with 28.5 percent) (Drum, 2000).

These differences are also reflected in the size and composition of the counties' TANF caseloads. In April 2000 Wayne County had 31,593 welfare cases-43 individuals for every 1,000 county residents. By contrast, Washtenaw County had only 1,088 welfare cases-10 individuals for every 1,000 county residents (Administration for Children and Families, 2000a). Eighty-one percent of Wayne County welfare cases were African American, up from 78 percent in 1994; 14 percent of cases were white, down from 19 percent in 1994 (Administration for Children and Families, 2000b; Allen & Kirby, 2000). In Washtenaw County during the first quarter of 2000, 60 percent of welfare cases were African Americans and 32 percent were white (Michigan Family Independence Agency, 2000). Between January 1994 and December 1999, Wayne County experienced a 66 percent reduction in its welfare caseload; Washtenaw County experienced a 69 percent decrease. This compares with a 53 percent decline nationally (Administration for Children and Families , 2000a).

Method

Sample

We used three principle sources to develop the sample of nonprofit social service organizations: (1) the 1997 edition of the Nonprofit Enterprise at Work (NEW) Washtenaw Nonprofit Resource Directory, (2) the database of the Office of Field Instruction at the University of Michigan School of Social Work; and (3) the directory of participating agencies of the United Way of Metro Detroit. We selected 215 organizations (84 in Washtenaw County and 131 in Wayne County) that satisfied the following criteria:

* They provided health or human services to TANF recipients and other low-income clients who might require such public assistance in the future.

* They had been in operation before 1996.

* They were independent 501c(3) organizations.

Further scrutiny reduced the sample to 201, because some agencies in the initial sample had become for-profit organizations or had recently closed.

Letters were mailed to the executive director (or principle contact person) of each agency soliciting their participation. Follow-up telephone calls were made to nonrespondents after several weeks. Representatives from 82 organizations--including agency executives, program coordinators, and administrative staff-returned the survey questionnaire (35 from Washtenaw County and 47 from Wayne County) for an initial response rate of 41 percent. Three focus groups were then conducted-two in Wayne County and one in Washtenaw County--involving 32 representatives from 30 agencies drawn from the revised sample of 201 organizations. Eight organizations that participated in the focus groups had not returned a survey. A total of 90 organizations--45 percent of the revised sample--participated in the study in some way.

Survey Instrument Design and Variable Construction

The survey questions targeted organizational dynamics that were grouped into five basic categories: staffing, clients, programming, budgets, and interorganizational relationships. We sought to determine whether organizational changes along these dimensions had occurred between 1996 and 2000 and to assess the relationship between these changes and the implementation of welfare reform. This article focuses on the responses to questions pertaining to interorganizational relationships.

To focus on the specific effects of welfare reform, we used a two-step question process. First, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which changes had occurred since 1996 along an organizational dimension, such as interorganizational competition for resources. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether they believed this change was related to recent changes in welfare policy. For both questions, the respondents were asked to elaborate on their responses in an open-ended format. The resulting qualitative data were analyzed to guide the interpretation of the quantitative responses such that an indication of change could be more readily translated into a specific type of change or the direction (increasing or decreasing) of change.

For the questions measuring aspects of change between 1996 and 2000, respondents were asked to indicate the extent of change their organizations had experienced on a four-point ordinal scale, with response options of "little or not at all," "to some extent," "to a consider able extent," and "to a great extent." This allowed for an examination of the breadth and the depth of change experienced by the agencies.

In light of much recent organizational research (Scott, 1998), the survey instrument also collected data on several independent variables we hypothesized would affect organizations' responses to welfare reform. As indicated earlier, economic and social conditions differed substantially between Wayne and Washtenaw Counties. This suggests that organizations in these two counties may experience considerable differences in the demand for their services and in their access to community resources.

In addition, as Hasenfeld (1992) asserted, both the primary type of service provided and the nature of an organization's clients are important in defining its organizational character. PRWORA allocated additional resources for child care and other job-related supports, but gave less emphasis to emergency food and shelter services. We hypothesized, therefore, that because agencies offering different types of services were addressed differentially by welfare reform legislation, they would also experience the legislation's consequences differently.

