employing additional staff can improve service delivery?

- 119 -

Perceptions of Collaboration and Service

Integration as Strategic Alternatives: An

Examination of Social Service Nonprofit

Organizations in the Late 1990s

Jennifer A. Wade-Berg

Kennesaw State University

Vanessa Robinson-Dooley

Kennesaw State University

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have historically dealt with the problem of trying to

build organizational capacity while simultaneously dealing with scarce resources.

Consequently, practitioners and scholars continue to offer assistance to nonprofits in the

development of techniques aimed at addressing these situations. Recent literature shows

a push towards innovation, the use of new organizational tax structures, and/or the use of

commercial revenue generating activities as plausible strategic alternatives for dealing

with declining resources. While these techniques show promise, they typically are

reserved for larger nonprofits (as measured by their funding base) and those nonprofits

with missions that lend themselves for such activities (e.g., health care, arts and culture).

But what about other NPOs that may not be willing to undertake such risk, or who do not

have missions that can embrace commercial activity? This article examines two

strategies, collaboration and service integration, techniques that are perceived by

practitioners to show promise for organizations needing to build capacity, and/or

generate new or maintain resources. Based upon data yielded from a national mail

survey of social service nonprofit organizations, this article provides an empirical

analysis that highlights the extent to which nonprofit social service organizations were

engaged in these techniques; and from the perspective of nonprofit upper managers, the

impacts their respective nonprofit organizations experienced. Using these data and

perspectives, a set of recommendations are derived for today’s organizations to consider.

Finding mechanisms to building capacity while increasing organizational resources,

including income stream, has never been an easy endeavor for many social service

nonprofit organizations. As the number of nonprofit organizations continues to rise, the

nonprofit sector faces ever-increasing pressure to become more self-sufficient and

resilient, while becoming less reliant upon government funding and charity (Arnold &

Edwards, 1998). As nonprofit administrators and academicians probe new and

1

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 120 -

innovative ways for assisting nonprofit organizations in the development of new revenue

streams and resources (e.g., innovation, the emergence of new organizational tax

structures, the use of commercial activity); the call for collaboration and service

integration are still being touted as a plausible means for generating and/or saving

resources. This article examines these techniques as a means to develop and enhance

organizational resources and strengthen capacity from the perspective of nonprofit

practitioners.

Nonprofit organizations often ignore capacity building especially when faced with declining resources and fiscal stress. In fact, Wagner (2003) states an “important barrier

impeding the ability of nonprofits to engage in capacity building is a dysfunctional

funding environment” (p. 104). The financial and resource difficulties experienced by

social service nonprofit organizations are not new. For example, a survey conducted by

The Bridgespan Group, found that in 2009 “93 [percent] of nonprofits were experiencing

the effects of the downturn compared with 75 [percent] that had seen declines a year ago,

and 80 [percent] said their funding had been cut, compared with 52 [percent] last year”

(Tuck & Gregory, 2009). As a result, nonprofit organizations became increasingly

concerned with the manner in which they funded operations and delivered services.

Reliance on philanthropy and charitable giving to fund service delivery posed a challenge

for nonprofit organizations. Even though philanthropy is a great priority for many donors,

it can be the first expense cut during a recession-like economy (Kielbasa, Zgut, &

Peterson, 2010). For example, charitable giving declined during the recession, with a fall

of 2 percent in nominal terms from 2007 to 2008. This reduction was a decline of 5.7

percent adjusted for inflation (Sherlock & Gravell, 2009). Practitioners asserted that the

level of fiscal stress undergone by individual nonprofit organizations was dependent on the

organization’s current level of funding and its ability to meet costs associated with

increases in service. These concerns and their implications can best be understood from

the perspective of resource dependency theory.

Resource Dependency Theory

Resource dependency theory conceptualizes the environment in terms of other organizations

with which the focal organization engages in exchange relationships (Banaszak-Holl, Zinn

& Mor, 1996). Organizations depend on the resources traded in the exchanges and will

adapt their behavior and/or structure in order to guarantee the exchange. Rainey (1991)

states that “resource-dependence theories analyze how organizational managers try to obtain

crucial resources from their environments: material, money, people, needed support

services, and technological knowledge” (p. 43). Organizations must adapt management

styles and organizational structures in response to changes within the environment. This

can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Rainey (1991) writes:

They can try to change the environment by creating demand or seeking government

actions that can help them. They can try to manipulate the way the environment is

perceived by people in the organization and outside it. In these and other ways, they can

pursue essential resources. [Resource dependency] theorists stress the importance of

internal and external political processes in the quest for resources (p. 43).

2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 121 -

Froelich (1999) examines nonprofit financial management within this framework.

She asserts that considering the financial and resource difficulties experienced by nonprofit

organizations, the key to their survival will be their ability to shift their dependency from

certain funding sources to other resources. Froelich (1999) writes:

The key to organizational survival is the ability to acquire and maintain resources.

This task is problematic due to environmental conditions of scarcity and uncertainty;

broadly speaking, resources are not adequate, stable, or assured. Ultimately, the resource

imperative results in the adaptation of organizations to requirements of important resource

providers (p. 247).

