dentify the agency, organization, or community for which you will develop a strategic plan. State whether the agency, organization, or community exists at the local, regional, national, or international level. Then, discuss why you have chosen this agency

ORIGINAL PAPER

From Advocacy to Social Innovation: A Typology of Social Change Efforts by Nonprofits

Micheal L. Shier • Femida Handy

Published online: 18 November 2014

� International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Abstract Literature describing the social change efforts of direct social service nonprofits focuses primarily on their political advocacy role or the ways in which

practitioners in organizations address individual service user needs. To elicit a more

in-depth understanding of the varying ways that these nonprofits promote social

change, this research builds off of the innovation literature in nonprofits. It presents

a model of the typology of social innovations based on the empirical findings from

survey data from a random sample (n = 241) and interview data (n = 31) of direct

social service nonprofits in Alberta, Canada. Exploratory principal factor analysis

was used to uncover the underlying structure of the varying types of social inno-

vations undertaken by direct service nonprofits. Results support a three-factor model

including socially transformative, product, and process-related social innovations.

The qualitative findings provide a conceptual map of the varied foci of social

change efforts.

Résumé Les publications décrivant les efforts de changement social des organi- sations à but non lucratif de services sociaux directs portent principalement sur leur

rôle de sensibilisation politique ou la façon dont les intervenants de ces organisa-

tions répondent aux besoins des utilisateurs en termes de services individuels. Pour

obtenir une compréhension plus approfondie des différentes façons dont ces or-

ganisations à but non lucratif promeuvent le changement social, ces recherches

s’appuient sur des publications innovantes concernant ces organisations. Elles

présentent un modèle de la typologie des innovations sociales basées sur des

résultats empiriques issus de données de l’enquête auprès d’un échantillon aléatoire

M. L. Shier (&) Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

F. Handy

School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

DOI 10.1007/s11266-014-9535-1

(n = 241) et des données d’entretiens (n = 31) d’organisations à but non lucratif de

services sociaux directs en Alberta, au Canada. Une analyse factorielle exploratoire

principale a été utilisée afin de découvrir la structure sous-jacente des différents

types d’innovations sociales menées par les organisations à but non lucratif de

services directs. Les résultats confirment un modèle à trois facteurs, notamment des

innovations sociales visant à la transformation sociale liées aux produits et aux

processus. Les résultats qualitatifs fournissent une carte conceptuelle des foyers

variés des efforts de changement social.

Zusammenfassung Die Literatur, die die Bemühungen zum sozialen Wandel seitens gemeinnütziger Organisationen, die direkte Sozialleistungen anbieten, bes-

chreibt, konzentriert sich hauptsächlich auf deren Rolle als Vertreter politischer

Interessen oder auf die Art und Weise, in der Praktiker in Organisationen auf die

Bedürfnisse einzelner Leistungsempfänger eingehen. Zur Vermittlung eines tiefer

gehenden Verständnisses der unterschiedlichen Methoden, mit denen diese gem-

einnützigen Organisationen einen sozialen Wandel fördern, baut diese Untersu-

chung auf die Innovationsliteratur gemeinnütziger Organisationen auf. Es wird ein

Modell zur Typologie sozialer Innovationen präsentiert, das auf den emprischen

Ergebnissen aus Untersuchungsdaten einer Stichprobe (n = 241) und Be-

fragungsdaten (n = 31) von gemeinnützigen Organisationen in Alberta, Kanada, die

direkte Sozialleistungen bereitstellen, beruht. Man wandte die exploratorische

Hauptfaktorenanalyse an, um die zugrunde liegende Struktur der unterschiedlichen

Arten sozialer Innovationen gemeinnütziger Organisationen, die direkte Leistungen

anbieten, zu ergründen. Die Ergebnisse unterstützen ein Drei-Faktoren-Modell, das

soziale Innovationen im Zusammenhang mit sozialen Transformationen, Produkten

und Prozessen einschließt. Die qualitativen Ergebnisse liefern ein Begriffsbild der

unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkte bei den Bemühungen zum sozialen Wandel.