We also examined organizational responses to welfare reform based on two characteristics of their client populations--the proportion of racial minority clients and the proportion of clients receiving public assistance. These characteristics were selected for analysis because public assistance programs in the United States historically have exhibited explicit and implicit discrimination against racial minority populations (Abramovitz, 1998; Massey & Denton, 1993; Quadagno, 1994), and as a result, one would anticipate finding the strongest effects of PRWORA in organizations serving low-income populations. Finally, a measure of organizational size was included because of the tremendous influence of this variable on organizations' capacity to function effectively in their environments.

Therefore, the independent variables of interest included agency location (Wayne or Washtenaw County), primary service activity (community/multiservices, mental health/substance abuse, education/advocacy, or emergency services), the proportion of public assistance clients served by the agency, and organizational size as determined by its annual budget. To facilitate comparisons, the quantitative independent variables of budget size and distribution of client populations were treated as ordinal variables with rankings of low, medium, or high.

Data Analysis and Limitations

Throughout this article, p = [less than or equal to] .05 is the level used to determine statistical significance. Chi square and Fisher's Exact Test (where needed to adjust for low cell frequencies) were used to examine the categorical data relationships. The measure of association between ordinal level data was determined by computing Kendall's Tau; statistical analysis was only conducted on organizations that responded to the survey questionnaire (N = 82). The sample size was reduced to 77 with the removal of five Washtenaw County preschool organizations, because no comparable organizations had responded from Wayne County. Certain questions were applicable to only a subset of the responding organizations, so the total n for those particular questions is less than 77 (as noted in the tables and text). In addition, because some respondents did not answer every question, some questions were missing responses from the full sample. For clarification, the number of respondents for each question is listed in the t ext and the tables.

The ability of participating organizations to identify the cause of the changes they reported constitutes a limitation of the data analysis. Throughout the period of PRWORA's implementation, a number of major political and economic changes have made the external environment of nonprofits increasingly complex. These confounding environmental forces were partially controlled for through the survey's two-step question process. Given the substantial variation in the responses to questions regarding general change compared with changes related to welfare reform, we believe that respondents were able make such a distinction. In addition, the qualitative responses to these questions frequently provided the rationale for whether or not a change was attributable to the effects of welfare reform.

Characteristics of Participating Organizations

The responding organizations provided a wide range of social services, had significant differences in the demographics of their client populations, and varied considerably in size and resources (Table 1). There were statistically significant differences between Washtenaw and Wayne County organizations based on their size and proportion of racial minority clients. There were no such differences, however, based on the proportion of TANF clients they served or the nature of the services they provided.

Results

Purposes of Interorganizational Collaboration

To assess the extent to which welfare reform had affected the nature of interorganizational relationships among the nonprofits sampled, the questionnaire was designed to establish a baseline of interorganizational collaboration. Given the recent emphasis on collaboration in the social services field, it was not surprising that a large majority (84 percent; n = 75) of the respondents indicated that they voluntarily collaborated with other organizations for various purposes (Table 2). In addition, nearly half of the agencies (43 percent) were required by foundations or government agencies to engage in collaborative activities. Although there were virtually no differences among agencies based on location, agency type, or the proportion of their clients receiving public assistance, organizations with higher proportions of TANF clients were substantially more likely to be engaged in programs whose funders required them to collaborate with other providers (p = .002). Larger agencies were also substantially more lik ely to be engaged in collaborative efforts that were required by funders (64 percent versus 28 percent of midsized agencies and 6 percent of small agencies; p = <.000).

The three most common reasons for collaboration were joint advocacy, training and technical assistance, and information and resource sharing. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents indicated that they worked with other organizations in advocacy or coalition activities. Size was the only variable that was statistically significant; nearly three-fourths of large agencies reported joint advocacy efforts, compared with 61 percent of midsized agencies and only 47 percent of small agencies (p = .05).

Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) indicated that they collaborated with other organizations for training and technical assistance. Only multiservices agencies reflected a lesser tendency to do so (39 percent). Again, large agencies were nearly twice as likely as small agencies (56 percent compared with 29 percent) to collaborate for this purpose (p = .07).