Nonprofit practitioners understand that their resources and funding are largely

dependent upon their environment and available resources. Furthermore, the nonprofit

organization’s mission determines its programs and services. It is for these programs and

services that the practitioner makes decisions as to where s\he will seek the necessary

resources to cover the operational costs of the program. Consequently, practitioners

incorporate financial and resource management techniques that will allow for the

management of dependencies or management based upon the availability of income and

resources. Starter (2009) writes:

To overcome failure to generate profits from the goods they produce, nonprofit

organizations have unique methods to generate and sustain capital flows resulting in distinct

exchange relationships. This leads scholars to argue that nonprofit marketing strategies

should differ as well (p. 202).

Two strategies available to nonprofit organizations trying to stretch and/or acquire

resources are collaboration and service integration. These methods are examined together

for two reasons: they may prove instrumental for the nonprofit organization’s ability to

conserve existing resources or gain new ones by working with other organizations; and both

strategies involve the joint effort of numerous stakeholders in the human service system. A

secondary benefit of using either method is the realization of a system in which people

needing help get help with the least amount of red tape, hassle, or confusion (O’Looney,

1996, p. 13).

Defining Collaboration and Service Integration

According to O’Looney (1996) and Bruner (1991), scholars and practitioners have offered

numerous definitions for the terms collaboration and service integration. For the purpose of

this research, collaboration is defined as a process of cooperation between two or more

organizations to reach goals that cannot be achieved by acting singly (or, at a minimum,

cannot be reached as efficiently). As a process, collaboration is a means to an end, not an

end in itself. The desired end is a comprehensive and appropriate set of services for clients

(Bruner, 1991). As O’Looney (1996) argues:

Collaboration refers to the generic processes by which individuals and groups grow

to be more positively interdependent and learn to coordinate their activities in ways

that provide for synergistic benefits (p. 17).

Collaboration involves the sharing of responsibilities for the implementation of a program

and/or service. Known as a process requiring consensus-building and consuming of time,

collaboration requires that organizations know each other’s roles and responsibilities

3

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 122 -

regarding the implementation of programs, the setting of goals, and the process of decision-

sharing (O’Looney, 1996; Bruner, 1991).

In contrast, service integration (or services integration) is often viewed as the more

formal elements of collaboration. Historically, the concept of service integration was

derived from the settlement houses of the late 19th century. Yet, tangible service

integration activities can first be seen through programs associated with the War on Poverty

and later under the Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) services integration initiative

(Waldfogel, 1997). There are varying perspectives as to the dimensions of service

integration. Waldfogel (1997) asserts that service integration efforts can be categorized

along three dimensions: type (administrative reforms, governance reforms, financing

reforms, and casework reforms), level (state, county, or local), and locus of reform

(program, worker, or client level). Other theorists characterize service integration on four

levels: service delivery or frontline-centered service integration; program-centered service

delivery; policy-centered service integration; and organizationally centered service

integration (Agranoff & Pattakos, 1979; Kagan 1993; O’Looney 1996).

Service Delivery or Frontline-Centered integration corresponds to the direct service

level of collaboration and can take place without substantial alterations in policy.

Characteristics of service integration at this level are various forms of case management,

joint staffing, and coordinated support provided to clients as a whole. The main value at

this level is client empowerment (i.e., the idea that clients are valued consumers who have

choices and co-producers of their own and the community’s welfare). Additionally, service

integration is the result of both interagency collaboration between direct service providers

and collaboration between service providers and clients. Browne, Roberts, Gafni, Bryne,

Kertyzia, and Loney (2004) assert “It has been suggested that human service interventions

that address single problems or single risk or protective factors in isolation will be less

effective in reducing problems and enhancing competencies than comprehensive

interventions” (p 1).

Program-centered service integration is designed to alleviate problems in the service

system infrastructure, reduce wasteful turf guarding, and provide for greater efficiency and

effectiveness. Most, if not all, of the effect may be invisible to clients since it is indirect in

nature. As program linkages improve, clients should experience benefits in terms of

decreased wait and travel time, easy one-stop access to services, and increase personal

services due to savings in the cost of performing bureaucratic processes that provide no

added value for clients. Characteristics associated with this type of integration are building

shared information systems, co-locating facilities, conducting joint planning and

development of programs, cross-training staff and sharing transportation. Collaboration

between and among agencies, as well as within agencies that have multiple programs should

occur.

Policy-centered service integration involves the engagement of government in

multiple activities to increase the efficiency of service delivery. Activities that include

capacity building, needs and strengths assessments, priority setting, problem-solving rather

than program-by-program orientation, monitoring of the whole service system, and the

refinancing of existing services to increase overall service capacity. The concern lies with

increasing the degree to which funds can be allocated in a flexible manner, which is highly

desirable because it allows a rationalization of service functions. Collaboration exists at the

interagency administrative level.

4

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 123 -

Lastly, organizationally centered service integration concerns the reorganization of

governance structures, personnel systems, creating reward mechanisms, and the allocation

of responsibilities within and across agencies. This level is closest to the idea of the

creation of a new service system. Potential concerns are related to the constitutional issues

of the size, scope, and pattern of organizational authority and responsibility. Representative

of a top-down model of change, organizationally centered service integration can be thought

of as occurring consequent to collaboration at the interagency administrative level.