Resumen El material publicado que describe los esfuerzos de cambio social de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de servicios sociales directos se centra funda-

mentalmente en su papel de defensa polı́tica o en las formas en las que los profe-

sionales de las organizaciones abordan las necesidades individuales del usuario de

servicios. Para obtener una comprensión más profunda de las variadas formas en las

que estas organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro promueven el cambio social, la presente

investigación se basa en el material publicado sobre innovación en las organizaci-

ones sin ánimo de lucro. Presenta un modelo de la tipologı́a de las innovaciones

sociales basado en los hallazgos empı́ricos de datos de encuestas de una muestra

aleatoria (n = 241) y datos de entrevistas (n = 31) de organizaciones sin ánimo de

lucro de servicios sociales directos en Alberta (Canadá). Se utilizó el análisis fac-

torial exploratorio para descubrir la estructura subyacente de los diversos tipos de

innovaciones sociales emprendidas por las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de

servicios sociales directos. Los resultados apoyan un modelo de tres factores que

incluye innovaciones sociales relacionadas con productos y procesos socialmente

transformadores. Los hallazgos cualitativos proporcionan un mapa conceptual de los

diversos enfoques de los esfuerzos a favor del cambio social.

2582 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

Keywords Social innovation � Nonprofits � Social services � Social work � Advocacy

Introduction

Locally based nonprofit direct social service organizations (hereon referred to as

nonprofits) have taken on increasing responsibility, over the last three decades, in

addressing the direct social welfare needs of social service users in many

‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations (Powell 2007; Salamon 2002). As a result, the

role of nonprofits has become increasingly important in both providing services and

creating social change to better meet the emerging needs of service users and local

communities (Anheier 2009; Shier and Graham 2013). However, within present

scholarship there is only minimal investigation into the different ways that

exemplifies this social change role.

Social change efforts in direct service nonprofits is broadly defined here as the

actions undertaken by organizations to improve the social situation of individuals

accessing services and members within the wider community. These efforts can

include a range of activities, including direct service efforts, efforts to change socio-

cultural perceptions, and actions that seek to change the social welfare system itself.

In conceptualizing this social change role, the dominant stream of literature has

mainly investigated the political advocacy role of nonprofits (Child and Gronbjerg

2007; Kimberlin 2010; Mellinger 2014; Mosley and Ros 2011; Schmid et al. 2008).

Almog-Bar and Schmid (2014) provide some evidence of this narrow focus in their

recent literature review in the meaning and role of advocacy when applied to

nonprofits. For instance, they defined advocacy as an effort to change public policy

or influence decisions of government, and to protect individual socio-political rights

and freedoms (Almog-Bar and Schmid 2014). This perspective begets the question:

Is this the only way that these nonprofits create social change?

Current literature suggests that nonprofits can also create social change through

the ways in which they interact with service users and engage with the wider

community, and through adaptations to internal processes and structures to meet

emerging or changing needs (Shier and Graham 2013; Shier et al. 2014). However, a

compounding limitation in this scholarship is that the analysis of the social change

efforts has tended to rely on descriptive case study analysis of individual

organizations or specific service user populations (Boyd and Wilmoth 2006; Shier

and Graham 2013; Spergel and Grossman 1997).

To address these omissions in the scholarship, this research presents a model for

understanding the multiple foci of direct service nonprofit organization’s social

change efforts for their service user populations and within the community more

generally. Utilizing a mixed methods study design, this study uses quantitative and

qualitative data to answer the research question: In what ways do direct service

nonprofits create social change in their local communities and for service users?

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2583

123

Literature Review

Social change can occur in multiple ways, and this study starts with the premise that

innovations undertaken by a nonprofit is a novel way of understanding the

nonprofits role in social change. The literature describing innovation in and by

nonprofits provides a typology to understand the focus of organizational change and

the different levels of impact—such as service user, sector, and community levels of

impact (Jaskyte and Lee 2006; Netting et al. 2007).

Innovation refers to the ways in which organizations adapt or change as a result

of emerging contextual factors within an organization’s external environment and

internal demands. These contextual factors include (among others) our economic

system of exchange, our political system of laws and policies, our cultural system of

values and beliefs, and changing needs of service users (Ife 1996; Mulroy 2004).

These contextual factors provide new opportunities or challenges for nonprofits to

think about implementing novel approaches to persistent or emergent problems

(Jaskyte and Lee 2006). There are multiple forms of innovation—many of which do

not have a social change purpose. For example, new inventions, ideas, or

technological advancements can be considered innovative. Similarly, there are some

innovations within the business realm that aim to generate higher levels of profit,

whereas other innovations may have as a goal to pursue a social good (Borzaga and

Bodini 2014).