More than 90 percent of the respondents indicated that they cooperated with other organizations for information sharing. Midsized and large agencies, however, were substantially more likely to do so than small agencies (94 percent and 100 percent compared with 65 percent; p = .000). This difference probably reflected the greater access that midsized and large agencies have to important information about policy changes and funding developments.

Slightly more than one-third of the respondents collaborated with other organizations for raising or sharing resources. There were no statistically significant differences based on agency type, budget size, or proportion of public assistance clients.

Interorganizational Relationships

Welfare Policies and Changes in Purpose. Approximately one-third of the respondents who answered questions about recent changes (n = 73) reported that the purposes of their interorganizational relationships had substantially changed during the past four years (Table 3). In terms of agency type, only mental health agencies differed to any degree from the other organizations surveyed. Nearly one-half (45 percent) of the mental health agencies in the sample indicated that the purposes of interorganizational relationships had changed substantially, compared with 27 percent to 31 percent of other types of organizations. In focus groups respondents attributed this change to the impact of managed care.

Of the organizations that reported changes in the purposes of their interorganizational relationships (n = 24), 80 percent indicated that the 1996 welfare policy shifts had affected the changes. Among these respondents, collaboration was regarded as a way to pool limited resources or enhance services. As one focus group participant said, these agencies sought more "'strategic collaboration' ... to address competition [for clients and resources] and external opportunities and threats." Organizational type and budget size were not significant factors.

There were stronger associations, however, between the proportion of public assistance clients agencies served and the likelihood that changes in welfare policies had affected their interorganizational relationships. One-half of the agencies with fewer than 30 percent of clients on public assistance reported a connection between welfare policy shifts and the purposes of their interorganizational relationships. By contrast, more than 80 percent of the other agencies reported this connection. Although this disparity was suggestive, the sample size precluded testing for statistical significance.

Competition for Clients. As other research has indicated (Abramovitz, 2002; Bischoff & Reisch, 2000; Withorn, 1999), an important dimension of interorganizational relationships is the degree to which agencies collaborate or compete with each other for critical, scarce commodities, such as clients or financial support. We attempted to ascertain the extent of collaboration or competition for scarce resources and to determine the effect welfare reform had on this aspect of interorganizational relationships.

The findings reflected a varied picture of the effects of the 1996 welfare policy changes. Nearly one-half (44 percent) of the 75 respondents indicated that, at present, they competed to some extent with other organizations for clients. Many participants in the focus groups, however, said that there was little or no competition for clients because, as one participant said, the "needs are too many for all of us to handle." Another commented, "Competition is stupid. There are plenty to serve. Duplication is a growing problem [however] and we can't afford that."

Mental health agencies (75 percent) were far more likely than other types of organizations to compete with other agencies for clients. This compared with only 39 percent of multiservices agencies, 33 percent of advocacy organizations, and 24 percent of emergency assistance agencies (p = .009). Focus group participants attributed this difference to the consequence of managed care. There were few differences in this regard based on the proportion of public assistance clients or agency size.

Competition for Resources. By contrast, most (77 percent) of the 75 respondents reported ongoing competition with other organizations for resources. Nearly one-half (44 percent) reported experiencing considerable or a great deal of competition. One respondent noted that "there is always competition for financial resources, especially with the current trend of cutbacks in government funding."

There were substantial differences in the level of competition for resources among agencies by type of service provided. Nearly all mental health providers (95 percent) reported at least some competition with other agencies; more than one-half (55 percent) reported a considerable degree of competition. More than three-fourths of the multiservice agencies (77 percent) reported that they experienced competition for resources; nearly one-half (46 percent) reported considerable or a great deal of competition. The proportions for emergency assistance agencies were slightly lower (71 percent and 41 percent, respectively). Advocacy organizations were least likely to experience competition for resources, although 58 percent reported some or more competition, and one-fourth reported considerable or a great deal of competition.

The size of agency budgets was a particularly significant factor (p = .006) in competition for resources. Fewer than one-half of the small agencies (47 percent) reported competition for resources, compared with two-thirds of midsized and 95 percent of large agencies. About one-half of midsized and large agencies indicated experiencing this competition to a considerable or great extent.