Disadvantages and Advantages of Collaboration and Service Integration

The techniques of collaboration and service integration are deemed by practitioners to be

tedious processes. Consequently, many nonprofits will not embark upon them due to their

associated costs (e.g., time, effort, and resources) and organizational ego-constraints (e.g.,

organizations will have to actually work together with other organizations and not receive

credit for providing a service independently). According to O’Looney (1997),

There is still considerable doubt among agency administrators [concerning]

collaboration [and service integration] . . . There are two basic sources of this doubt:

first, is the belief that the rewards of collaboration may not exceed the value of the

time, effort, and resources expended on maintaining the communication links,

organizational structure and administrative overhead of the collaborative; second, is

the suspicion that many of the functions performed by [collaborative efforts] may

have only tangential effects on the lives of [clients]. That is, [collaboration] often

[acts] as additional layers of rulemaking and paperwork… an escape from agency-

specific restrictions on programs and narrowly defined professional roles (p. 33).

Given the complexities of the techniques, it is believed that collaboration and service

integration occur within the nonprofit sector on a relatively small scale because of their

highly complex nature. O’Looney (1994) asserts:

The social service community has identified collaboration as the primary strategy for

addressing system delivery problems (with service integration as the goal) . . .

Research suggests that building collaboration is a highly complex task that involves

the application of wisdom from the disciplines of political theory, organizational

theory and behavior, small group theory, leadership, administration, dispute

resolution, adult education, program evaluation and technology assessment (p. 63).

Although there are problems associated with collaboration and service integration, there still

exist reasons as to why the techniques prove beneficial. O’Looney (1996) writes that the

delivery of human services is not only complicated, but it has resulted in numerous

problems. These problems, which are especially evident within the nonprofit social service

sector, include: (1) inefficient and ineffective fragmentation and overlap of services; (2)

difficulty in ascertaining what services are available and the eligibility criteria for clients;

(3) high transaction costs (e.g., discovering information about the services, traveling to

services, waiting for services and applying for services); (4) complexity, redundancy, and

breakdown of communications involved in planning when the number of providers of

similar services is high; (5) the lack of service system responsiveness to individual and

community needs; (6) the artificial division of persons, problems, and issues into

5

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 124 -

professional niches; (7) supervision of individuals and the under serving of others; and (8)

the lack of standardized information and procedures that would allow for accurate planning,

management, evaluation, and cost analysis of programs (O’Looney, 1996). Due to the

nature of human service delivery, it is thought that the methods of collaboration and service

integration afford nonprofit organizations the opportunity to enjoy more success, because it

provides programmatic solutions to the delivery of human services. These techniques can

create an opportunity for nonprofit organizations to share and combine their resources,

which lead to an improved human service delivery system according to O’Looney (2000,

1994 & 1993).

O’Looney (1993) also found that collaboration and service integration change the

current fractured and bureaucratic system of service delivery, and provide a promise for

greater effectiveness, efficiency and increased client sensitivity (p. 503). This greater level

of effectiveness, efficiency and sensitivity is achieved for numerous reasons including: (1)

consumers are able to find everything they want because services are integrated and made

available through [one stop] centers; (2) access to services is assured through programs

being linked to one another; (3) a more comprehensive set of services is made available

because of a more coordinated system of planning; (4) a better fit is made between

consumers and community needs and the array of services made available because of more

coordinated planning, information sharing, and pooling of agency funds; and (5) direct

service staff becomes more knowledgeable of the entire array of services, and is less loyal

to their own agency’s need to retain clients, especially when these clients would be better

served elsewhere (O’Looney, 1993). For these reasons, collaboration and service integration

are two techniques that may not only improve the financial resources of nonprofit

organizations, but may also help to improve upon other organizational resources and

capacity, including staffing and improved program/service delivery.

Understanding Organizational Impacts

The practice of collaboration and/or service integration can clearly be a difficult strategy

that has substantial rewards. Perhaps not every nonprofit organization can pursue these

strategies. But, they still represent a powerful response to shifting funding agendas,

organizational capacity, and public policies in a changing world.

Zimmerman and Dart (1998) explained the effect may be categorized into four

categories of outcomes: organizational resources, organizational relationships,

organizational reputation, and organizational responsiveness. Organizational resources

include human resources (e.g., staff and volunteers) and financial resources (e.g., increased

or decreased financial assets). If nonprofit organizations were to engage in any of these

strategies, they might experience an increase and/or decrease in organizational resources.

For example, the technique of collaboration may lead to savings of resources for the

organization. Saved resources can lead to the freeing of other resources, like money, which

can be utilized to hire new staff. Conversely, collaboration can also lead to an increase in

personnel that may cause the nonprofit organization to experience an overlap in the duties

of some staff.

The relevant relationships within a nonprofit social service organization include the

organization’s ability to maintain favorable relations with their clients, donors, volunteers,

staff, and boards of directors. By engaging in collaboration and/or service integration,

nonprofit organizations may find themselves forging new alliances with stakeholders. For

6

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 125 -

example, collaboration allows nonprofit organizations to forge new partnerships with other

organizations to provide services. These partnerships may lead not only to the creation of a

new program that expands services, but it may also afford an opportunity to gain new

clients. Gaining new clients and expanding services may also strengthen the relationship of

the nonprofit to the community, because it shows the extent to which the community needs

the services it is offering. On the other hand, engaging in collaboration or service

integration can also jeopardize relevant relationships. For example, collaboration is a

timely process. It involves practitioners going to meetings and working together in order to

develop a new service/program. The time spent engaging in these types of activities may

jeopardize already existing relationships because practitioners have to divert energy and

time to the new collaboration—this takes their attention away from established

relationships.