With regard to the place of social change within this innovation scholarship, it

has been conceptualized by the term social innovation; it is through social

innovations that organizations seek to create social change (Nichols 2006).

Following the definition of Pol and Ville (2009), social innovation refers to ‘‘any

new idea with the potential to improve either the macro-quality of life or the

quantity of life,’’ and macro-quality of life is defined as ‘‘the set of valuable options

that a group of people has the opportunity to select’’ (p. 882). In relation to direct

service nonprofits—and for this study in particular—the ‘group of people’ refers to

the population of people accessing services.

Within the literature on social innovation, there tends to be a reliance on

explicitly generalized definitions of the types of efforts that nonprofits (or individual

social entrepreneurs as the literature suggests) undertake to create social change. For

instance, Alvord et al. (2004) suggest that innovation for social change can be

characterized as transformational, economic, or political; defined consecutively as

social change that seeks to create community capacity, change economic systems, or

to challenge power relationships in society. While these descriptions are useful in

providing some context for the foci of nonprofit’s social change efforts, they do not

offer sufficient specificity in conceptualizing the manifestation of social change

efforts within and by direct service nonprofits. This generalized focus within the

literature in its application to direct service nonprofits is problematic for four

reasons.

(1) The underlying goals or intentions of new programs and initiatives differ and

they result in different social change outcomes at varying levels of practice

(Netting et al. 2007).

2584 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

(2) Social change efforts tend to be subtler than what is suggested in the social

entrepreneurship literature, with social innovation happening within existing

organizational structures (Grohs et al. 2013).

(3) Direct service nonprofits differ based on the type and extent of new programs

and initiatives they pursue (Jaskyte and Lee 2006), suggesting that social

change efforts can be targeted at different organizational levels within the

organization—such as the operational level, program level, or through

engagement with the external environment.

(4) While all nonprofit social service organizations are reactive to factors in their

external environment, not every nonprofit social service organization reacts in

the same way and/or to the same issues (Jones 2006; Schmid 2004). Some

direct service nonprofits might be targeting efforts at issues of negative public

perceptions, while others might see the need to address policy limitations to

support sustainable social change, and others might be adapting programs to

attain better outcomes.

Indeed, some new programs and initiatives are developed by nonprofits to

address omissions in service and to meet changing collective service user needs, but

little emphasis is placed on changing the social service delivery system itself (Scott

2008). Netting et al. (2007) refer to these as ‘focused’ programs or initiatives, where

the social change efforts sought by new programs or initiatives are at the service

user level.

There is evidence of this emerging ‘innovativeness’ typology within the social

services in current literature. For instance, innovation has been defined in terms of

programs and initiatives created to meet changing administrative and technological

needs, including fundraising, resource sharing, and technological improvements

(Mano 2009), direct practice innovations including implementation of evidence-

based practices, changing the procedures utilized in the way services are provided,

and adapting methods of interaction or intervention with service users (Murray

2009; Simpson 2009), and program implementation, including new program

development to meet changing or emergent client needs and adaptations to the focus

of existing programs to attain better outcomes (Prince and Austin 2001; Wood

2007).

Jaskyte and Lee (2006) refer to the three different types of innovative programs

or initiatives as administrative, process, and product innovations. We use two of

these innovation types in testing the empirical model of social innovation. (1)

Process-related innovations can create social change—by creating better outcomes

for service users—through adaptations to methods of interaction within organiza-

tions and through organizational development processes (Boyd 2011). (2) Product

innovations can create social change—by addressing unmet needs—through the

development of new programs and initiatives or adaptations to the focus of existing

programs as a result of emergent need (Shier and Graham 2013). The relationship

between both these types of innovation and the implications for social change has

been underexplored in current scholarship.

It is possible that administrative innovations within organizations could have a

social change impact. However, in the present study they were excluded in the

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2585

123

operationalization of social innovation types because their primary purpose is not

for social change, but rather to promote improved organizational practices of

efficiency, accountability, and effectiveness. The impact on social change that these

innovation types within nonprofits might have is secondary to some other intended

organizational purpose. Whereas the purpose of product and process-based

innovations is primarily geared toward creating social change with the intended

purpose of better meeting service user social outcomes.