Changes in the Extent of Competition. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of 64 respondents reported that competition had increased during the past four years; fewer than 5 percent reported it had decreased. Although one executive in a focus group applauded the growing emphasis on quality in the distribution of resources; another lamented that the "funds to meet the crisis do not exist." Differences based on agency type and client population were not statistically significant, but there were significant differences found based on agency size. Only 36 percent of small agencies reported increased competition, compared with 53 percent of midsized agencies and 70 percent of large agencies (p = .036).

Welfare Policies and Interorganizational Competition. Of the organizations indicating that competition had increased (n = 36), 75 percent reported that welfare policies had contributed to this increased competition. One-fourth of the respondents indicated that welfare policies had contributed considerably or to a great extent. One focus group participant referred to the emergence of a "natural selection" process among agencies because of public funding cuts during the past five years resulting from PRWORA and fiscal cutbacks. Cuts related to PRWORA were the consequence of a greater emphasis on program outcomes and the manner in which the state administered its TANF block grant. Other fiscal cutbacks reflected the effects of managed care and the state's spending priorities. In this vein, another focus group participant said that "shifting priorities at all levels has forced everyone to reexamine what and how they do business." A third participant said that PRWORA had no noticeable effects on her agency, but th at

there has been a noticeable effect on outside agencies with which we work, such as the Family Independence Agency and the Child Care Network. They have had more requests than they can field, more workload than sustainable. [This] causes them to seem at times more unstable and less likely to be able to take the time with parents, and more likely to feel somewhat defeated. This shows in their relationships with us and with the parents we serve.

There was some variation among agencies in this regard based on the nature of the services they provided, the size of their budgets, and the proportion of public assistance clients, but no clear patterns or statistically significant differences were found.

Relationships with Government Agencies

Accountability. Nearly two-thirds of 71 respondents indicated that accountability requirements had increased during the past four years as a consequence of the implementation of PRWORA and policy shifts such as managed care (Table 4). multiservices and mental health agencies were also far more likely to have experienced this change than were advocacy and emergency assistance organizations. About four-fifths of the former experienced such changes compared with slightly more than one-third of the latter.

Agency budget size was a significant variable in this regard. Slightly more than one-fourth of the small agencies (27 percent) indicated that reporting requirements had increased, compared with 69 percent of mid-sized and 77 percent of large agencies (p = .002). This was probably related to the relatively high proportion of mental health and multiservices organizations in the midsized and large agency categories.

Information and Technical Assistance. Slightly more than 40 percent of respondents indicated a greater need for information or technical assistance. Agencies with higher proportions of public assistance clients were more likely to report such needs. Fewer than one-fourth (23 percent) of agencies with a lower percentage of public assistance clients reported such needs, compared with 38 percent of mid-sized agencies and 58 percent of large agencies (p = .035). Virtually no differences were found based on the type of services provided.

Legislative and Regulatory Changes. A smaller proportion of respondents (28 percent) reported a need for assistance in interpreting legislative or regulatory changes. This was considerably different from the findings of research conducted in Philadelphia shortly after welfare reform had been implemented (Bischoff & Reisch, 2000). Agencies with smaller numbers of public assistance clients, were nearly as likely as agencies with very large numbers of public assistance clients to need this assistance (39 percent compared with 42 percent); only 14 percent of midsized agencies required such assistance (p = .045). There were few differences based on budget size, and no statistically significant differences based on agency type.

Increased Government Controls. A majority of respondents reported increases in accountability requirements, but only slightly more than one-fourth reported increased government controls. There was some variation based on agency type, but it was not statistically significant. Consistent with earlier findings on the effect of serving larger numbers of public assistance clients, agencies with this characteristic were somewhat more likely to report an increase in government controls (35 percent compared with 15 percent).