Reputation involves the reputation of the nonprofit organization within the

community and among donors. Responsiveness pertains to levels of effectiveness that

nonprofits are able to maintain in the delivery of services and programs upon embarking on

strategic alternatives.

Collaboration and/or service integration may be advantageous for the organization.

If they are successful, then the organization gains a reputation of being not only successful

but also self-sufficient. On the other hand, if they fail, then the opposite can happen.

Furthermore, if a nonprofit organization were to gain a reputation for instability (i.e., one of

being unstable), then donors and volunteers might be hesitant to give their money and time

to an organization that ultimately has the appearance of being weak or failing. In sum, the

precise effects of collaboration or service integration -- whether it effects the nonprofit

organization’s mission, capacity, financial structure, boards of directors, commercial share

and/or profit margin, funding providers, and/or clients -- should be further examined.

Methodology and Results

To explore collaboration and service integration further, data from a survey mailed to a

nationwide sample of 1500 nonprofit social service organizations in the United States was

used. Organizations were selected from the National Center for Charitable Statistics

database of organizations. The survey looked at a specific time in the organization’s

history 1996 – 2000. (This time period is similar to that experienced by nonprofits now with

changing public policies, shifts in funding strategies by foundations, declining individual

giving, and decreases in government funding). The survey sought information on agency

type (that is, agency characteristics such as staff size, information pertaining to the Board of

Directors, agency mission, budget size, and programs/services) and the extent and

conditions of collaboration and service integration utilization. Additionally, the survey

focused on the possible impact that each of these strategic responses may have on the

nonprofit social service organization. Surveys were received from 576 organizations or

38.47 percent of the sample.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents

Surveys were received from organizations located within 48 states. The data show that the

states with the most returns were California (9.2 percent of all returns), New York (6.4

percent), Texas (5.6 percent), Illinois (4.2 percent), and New Jersey (4.0 percent).

7

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 126 -

Approximately 89 percent of the organizations report being in existence for 35 or fewer

years. Over half (55.6 percent) of the respondents reported offering four or fewer

programs/services; a little more than 85 percent of the respondents offered 12 or fewer

programs/services. The average (mean) number of clients served yearly (unduplicated

count) was 5,651.

Additionally, respondents were asked to characterize the mission of their

organization based upon a list of social service functional areas ranging from animal

care/shelter to individual and family life. Table 1 provides the breakdown of each

functional area, a description of each area, and the percent of survey respondents who

reported that their organization’s mission fit within the category. The data show that a wide range of upper level administrators and/or members to the

Board completed the survey. Respondents carried various titles including: Administrator,

Accountant, Board President, CEO/Executive Director/President, or Secretary/Treasurer.

In terms of gender, 48.4 percent were female and 51.6 percent were male. Regarding race

and ethnicity, all major racial/ethnic groups were represented among the respondents, with

87.8 percent Caucasians, 5.6 percent African Americans, 1.1 percent Asian Pacific

Islanders, 2.1 percent Latinos/Hispanics, 1.9 percent Native Americans, and 1.5 percent

reporting other. As for age, respondents ranged in age from 26 to 85 years, with the

majority (90 percent) of respondents being 38 years or older.

With respect to experience in their employment position, 75 percent of the

respondents were found to have occupied their current position 10 or fewer years.

Additionally, the data show that 85 percent of the respondents had 15 or fewer years of

experience in their current organization. In terms of years of experience working within the

nonprofit sector, 75.7 percent of respondents were found to have 22 or fewer years of

experience. Educationally, the majority of respondents had either an undergraduate (41.7

percent) or a masters (30.3 percent) degree.

The survey also asked about organizational staff resources. More than 75 percent of

respondents had 15 or fewer full time paid staff, 11 or fewer part-time staff, and 56 or fewer

volunteer personnel. Five hundred seventy-three organizations (99 percent) reported having

a Board of Directors. Of this number, 90.2 percent reported having 23 or fewer total board

members. When asked the question of whether or not Board members held a fiduciary

responsibility, that is, whether members of the Board of Directors assume financial

responsibility for the nonprofit organization should it be forced to dissolve with outstanding

debt. About 66.2 percent of the respondents stated no in response.

With regard to sources of funding, approximately 57 percent of respondents reported

that none of their organizations’ budgets relied on foundation grants or government grants.

Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reported that no part of their budget relied on

government contracts. Only 36.4 percent of the respondents reported that none of their

budget came from fees for service; 51.9 percent reported that no part of their budget relied

on corporate donations. Approximately 27 percent of the organizations reported that their

budget did not draw on donations from individuals; and 61 percent of respondents reported

that none of their funding came from funding agencies like the United Way. Overall, the

data show that a little over half (56.4 percent) of the organizations reported that their budget

relied on three or fewer sources of funding; while 88.0 percent relied on five or fewer

sources. On average respondents used 3.5 sources of funding to support their activities.