A final differentiation within the innovation scholarship describing the ways that

direct service nonprofits create social change is through the development and

implementation of socially transformative programs and initiatives. It is within this

category of social change efforts that most of the recent scholarship has focused

attention—and primarily around the role of direct service nonprofits in participating

in political advocacy efforts (Almog-Bar and Schmid 2014). However, this category

is more complicated and nuanced than engaging in political advocacy efforts that

aim to influence public policy. Following post-modern organizational theory, which

emphasizes the influence of socio-cultural, socio-political, and political-economic

aspects of the organization’s external environment (Evers 2009; Hasenfeld 2010;

Mulroy 2004), organizations undertake programs and initiatives that seek to address

systemic issues within society. For example, organizations might seek to address

issues related to social inequality and oppression and negative public perceptions

and stereotypes. Netting et al. (2007) refer to these as ‘transformative’ programs or

initiatives (herein referred to as socially transformative programs and initiatives), as

they are intended to create social change within social service delivery systems and/

or within society more generally.

Socially transformative programs and initiatives are those that do at least one of

three things: (1) Challenge existing social/public policy; (2) promote social

development or community participation; or (3) seek to change negative public

perceptions toward a particular issue or service user group (Netting et al. 2007).

Some examples of how these areas may be manifested include, but not limited to:

(1) A lobbying or social action effort to address inequality in income security

programs or eligibility criteria; (2) a new service delivery program bringing self-

advocate service users together; (3) participation in a formalized policy planning

meeting; (4) an initiative that connects service users with community members; or

(5) an education campaign done through web-based media to counter negative

stereotypes about a particular group in society (Guo and Saxton 2014; Kluver 2004;

Netting et al. 2007).

As this literature suggests, product, process, and socially transformative

innovations can all act to create social change at different levels of direct practice.

And, as a collective, these different types of social innovation provide a more

comprehensive understanding of the varied ways in which direct service nonprofits

promote social change. Using this framework, we examine the three different ways

(product, process, and socially transformative innovations), that direct service

nonprofits create social change in their local communities and for service users.

2586 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

Methods

To test the utility of this conceptual framework of social change, within direct

service nonprofits, survey data were collected in late 2013 through to early 2014

from a random sample of 600 direct service nonprofits in Alberta, Canada. The

research utilized a mixed methods study design, first collecting cross-sectional

survey data from a random sample of executive directors of direct service nonprofits

(n = 241, 40.2 % response rate) with follow-up interviews with executive directors

of a random sample of participating organizations (n = 31). A mixed methods study

design was utilized for two reasons. First, mixed methods designs can be

particularly useful in explaining qualitatively the results of quantitative data

(Creswell and Plano Clark 2006). In this particular case, the quantitative findings

provide a model of social innovation within direct service nonprofits, and highlights

important classifications within a more general construct of social innovation. The

interview guide was developed based on this quantitative analysis to provide greater

insight into the direct ways in which these various forms of social innovation are

manifested within nonprofits. Second, the qualitative findings support the further

advancement—through increasing specificity—of a measure of social innovation

that is specifically applicable to direct service nonprofits.

Sample and Recruitment

Organizations were randomly selected from a publicly accessible list of nonprofit

organizations in Alberta, Canada, made available through the Canada Revenue

Agency. At the time of study, there were 8,902 charitable nonprofit organizations in

Alberta, Canada. A sample frame was developed by carefully reviewing the

websites and other available online information of these organizations to determine

if they met the key inclusion criterion of the study; that being the organization

provides direct social services to a population of service users. Direct social services

included some level of social, psychological, or economic support to individual

service users.

In total, there were 898 direct social service nonprofit organizations included in

the sample frame. Based on initial pilot work, which elicited a 33 % response rate,

with a random sample of 50 nonprofit organizations, 600 organizations were

randomly sampled from the sample frame to attain an expected sample size of 200

organizations.

For the survey stage of the research, organizations were recruited following an

active recruitment process that is designed to enhance response rates, and includes a

series of recruitment and follow-up notices directly addressed to the intended

respondent (Dillman 2000). Executive directors were selected because they are

within positions in the organization that are most likely to be challenged in their job

duties by the factors external to the organization, and therefore the most likely to

make decisions on how to react. For the follow-up interview stage of the research, a

random sample (n = 50) of executive directors that indicated (N = 189) they would

be willing to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview were contacted first by

email then through a telephone call. A random seed number was used, and

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2587

123

individuals were sampled from the list of 189 organizations until 50 were selected.

This process elicited a 62 % response rate with 31 executive directors participating.