Adversarial Relationships. Although welfare policies often have generated increased organizational strain, fewer than one-fourth (23 percent) of the respondents reported that their relationships with government staff in departments such as the Family Independence Agency (FIA) had become more adversarial since the implementation of PRWORA. (In this context, the term adversarial relationships refers to conflict between FIA workers and agency staff or open disagreements over policy at the organizational level.) This finding may reflect the fact that, as focus group participants said, relationships between many non-profits and FIA had been adversarial before 1996, particularly in Wayne County, and that PRWORA produced no noticeable changes in this regard since 1996. It was not surprising that advocacy organizations were the most likely to report that their relationships had become more adversarial (36 percent); but the proportion of multiservices organizations that did (29 percent) was somewhat surprising, partic ularly in comparison with mental health (15 percent) and emergency assistance agencies (13 percent).

Budget size was a significant factor, with smaller agencies much more likely to experience adversarial relationships (40 percent) than mid-sized (31 percent) or large (13 percent) organizations (p = .026). Agencies with large proportions of public assistance clients were also more than twice as likely as the rest of the sample to report increased adversarial relationships (35 percent compared with 17 percent). Although suggestive, the limited sample size made it difficult to determine if these latter findings were statistically significant.

Client Advocacy. More than half of the respondents (55 percent) reported that they had engaged in increased client advocacy during the preceding four years. Noticeable differences appeared based on agency type, size, and client population, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Discussion

This study confirmed other findings--that nonprofit organizations have been struggling to meet the increased expectations generated by the passage of PRWORA in 1996 (Abramovitz, 2002; Alexander, 2000; Bischoff & Reisch, 2000; DiPadova, 2000; Withorn, 1999). Agencies are responding to the effects of welfare reform in a variety of ways, including their patterns of interorganizational relationships. This is reflected, for example, in the large increases in client referrals respondents reported in the surveys and focus groups, particularly among agencies that provided emergency services to TANF recipients.

Organizations in urban settings and with larger proportions of public assistance clients were more likely to report changes in interorganizational relationships because of welfare reform than their suburban and rural counterparts. Yet, the vast majority of respondents continued to engage in voluntary collaboration with other agencies. Agencies with larger numbers of public assistance clients were more likely to experience competition over resources and substantially more likely to report that such competition had increased during the past four years. The vast majority of these agencies attributed this, at least to some extent, to the effects of welfare reform.

The study also confirmed that welfare reform had altered the relationship between some nonprofits and government agencies, although not to the same extent as reported in earlier research. This difference may be explained by Michigan's adoption of welfare reform measures several years before the passage of PRWORA. This also may explain why fewer respondents in this study reported a need for more information or technical assistance or for assistance in interpreting policy changes. Agencies with higher proportions of public assistance clients, however, were still more likely to report such needs.

Although most respondents reported increased accountability requirements, only about one-fourth reported an increase in government control or experienced increased adversarial relationships with public welfare staff. Yet, a majority reported the need to engage in more client advocacy. Smaller agencies, particularly those with higher proportions of public assistance clients, were more likely to report adversarial relationships with government agencies and to engage in advocacy regarding clients' access to essential services.

Conclusion

These findings have serious implications for the future of nonprofit services provision in the United States. Small agencies and those that respond to clients' emergency needs appear to be particularly vulnerable. Historically, because of their grassroots character, these agencies have been the "canaries in the mine" in U.S. society and have played critical roles as gadflies and program innovators. Unlike larger and more mainstream agencies, however, they have less access to critical information, less flexibility in developing alternative staffing patterns, and fewer options to generate new resources. Yet, as focus group comments from representatives of more stable, better funded organizations indicate, their presence in the overall social services nexus is critical to the survival of low-income individuals and families and to the ultimate success of welfare reform.

This gap among nonprofits needs to be addressed in refinements of welfare policy design and implementation. In fact, the additional work requirements incorporated in the recent reauthorization of TANF will place greater demands on nonprofit community-based agencies that provide job training and placement, life skills development, and other supportive services to TANF recipients. Efforts at the state and local level that strengthen the linkages among nonprofit providers--particularly those that involve small grassroots organizations--will be critical to the survival of clients, their families, and the agencies that respond most effectively to their emergency needs. As this study demonstrated, the growth of collaborative programs and coalition activities among all types of nonprofit organizations offers a slim ray of hope. Further exploration of how such collaborative models can be constructed and sustained to ensure optimal services delivery systems for vulnerable populations would be an important step.