8

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

- 127 -

Table 1. Survey Respondents and Their Reported Organizational Mission

Mission Type Percent of respondents whose

mission falls into this category

Animal Care/Shelter: Food, shelter, and/or emergency assistance to animals 0.7

Maintenance/Yard Work: Housing and building repairs, Outdoor yard care 1.9

Environment: Environmental advocacy issues, including Green Peace 4.5

Public Safety: Police/guards; education and advocacy issue regarding safety 5.4

Religion: Churches, religious affiliations. 5.6

Economic Development: Community Development Center and empowerment zones 5.9

Criminal Justice/Legal Services: Legal aid, representation, or education 6.4

Transportation: Vehicle transportation between agencies: pick up & delivery of clients 8.0

Personal: Personal care, home delivery, persona attention 8.0

Consumer Services: Consumer credit services and counseling 8.3

Leadership Development: Leadership skills(s) training and development 10.1

Employment (training): Job replacement, job training, and job education 12.9

Food: Soup kitchens, feed the hungry programs, pantry services 13.4

Medical/Health: Health education, home health care, health care services 17.7

Volunteers: Volunteer agencies (volunteer based services) 18.3

Housing: HUD homes, first time buyer assistance, Habitat for Humanity 24.9

Individual and Family Life: Counseling, referral services 26.6

Education (training): General Education Diploma Training, educational skills 32.2

Youth: Little League youth sports, youth activities 32.9

Other: adoption, advocacy, substance abuse, recreational sports, case management child abuse

prevention and education, community action agencies, child care/daycare, domestic violence

prevention/education, mental health/mental retardation services, homelessness, emergency

assistance, fire/police safety, support organizations, and senior citizen services.

31.8

NOTES: The functional category of other provides a list of what respondents reported in this section.

9

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

- 128 -

Findings: Collaboration The Extent of Collaboration. Using statistical frequencies, the extent to which social service

nonprofit organizations engage in this approach was evaluated by looking at the proportion

of organizations that reported being involved with collaboration during fiscal years 1998

and 1999. Of the nonprofit organizations responding to the survey, the data reveal that

50.3 percent of the respondents (280 organizations) engaged in some form of collaboration

during FY 1998 and 1999. A more detailed look at these collaborative experiences show

that, among those who collaborate, approximately 30.8 percent reported collaborating three

or fewer times during FY 98 and FY 99, and almost two-thirds (64.6 percent) report doing

so 10 or fewer times during this same time period. When examining the number of

programs and/or services involved with collaboration, approximately half (49.8 percent)

reported that three or fewer programs were involved. Additionally, 85.3 percent reported

having 11 or fewer programs involved.

Respondents also reported that they collaborate with for-profit, public, and nonprofit

organizations. Of those respondents who reported engaging in collaborative efforts, 46.4

percent collaborated with for-profit organizations; 63.5 percent collaborated with public

organizations; and 87.1 percent worked with other nonprofit organizations. Examples of the

types of collaborative arrangements included nonprofit organizations working together to

deliver educational activities to children; working with agencies to collect, sort, store, and

distribute food products to other nonprofit organizations; working with other organizations

to provide outreach services; and providing forums on domestic violence and sexual assault

to the public.

Based upon the data, it is evident that nonprofit social service organizations engaged

in collaboration. Although there are a variety of examples of collaborative efforts, the

preferred organizational partners were public and nonprofit organizations. The literature

suggests that collaboration is a complex task that may occur on a small scale, but it is

obvious that nonprofit social organizations chose this method of service delivery. An

overwhelming 91.5 percent of respondents who engaged in collaboration believed that the

strategy was successful. Additionally, 93 percent of respondents believe that it should be

encouraged.

Perceptions of Impact. To ascertain the type of impact that collaboration had on differing

aspects of the organization, respondents were asked a series of perception questions and

asked to answer by using a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree

(5). Next, responses were recoded into new variables that summarized the perceptions of

impact. The new variables were constructed by collapsing responses associated with

strongly disagree and disagree into one category and agree and strongly agree into another.

The third category of answers was represented by the response neither agree nor disagree.

The results are for those respondents who indicated that their organization engaged in some

type of collaboration only. Table 2 presents these findings.

10

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 129 -

Table 2. Collaboration: Perceptions of Impact

Questions

Percent

who

Disagree

Percent

Neutral

Percent

who

Agree

Collaboration has allowed my organization to

increase the number of services/programs it offers.

8.1

15.0

76.9

Collaboration has had a positive effect on our

clients.

2.9

9.6

87.5

Collaboration has decreased our reliance on

individual donations/funding.

59.2

28.8

12.0

Collaboration has decreased our reliance on

government funding.

56.0

38.3

5.6

Collaboration has decreased our reliance on

corporate funding

59.8

33.7

6.4

Collaboration has decreased our reliance

on foundation money

57.2

37.9

4.8

Collaboration has decreased our reliance

on funding agencies, like the United Way.

55.0

39.3

5.7

Table 2 shows a majority of respondents (76.9 percent) had a positive perception of

collaboration in terms of helping the organization to increase the number of

services/programs offered. Additionally, a majority of respondents (87.5 percent) believed

that collaboration had a positive effect on clients too. Regarding the impact on traditional

sources of funding, respondents held mixed perceptions. In all cases, approximately half of

the respondents felt that collaboration did not decrease their reliance on any of their current

funding sources, but about one-third of the respondents held no opinion. These results

indicate that although collaboration has been useful in helping nonprofit social service

organizations to increase their service delivery outputs, organizational leaders still relied on

their traditional sources of funding.