No further recruitment was undertaken as saturation was reached with the data

collected.

This study received ethics certification from the University of Pennsylvania’s

Institutional Review Board.

Measures and Data Collection

The scale for this study (The Human Services Social Innovation Scale) was created

by reviewing the work of Damanpour (1987) and Perri (1993), whose work has been

seminal in discussions of the varying innovation types in organizations (including

administrative, product, or process focused innovations). Their work highlights a

number of important considerations for what acts as an example of innovation

within organizations. Such as the products that are provided to consumers (or

service users in the case of social service nonprofits), the processes that

organizations engage in to achieve their outcomes, and the structure of organiza-

tional units to meet underlying objectives. However, missing from this innovation

literature is the inclusion of change efforts that seek to create socially transformative

change. Based on a review of current literature pertaining to transformative

programs and initiatives (Evers 2009; Hasenfeld 2010; Mulroy 2004; Netting et al.

2007) and earlier preliminary qualitative case study research conducted by Shier

(2010) with a sample of 7 organizations in 4 different Canadian provinces, items

were developed to measure the range of activities organizations are involved in to

create socially transformative change. The final draft of the measure of social

innovation for which data were collected included 15 items, measured on a 5-point

Likert-type scale ranging from never to very frequently. Respondents were asked to

rate the extent to which their organizations had engaged in each type of activity over

the last three years.

Survey data were collected with the aid of the online Survey Monkey � platform.

Qualitative data were collected through one to one interviews, following standard

interviewing techniques for qualitative research (Fetterman 2008; Holstein and

Gubrium 1995). The interview guide was informed by the survey results, with the

intention of providing greater clarity on the specific ways each of product, process,

and socially transformative social innovations were manifested in their organiza-

tion’s behavior. For those respondents that lived in Calgary, Alberta, the interviews

were conducted in person. For those outside of the Calgary area, interviews were

conducted over the telephone. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and

were digitally recorded and later transcribed. Respondents were asked questions

about the ways in which they seek to create social change. For example, respondents

were asked: What are some of the ways that your organization has tried to address

some wider systemic issues impacting your service users or the community more

generally; and, how does your direct engagement with service users impact the

types of social change efforts your organization undertakes?

2588 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

Data Analysis

The 15-item Human Services Social Innovation Scale was factor analyzed through a

process of exploratory principal factor analysis, with the aid of the SAS 9.4

statistical software package (SAS Institute Inc. 2013). The intention of the analytical

model was to determine if there were underlying constructs for the 15 items that

were associated in a meaningful and coherent way. A maximum-likelihood

extraction method with oblique rotation was used since it was expected that the

multiple factors would be related to one another (see Kline and Graham 2009). As a

result of missing data on 21 cases, the covariance matrix of multiple-imputed

datasets was used to undertake the analysis.

Multiple factor solutions were proposed through an exploratory analysis using

Bartlett’s test, parallel analysis, and minimum average partialling (MAP). However,

the following criteria were used to determine the most ideal factor structure:

(1) The model had a simple structure, reflected in the absence of item loadings on

more than one factor and overall item coverage;

(2) There were at least three salient items loaded on a given factor, in which

salience is determined by loadings that are C0.40;

(3) The factors were internally consistent (i.e., r C 0.70);

(4) The hyperplane count was maximized; and

(5) The items on the factors made theoretical sense.

Regarding the qualitative interviews, the data were analyzed following standard

processes of analytic induction and constant comparison strategies utilized for

qualitative research (see Goetz and Lecompte 1984; Glaser and Strauss 1967) to

detect emergent themes (Charmaz 2000) and patterns (Fetterman 2008) within the

transcribed interviews. Specifically, emergent themes and patterns were identified

with a focus on the ways that organizations seek to create social change for their

service users and within the community more generally in relation to product,

process, and socially transformative social innovation efforts. Initially, the

interviews were read by the researcher with the objective of identifying common

themes. The themes were then coded and searched for instances of the same or

similar phenomena. Finally, the data were translated into more general working

categories that were refined until all instances of contradictions, similarities, and

differences within the interview transcripts were explained, thus increasing the

dependability and consistency of the findings.