Table 1

Characteristics of Participating Organizations, in Percentages

 Total Wayne Washtenaw
 Sample County County
Revised Sample N=77 n=47 n=30

Agency type
 Community/multiservices 35 34 37
 Advocacy/Information/ 18 15 20
 Education
 Mental health/Substance 26 32 17
 abuse
 Emergency assistance 22 19 27
Proportion of racial n = 75 n = 47 n = 28
 minority clients
 Less than 30% 24 9 50
 Between 30% and 70% 31 23 43
 Greater than 70% 45 68 7
Proportion of public n = 73 n = 46 n = 27
 assistance clients
 Less than 30% 19 15 26
 Between 30% and 70% 44 44 44
 Greater than 70% 37 41 30
Annual budget n = 75 n = 46 n = 29
 $250,000 or less 24 13 41
 Between $250,000 23 26 21
 and $1,000,000
 Greater then $1,000,000 53 61 38
Staff size * n = 77 n = 47 n = 30
 Fewer that 10 employees 33 26 43
 Between 10 and 50 31 25 40
 employees
 More than 50 employees 35 49 17

* Significant difference between Wayne and Washtenaw County (p [less
than or equal to] .05)

Table 2

Purposes of Interorganizational Collaboration (N = 75)

 County


 Total Wayne Wash.
Purpose % % % p


Collaborate for service provision 84 85 83
 (voluntary)
Collaborate for service provision (required) 43 50 31
Joint advocacy/coalition work 64 76 45 ^^ .006
Training/technical assistance 48 63 24 ^^ .001
Information sharing 91 94 86
Fundraising/resource sharing 35 41 24

 Organization Type


 CMS AI MH/SA ES
Purpose % % % % p


Collaborate for service provision 85 75 90 82 --
 (voluntary)
Collaborate for service provision (required) 50 17 50 41 --
Joint advocacy/coalition work 54 58 70 77 --
Training/technical assistance 39 58 50 53 --
Information sharing 96 83 90 88
Fundraising/resource sharing 31 50 35 29

 % Public Assistance Clients

 Low Med. High
 <30 30-70 >70
Purpose % % % p


Collaborate for service provision 86 84 89
 (voluntary)
Collaborate for service provision (required) 7 48 56 ** .002
Joint advocacy/coalition work 50 61 78 * .05
Training/technical assistance 57 36 59
Information sharing 86 90 96
Fundraising/resource sharing 43 32 33

 Annual Budget


 Low Med. High
Purpose % % % p


Collaborate for service provision 77 83 90 --
 (voluntary)
Collaborate for service provision (required) 6 28 64 ** .000
Joint advocacy/coalition work 47 61 74 * .05
Training/technical assistance 29 44 56 .07
Information sharing 65 94 100 * .000
Fundraising/resource sharing 24 44 33 --

NOTE: CMS = community/multiservices; AI =
advocacy/information/education; MH/SA = mental health/substance abuse;
ES = emergency services.

* Significant linear association [less than or equal to] .05)

** significant linear association (p [less than or equal to] .01)

^^ significant chi-square difference (p [less than or equal to] .01).

Table 3

Interorganizational Relationships

 County


 Total Wayne Wash.
Relationship Change % % % p

Organizations reporting substantial
 changes in the purpose of inter-
 organizational relationships
 during the past four years (n = 73) 34 35 33 --
Organizations reporting that changes
 in welfare policy substantially
 changed interorganizational
 relationships (a) (n = 24) 80 88 63 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 clients (n = 75) 44 50 35 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 resources (n = 75) 77 80 72 --
Organizations reporting increased
 competition during the past
 4 years (n = 75) 61 68 50 --
Organizations attributing the
 increase in competition to
 changes in welfare policies
 (b) (n = 36) 75 73 80 --