Respondents were also asked the impact of collaboration on organizational

resources. Specifically, they were asked if collaboration led to an increased availability of

resources for the organization regarding staff, facility space, volunteers, new clients,

technology, budget, and other resources. Overall, 81.1 percent of respondents reported that

collaboration increased the organization’s resources in some fashion, but interestingly, the

data show that less than one-third of the respondents experienced increases in most of the

categories of resources listed. For example, only 28.2 percent of respondents experienced

increased staff; 29.3 percent increased volunteers, and 24.3 percent had technological

increases. Respondents (42.9 percent) reported their highest increase in the area of

increased clients and budget (37.1 percent of respondents). Therefore, the use of

collaboration does afford an opportunity for organizations to experience increases in their

organizational resources as evidenced by the data. These findings support Ginsler and

Associates, Inc. (1998) assertion that by working together in a collaborative fashion,

nonprofit organizations can experience an increase in their resources. Table 3 presents these

results.

11

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 130 -

Table 3. Collaboration: Perceptions of Impact on Organizational Resources

Question Yes (%) No (%)

Has collaboration led to an increase in staff? 28.2 71.8

Has collaboration led to an increase in facility space? 31.8 68.2

Has collaboration led to an increase in volunteers? 29.3 70.7

Has collaboration led to an increase in new clients? 42.9 57.1

Has collaboration led to an increase in technology? 24.3 75.7

Has collaboration led to an increase in budget? 37.1 62.9

Has collaboration led to an increase in other kinds of resources? 12.5 87.5

Findings: Service Integration

The Extent of Service Integration. Again, the extent to which nonprofit organizations

engaged in service integration was measured using statistical frequencies. The data reveal

that 30 percent of the respondents (173 organizations) engaged in some form of service

integration during fiscal years 1998 and 1999. A majority of these respondents reported that

their organization engaged in service integration five or fewer times during those fiscal

years. Respondents involved with service integration also reported that they worked with

for-profit (13.2 percent), public (39.3 percent), and nonprofit (67.6 percent) organizations.

Additionally, the data show that integration occurred with external (other) organizations

(71.6 percent) and within their own organization (65.3 percent). Examples of the types of

service integration arrangements included educational programs with schools, after school

programs and/or day care centers; employment support services; intake, case management,

record keeping, and/or client assessment activities; and the sharing of office space, staff,

and/or training activities.

Based upon the data, it is evident that service integration also occurred. Although

there are a variety of examples of service integration arrangements, the preferred

organizational partners are other nonprofit organizations. While more nonprofit social

service organizations engaged in collaboration, the data indicate that there are a small

percentage of organizations that have chosen service integration as an alternative means for

service delivery. Many of the respondents (91.9 percent) found service integration to be a

success. When asked if it should be encouraged, 89.6 percent of respondents reported yes.

Perceptions of Impact. Again, the perception of managers as to the positive and negative

impacts nonprofit organizations experienced when using service integration was examined.

Table 4 presents these results. Like the collaboration findings, Table 4 shows a majority of

respondents (75.0 percent) had a positive perception of service integration in terms of

helping the organization to increase its service delivery outputs, specifically the number of

12

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 131 -

services/programs offered. A majority of respondents (87.4 percent) also believed that

service integration had a positive effect on their clients. In terms of impact on traditional

sources of funding, respondents held similar views to those shared by respondents who used

collaboration. In all cases, approximately half of the respondents felt service integration

had not decreased the organization’s reliance on any of their current traditional sources of

funding; approximately one-third of the respondents held no opinion, and relatively small

proportions agreed that reliance on these funding sources had declined.

Table 4. Service Integration: Perceptions of Impact

Statement

Percent who

Disagree

Percent

Neutral

Percent

who Agree

Service Integration has allowed my

organization to increase the number of

services/programs it offers.

8.1

16.9

75.0

Service Integration has had a positive

effect on our clients.

4.2

8.4

87.4

Service Integration has decreased our

reliance on individual

donations/funding.

58.2

30.9

10.9

Service Integration has decreased our

reliance on government funding.

62.3

30.2

7.4

Service Integration has decreased our

reliance on corporate funding

59.8

34.1

6.1

Service Integration has decreased our

reliance on foundation money

62.8

32.9

4.3

Service Integration has decreased our

reliance on funding agencies, like the

United Way.

55.1

36.5

8.3

Like collaboration, service integration can be seen as a helpful technique when increasing

service delivery outputs. Organizational leaders still relied on traditional sources of funding

however to maintain operations. Respondents were also asked the impact of service

integration on organizational resources: staff, facility space, volunteers, new clients,

technology, budget, and other resources. As was the case with collaboration, the data show

that most respondents (78.7 percent) found that service integration contributed to an

increase in organizational resources, however only approximately one-third of the

respondents found some increase in an indicated resource. Table 5 displays these findings.

13

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 132 -

Table 5. Service Integration: Perceptions of Impact on Organizational Resources

Question Yes (%) No (%)

Has Service Integration led to an increase in staff? 31.2 68.8

Has Service Integration led to an increase in facility space? 29.5 70.5

Has Service Integration led to an increase in volunteers? 26.6 73.4

Has Service Integration led to an increase in new clients? 39.5 60.5

Has Service Integration led to an increase in technology? 26.0 74.0

Has Service Integration led to an increase in budget? 31.8 68.2

Has Service Integration led to an increase in other kinds of

resources? 4.0 96.0

Discussion

Overall, the data show that collaboration and service integration were used by

nonprofit social service organizations as a means of resource acquisition and achieving

efficient and effective delivery of services. The data also suggest that collaboration is used

more frequently then service integration. Many respondents agree that the idea to engage in

collaboration and/or service integration has mainly been one of the Chief Executive Officer

(60.4 percent). However, it was common to find that respondents also felt equally as strong

that the staff and/or Board members advocated the idea as well.