Results

Sample Descriptives

In total, 241 executive directors of nonprofits in Alberta, Canada participated in this

survey research. The sample, where data were available, was comprised of 72 males

(30.4 %) and 165 females (69.6 %). The average age of respondents was 51 years,

with a range of 24–75 years, and on average they had been employed in their

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2589

123

current positions for 8.91 years, with a range of 0.2–41 years. The majority of

respondents (92.1 %) had completed a post-secondary education program. As is

expected with a random sample, executive directors represented a range of service

delivery areas, including counseling services, housing support services, shelter

services, mental health services and addictions treatment, hospice and end of life

care, disability support services, food security, employment supports, youth and

child care services, among others. The average age of participating organizations

was 25 years with a range of 2 years to more than 50. There was a great deal of

variability in the size of the organizations. The average number of paid employees

was 69 with a range of 0–1,400, and the average annual revenues were with a range

of $5,000 to over $100,000,000. Organizations also represented a variety of

communities throughout the province of Alberta. The majority of respondents

(58.1 %) were located in Calgary or Edmonton (the two largest cities in Alberta,

each with a population of over 1,000,000 people). However, 18.7 % were located in

smaller cities with populations between 30,000 and 100,000, and 23.2 % were in

smaller or remote communities with populations under 30,000.

Human Services Social Innovation Scale: Factor Analysis

Based on the criteria specified for a sufficient factor structure, the 3-factor promax

(power = 2) solution was found to be optimal to analyze the 15-item Human

Services Social Innovation Scale. As a result of this analysis, 12 items loaded on one

and only one of each of the three factors. The remaining three did not meet the

threshold of 0.40 that was set for the factor loading. The three salient factors were

titled ‘Socially Transformative Social Innovations,’ ‘Product Based Social Innova-

tions,’ and ‘Process Based Social Innovations.’ Forty-five percent of the variance in

these 12 items was explained by the final factor structure. The 12 items, along with

the corresponding factor loadings and communality estimates are provided in

Table 1.

The reliability of the factors was assessed using Cronbach’s a measure of internal consistency. The Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients for the subscales of the social innovation scale were as follows: socially transformative social innovations (0.71),

product-based social innovations (0.76), and process-based social innovations

(0.74). All the subscales had acceptable reliability.

A further factor analysis was undertaken to determine if there was a higher order

factor structure to the scale. In this case, because there is only one factor to be

retained, an orthogonal method (i.e., varimax) of exploratory principal factor

analysis was utilized. Total raw scores for each of the three factors were calculated

and used for this analysis. Each factor loaded on a single higher order factor which

was titled the Human Services Social Innovation Scale. The factor loadings for each

of the constructs on the higher order factor structure were as follows: socially

transformative social innovations (0.68), product-based social innovations (0.88),

and process-based social innovations (0.54). The reliability estimate, measured by

the Cronbach’s a measure of internal consistency for this total scale is 0.73.

2590 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

Human Services Social Innovations

The following section describes the operationalization of the empirical model of

three social innovations in practice: socially transformative, product, and process

innovations. Interview participants (n = 31) represented a range of direct service

areas; including counseling, domestic violence, housing and homelessness,

employment, disability services, food security, mental health, addictions, newcomer

integration, long-term care and disability, among others. Of the 31 participants, 7

were male and 24 were female. The average age of respondents was 53.8 years old,

and they had been, on average, in their current positions for the last 8.9 years. In

line with the empirical model presented previously, respondents identified being

engaged in social change efforts that were socially transformative, product based,

and process based. These qualitative findings provide more in depth insight into the

various ways that nonprofits go about creating social change at various levels of

practice.

Table 1 Rotated factor pattern loadings for Human Services Social Innovation Scale

Items Factors and

loadings

Communality a

I II III

Factor 1—Socially transformative social innovations

Participating in initiatives to change public perceptions of a

service user group or social problem

0.70 – – 0.48

Developing initiatives aimed at enhancing the inclusion of

service users in the local community

0.51 – – 0.38

Participating in initiatives that aim to enhance the well-being of

the wider community

0.45 – – 0.47

Incorporating investigative practices to identify need 0.42 – – 0.34

Factor 2—Product-based social innovations

Adapting existing services to meet changing need – 0.83 – 0.69

Adapting the level of support provided to service users – 0.50 – 0.36

Introducing wholly new service delivery programs to meet

emerging need

– 0.50 – 0.45

Introducing new methods of intervention with service users – 0.43 – 0.44

Factor 3—Process-based social innovations

Changing methods of employee/volunteer interaction with each

other in the agency

– – 0.68 0.51

Creating new administrative departments to meet changing needs – – 0.64 0.40

Changing existing positions within the organization to meet new

demands

– – 0.56 0.45

Changing the way that staff members interact with service users – – 0.52 0.47

a The communality estimates show the proportion of item variance that is explained by the retained factor

structure. The total communality for this factor solution = 5.44

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2591

123

Socially Transformative Social Innovations

Two thematic categories emerged within the qualitative data for socially transfor-

mative social innovations: (1) Creating public awareness; and (2) influencing policy

directions.