 Organization Type


 CMS AI MH/SA ES
Relationship Change % % % % p

Organizations reporting substantial
 changes in the purpose of inter-
 organizational relationships
 during the past four years (n = 73) 31 27 45 31 --
Organizations reporting that changes
 in welfare policy substantially
 changed interorganizational
 relationships (a) (n = 24) 71 100 78 80 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 clients (n = 75) 39 33 75 24 ^^ .009
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 resources (n = 75) 77 58 95 71 --
Organizations reporting increased
 competition during the past
 4 years (n = 75) 57 44 70 67 --
Organizations attributing the
 increase in competition to
 changes in welfare policies
 (b) (n = 36) 67 75 77 86 --

 % Public Assistance Clients

 Low Med. High
 <30 30-70 >70
Relationship Change % % % p

Organizations reporting substantial
 changes in the purpose of inter-
 organizational relationships
 during the past four years (n = 73) 29 38 37 --
Organizations reporting that changes
 in welfare policy substantially
 changed interorganizational
 relationships (a) (n = 24) 50 80 90 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 clients (n = 75) 50 45 44 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 resources (n = 75) 71 81 78 --
Organizations reporting increased
 competition during the past
 4 years (n = 75) 46 68 63 --
Organizations attributing the
 increase in competition to
 changes in welfare policies
 (b) (n = 36) 83 67 86 --

 Annual Budget


 Low Med. High
Relationship Change % % % p

Organizations reporting substantial
 changes in the purpose of inter-
 organizational relationships
 during the past four years (n = 73) 24 31 41 --
Organizations reporting that changes
 in welfare policy substantially
 changed interorganizational
 relationships (a) (n = 24) 100 80 75 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 clients (n = 75) 35 39 51 --
Organizations reporting competition
 with other organizations for
 resources (n = 75) 47 67 95 * .006
Organizations reporting increased
 competition during the past
 4 years (n = 75) 36 53 70 * .036
Organizations attributing the
 increase in competition to
 changes in welfare policies
 (b) (n = 36) 100 50 83 --

NOTE: CMS = community/multiservices; AI =
advocacy/information/education; MH/SA = mental health/substance abuse;
ES = emergency services.

(a)Includes only organizations indicating, in the preceding question,
changes in the purpose of their interorganizational relationships.

(b)Includes only organizations indicating, in the preceding question, an
increase in competition.

* Significant linear association (p [less than or equal to] .05).

** significant linear association (p [less than or equal to] .01).

^^ significant chi-square difference (p [less than or equal to] .01).

Table 4

Relationships with Government Agencies (N = 71)

 County


 Total Wayne Wash.
Change % % % p

Increased accountability/reporting
 requirements 63 72 48 ^ .047
Greater need for information
 or technical assistance 41 46 32 --
Needed assistance in interpreting
 legislative or regulatory changes 28 33 20 --
Increased government controls 28 30 24 --
More adversarial relationships
 w/government agency staff 23 17 32 --
Increased advocacy for clients 55 57 52 --

 Organization Type


 CMS AI MH/SA ES
Change % % % % p

Increased accountability/reporting
 requirements 79 36 80 38 ^^ .005
Greater need for information
 or technical assistance 46 18 45 44 --
Needed assistance in interpreting
 legislative or regulatory changes 25 27 40 19 --
Increased government controls 42 27 30 6 --
More adversarial relationships
 w/government agency staff 29 36 15 13 --
Increased advocacy for clients 71 55 35 56 --

 % Public Assistance Clients

 Low Med. High
 <30 30-70 >70
Change % % % p

Increased accountability/reporting
 requirements 77 59 69 --
Greater need for information
 or technical assistance 23 38 58 * .035
Needed assistance in interpreting
 legislative or regulatory changes 39 14 42 ^ .045
Increased government controls 15 31 35 --
More adversarial relationships
 w/government agency staff 15 17 35 --
Increased advocacy for clients 46 52 69 --

 Annual Budget


 Low Med. High
Change % % % p

Increased accountability/reporting
 requirements 27 69 77 ** .002
Greater need for information
 or technical assistance 27 38 49 --
Needed assistance in interpreting
 legislative or regulatory changes 27 25 31 --
Increased government controls 27 19 33 --
More adversarial relationships
 w/government agency staff 40 31 13 * .026
Increased advocacy for clients 47 69 54 --

NOTE: CMS = community/multiservices; AI advocacy/information/education;
MH/SA = mental health/substance abuse; ES = emergency services.