Through a series of Likert scale questions, which provided possible rationales for

engaging in collaboration and/or service integration, respondents were asked their

perceptions. Findings are presented in Table 6.

Approximately half of the respondents engaging in collaboration and/or service

integration indicated that they were using the technique for two primary reasons: to save

money and to deliver services more efficiently and effectively. A little over half of the

respondents disagreed that their organization engaged in collaboration because of increased

competition from nonprofit and for-profit organizations. They also disagreed that they

engaged in collaboration because other nonprofit organizations were collaborating. Similar

findings were found among respondents engaging in service integration. Based on the data,

respondents did not, in general, perceive the need to engage in collaboration because of a

heightened sense of competition or because other nonprofit organizations are doing so.

These findings help shape practical advice for today’s practitioner to consider. First,

collaboration and service integration allowed more than a majority of respondents to

increase program and service offerings. These were perceived to have a positive effect on

their clients, much like O’Looney et al. asserted would be a result. These finding show that

these techniques do offer promise for helping organizations meet their missions and helping

with organizational efficiencies.

14

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 133 -

However, the findings do not speak to the relative strengths and/or weaknesses that

nonprofits bring to the table when engaging in collaboration and/or service integration.

They do show that funding dependencies are not decreased and new resources may not be

gained. Therefore, it is important nonprofits inventory their resources prior to the start of

any collaborative activity. The continual need for assessing current dependencies is

important as not to increase them which may occur as programs/services grow.

Practitioners need to keep their eye, consistently, on ways to innovate if they are to reduce

dependencies even in the midst of collaborative activity. They must also be more

intentional on how to best align their respective resources in order to reach the goal of

growing capacity. The formation of strategic collaborations is the key to sustainability, but

it must be recognized that they may not work for all organizations in all situations.

Table 6. Rationales for Engaging in Collaboration and Service Integration

My organization engaged in

collaboration to:

Percent who

Disagree

Percent

Neutral

Percent

who Agree

...to save money. 30.3 22.3 47.4

...because of increased competition

from other nonprofit organizations. 52.0 24.2 23.8

...because of increased competition

from for-profit businesses 61.0 25.0 14.0

...because other nonprofit organizations

were doing so. 53.9 33.2 12.9

...to deliver services more efficiently

and effectively. 2.5 2.5 94.3

My organization engaged in service

integration:

62.8

32.9

4.3

.... to save money. 23.3 22.1 54.6

...because of increased competition

from other nonprofit organizations. 44.0 32.1 23.9

...because of increased competition

from for-profit businesses 51.9 34.8 13.3

...because other nonprofit organizations

were doing so. 42.9 34.8 22.4

Conclusion

The topics of organizational sustainability and capacity building remain at the

forefront of nonprofit practice. Practitioners continue to tout the successes that techniques,

such as collaboration and/or service integration, have (especially on a case by case basis).

This may set up an unrealistic expectation that these techniques can provide a viable option

for most nonprofits seeking solutions. An examination of these practices during a time of

recession shows that this may not in fact be the case on a more macro level. This initial

research shows that more is needed to document the types and effect of internal

15

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 134 -

organizational strategies that can be implemented by collaborating organizations that have

actually had success in reducing dependencies. Until then, nonprofit practitioners should,

perhaps, take a step back and examine their options weighing both the costs and the benefits

prior to proceeding.

Jennifer A. Wade-Berg, PhD, is an Assistant Professor Human Services at Kennesaw State

University. Her teaching emphasis is nonprofit management and social enterprise. Her

research interests include alternative funding sources for nonprofit organizations, cultural

competency, and sports philanthropy. She holds a doctorate and master’s degree from the

University of Georgia’s Public Administration program and a B.A. from Wesleyan

University (CT).

Vanessa Robinson-Dooley, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Kennesaw

State University. Her teaching emphasis is cultural competency, aging, and clinical social

work practice (family therapy and working with clinical groups). Her research interests

include interdisciplinary teaching and practice, cultural competence, and mental health and

chronic disease. She holds a doctorate and master’s degree from the University of

Georgia’s School of Social Work, a master’s degree in Public Administration (MPA) from

Drake University, and a B.A. from Spelman College.

Author’s Notes and Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. J. Edward Kellough and the University of Georgia’s Carl

Vinson Institute of Government for their support of this research.

End Notes

1. The literature pertaining to Resource Dependency Theory largely examines for-profit business firms. This theory has been adapted for the purposes of examining

nonprofit social service organizations.

2. The literature provides a full discussion of collaboration and service integration within the context of government agencies. For the purpose of this research, the

discussion pertaining to collaboration and service integration will focus within the

context of nonprofit social service organizations.

3. Bruner (1991) notes that collaboration can occur on four levels: Level 1 interagency collaboration - administration (i.e., Collaboration occurs when administrators at the

state and/or local levels manage agencies to facilitate collaboration through

protocols, interagency agreements, staff organization, staff incentives, and job

evaluation systems.); Level 2 interagency collaboration-service (i.e., Collaboration

happens when staff at the service-delivery level in various agencies is given

incentives and support for joint efforts with staff in other agencies.); Level 3 intra-

agency collaboration (i.e., Collaboration occurs when staff at the service delivery

level is given discretion in serving clients, provide support for decision-making,

and are involved in agency planning.); and Level 4 Worker-Family collaboration

(i.e., Collaboration happens when service-delivery staff and clients work together

in order to determine needs and goals and work toward greater client autonomy and

functioning) (p. 10).

16

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Fall 2014

- 135 -

4. The term collaboration was defined on the survey as follows: The term collaboration@ refers to your organization working with and/or sharing resources

(i.e., staff, space etc.) with other organizations. When collaborating, your

organization keeps its organizational autonomy while participating in program

sharing, partnerships, and the coordination of services with other existing

organizations. An example would be collaboration between two nonprofit

organizations to provide a new program of service for the community.

5. When coding for this variable it was found that respondents had a hard time measuring the exact number of times they engaged in collaboration for many

viewed it as an on-going/continuous/daily activity.

6. Approximately one-third of respondents reported that they neither disagreed nor agreed with the idea that collaboration has decreased the organization’s reliance on

the various funding sources (i.e., individual donations/funding, government

funding, corporate funding, foundation money, and/or funding agencies). This

finding may be attributable to the fact that funding sources are in constant

fluctuation. During one period of time practitioners may find that they increased,

while during other times they may be decreasing. With this kind of uncertainty,

practitioners may have no opinion as to whether a particular funding is increasing

or decreasing given that it may difficult to ascertain a trend with this kind of

constant fluctuation.

7. On the survey, the term service integration was defined as follows: The term service integration refers to your organization’s ability to serve its clients by combining

facilities, intake processes, filing systems, and personnel with other organizations

and/or between services or programs within your organization. When providing

integrated services, your organization may provide the services as a single

organization or with other organizations.

8. When coding for this variable it was found that respondents had a hard time measuring the exact number of times they engaged in service integration for many

viewed it as an on-going/continuous/daily activity.

9. As before, respondents were asked a series of perception questions and recorded their responses using a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (5). These responses were recoded into new variables by collapsing

responses associated with strongly disagree and disagree into one category and

agree and strongly agree into another. The third category of answers was neither

agree nor disagree. Responses were used from only those respondents who

indicated that their organization engaged in some type of service integration.

References Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Agranoff, R. & Pattakos, A.N. (1979). Dimensions of Services Integration: Service

Delivery, Program Linkages, Policy Management, and Organizational Structure.

Human Services Monograph Series, no. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Project SHARE.

17

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley: Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration as Strategic

Published by Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University, 2015

Wade-Berg and Robinson-Dooley Perceptions of Collaboration and Service Integration

- 136 -

Banaszak-Holl, J, Zinn, Jacqueline S., & Mor, V. (1996). The impact of market and

organizational characteristics on nursing care facility service innovation: A

resource dependency perspective. Health Services Research, April 1996, Vol. 31,

No 1, 97-117.

Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., Bryne, C., Kertyzia, J., and Loney, P. (2004).

Conceptualizing and Validating the Human Services Integration Measure.

International Journal of Integrated Care, 41-12.

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking Collaboratively: Ten Questions and Answers to Help Policy

Makers Improve Children’s Services. Washington, D.C.: Education and Human

Services Consortium.

Froelich, K. (1999). Diversifiction of revenue strategies: evolving resource dependence in

nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Volume 28,

Number 3, 246-268.

Galaskiewicz, J., & Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit Organizations in an Age of

Uncertainty: A Study of Organizational Change. New York: Aldine De Gruyter,

Inc.

Kagan, S. L. (1993). Integrating Services for Children and Families: Understanding the

Past to Shape the Future. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kielbasa, Agnieszka; Zgut (2010). Proceedings of the Northeast Business & Economics

Association, p. 696-710.

O’Looney, J. (2000). Evaluating Human Services Collaboration and Integration at the

State and Local Levels (A Draft paper).

O’Looney, J. (1997). Making progress toward service integration: learning to use

evaluation to overcome barriers. Administration in Social Work, Vol. 21, No. 3/4,

31-65.

O’Looney, J. (1996). Redesigning the Work of Human Services. Westport, Connecticut:

Quorum Books.

O’Looney, J. (1994). Modeling collaboration and social services integration: A single

state’s experience with developmental and non-developmental models.

Administration in Social Work. Volume 18, No. 1, 61-87.

O’Looney, J. (1993). Beyond privatization and service integration: organizational models

for service delivery. Social Service Review, 67 (4), 501-534.

Rainey, H. G. (1991). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco,

California: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers.

Sherlock , M. & Gravell, J. “An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector.”

Retrieved from: www.crs.gov

Tuck, A & Gregory, A. “Managaing in Tough Times: Survey Update November 2009”

Retrieved from: http://www.bridgespan.org/Publications-and-Tools/Strategy-

Development/Managing-in-Tough-Times/Managing-in-Tough-Times-Survey-

Update-November-200.aspx

Wagner, L. D. (2003). Why capacity building maters and why nonprofits ignore it. New

Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2003 (40), 103-111.

Zimmerman, B. & Dart, R. (1998). “Charities Doing Commercial Ventures: Societal and

Organizational Implications.” Trillium Foundation and the Canadian Policy

Research Networks, Inc.

18

Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 [2015], Art. 2

http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol20/iss2/2

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.