* Significant linear association (p [less than or equal to] .05)

** significant linear association (p [less than or equal to] .01)

^ significant chi-square difference (p [less than or equal to] .05)

^^ significant chi-square difference (p [less than or equal to] .01)

Original manuscript received May 15, 2001

Final revision received May 7, 2002

Accepted September 20, 2002

References

Abramovitz, M. (1998). Regulating the lives of women: U.S. social policy from colonial times to the present (2nd ed.). Boston: South End Press.

Abramovitz, M. (2002). In jeopardy: The impact of welfare reform on nonprofit human service organizations in New York City. New York United Way of America.

Administration for Children and Families. (2000a). Change in TANF caseloads. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration for Children and Families. (2000b). Characteristics and financial circumstances of TANF recipients: Fiscal year 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexander, J. (2000). Adaptive strategies of nonprofit human service organizations in an era of devolution and new public management. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 287-303.

Allen, K., & Kirby, M. (2000). Unfinished business: Why cities matter to welfare reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (1996). Interorganizational community-based collaboratives: A strategic response to shape the social work agenda. Social Work, 41, 602-612.

Baker, S., & Doorne-Huiskes, A. van (Eds.). (1999). Women and public policy: The shifting boundaries between the public and private spheres. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Besharov, D. J., Germanis, P., & Rossi, P. H. (1997). Evaluating welfare reform: A guide for scholars and practitioners. College Park: University of Maryland.

Bielefeld, W. (1996). The institutionalization of nonprofit human service delivery: The role of political culture, administration and society. Administration and Society, 28, 362-389.

Bielefeld, W., & Scotch, R. (1998). The decision-making context and its impact on local human service nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9(1), 53-69.

Bischoff, U. (2001). The impact of welfare reform on interorganizational relationships among nonprofit organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bischoff, U., & Reisch, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on community-based non-profit organizations: Implications for policy, practice, and education. Journal of Community Practice 8(4), 69-92.

Bloom, D. (1997). After AFDC: Welfare-to-work choices and challenges for states. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Brown, A. (1997). Work first: How to implement an employment-focused approach to welfare reform. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Brunner, L. (1996, February 5). States, nonprofits shoulder welfare reform burden. Christianity Today, 40, 100-101.

Burt, M., Pindus, N., & Capizzano, J. (2000). The social safety net at the beginning of federal welfare reform: Organization of and access to social services for low-income families. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Carnochan, S., & Austin, M. (1999, September). Implementing welfare reform and guiding organizational change. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium.

Cnaan, R., Wineburg, R., & Boddie, S. (1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York: Columbia University Press.

DiPadova, L. (2000). Utah's charitable organizations face welfare reform: Concerns of charitable leaders. Sale Lake City: Center for Public Policy and Administration.

Drum, T. (2000). Key economic indicators. Lansing: Michigan Family Independence Agency.

Eisinger, P. (1999). Food pantries and welfare reform: Estimating the effect. Focus, 20(3), 23-28.

Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1-11.

Figueira-McDonough, J. (1995). Community organization and the underclass: Exploring new practice directions. Social Service Review, 69, 57-85.

Hasenfeld, Y. (1992). The nature of human service organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (pp. 3-23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hassett, S., & Austin, M. J. (1997). Service integration: Something old and something new. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 9-29.

Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michigan Family Independence Agency. (2000). Assistance payments statistics. Lansing: Author.

Perlmutter, F. (1997). From welfare to work: Corporate initiatives and welfare reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.

Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reitan, T. (1998). Theories of interorganizational relations in the human services. Social Service Review, 72, 285-309.

Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Population statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Warren, R. (1970). The good community: What would it be? Journal of the Community Development Society, 1(1), 14-24.

Withorn, A. (1999). Worrying about welfare reform: Community-based agencies respond. Boston: Boston Area Academics Working Group on Poverty.

Young, D. (1999). Complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? A theoretical and historical examination of nonprofit-government relations in the United States. In E. Boris & E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 31-67). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Michael Reisch, PhD, is professor, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106; e-mail: mreisch@umich.edu. David Sommerfeld, MSW, is research associate, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.