Regarding creating public awareness, respondents identified three distinct areas in which they seek to create social change through their efforts at raising public

awareness toward a particular social issue or service user population. The first is

through education initiatives that are targeted specifically at the general community

or key stakeholders within their service area or sector. For some respondents,

creating education campaigns aided in informing the public and key stakeholders

about the issues that individuals are experiencing in their local community. For

example, a few organizations described their role in providing information to

families and other stakeholders to equip those individuals with accurate information

about what was happening to the level of services that their family members were

receiving. Other organizations described hosting regular community luncheons or

gatherings to educate community members about the types of services they offer

and the underlying reasons why the services were necessary. Similarly, some

organizations described undertaking more formalized public education campaigns.

The second area in which respondents identified creating public awareness is

through efforts to promote community engagement. Some organizations described

involving community members in discussions to help identify specific ways in

which the community member can help to create social change. In these cases, the

organization acts as a catalyst for helping to mobilize these efforts. Similarly, other

respondents described that through their public awareness initiatives they empha-

sized ways in which people could become involved, rather than just providing

information about the problems that are persistent in their community. Several

respondents emphasized the need to engage individuals in a discussion about the

ways in which they can support social change beyond the day to day operations of

the organization.

The third area in which respondents identified creating public awareness is

through efforts to change public perceptions about a particular social issue or

service user population. Some respondents here described engaging with key

stakeholder groups in the community within their programming efforts to address

issues to help change negative perspectives or stereotypes held of certain groups of

individuals. Other respondents described undertaking formalized community

information sessions, which involved gathering information and sharing that

information with the general community in situations where the negative

perspectives of a specific service user population was receiving community level

backlash.

Respondents also indicated that they were seeking to address negative public

perceptions of particular social issues on a larger scale. For instance, organizations

providing mental health and counseling-based services created larger scale

campaigns to bring awareness to the issues of mental illness in the community to

aid in reducing stigma. Capturing some of these ideas, one respondent from a

2592 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

children’s mental health services organization that utilizes residential support

models described:

We do all kinds of things to try to change the perceptions of communities. For

instance, one area in [respondent names city], we have a transition home there,

and for our 100 th year they are doing a 100 random acts of kindness for the

community. Even though we still have people who complain about us, it is

definitely that NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] thing, we take the high road

when that happens. And I think it is very small attempts at what I would call

social change (024).

As another example of this thematic category, another respondent from an

organization that provided food support to school aged children described:

We use feeding kids as a platform. Using the act of providing a lunch for a

child as the inspiration or as the catalyst for social change. Because that

creates social change for who is being helped and who is doing the helping

(031).

Influencing policy direction was the second way that respondents described undertaking socially transformative social innovations. Respondents identified four

general ways that they act to influence public policy direction. The first is through

efforts at bringing information forward to key decision makers. For some

respondents, this involved engaging in conversations, with empirical data, with

funder organizations about the needs of their service users and changes within their

local communities. Other respondents described efforts aimed at non-political

stakeholders. For instance, a local mental health organization hosted a local

conference with employers to provide information about ways to make workplaces

more friendly and accommodating. Other organizations described less structured

approaches by engaging with social media technology to provide information to the

general public and to key stakeholder groups.

The second way that participating organizations identified that they influence

policy direction is by undertaking research to influence how models of service

delivery or methods of intervention are defined through legislation and government

funders. For some respondents, this process involved engagement with service users

to identify gaps in the service delivery system.

Other organizations described undertaking policy analysis to look at effects on

service users and their outcomes and using that analysis to structure discussion with

political leaders around the impacts of new policy direction on their service users

and within the community more generally. Similarly, some respondents described

undertaking larger scale research projects, through partnerships with academic

institutions, to develop some policy-related technical reports to aid the government

in their decision making processes.

A third way—and the most commonly reported way by respondents—of

influencing policy direction is through discussions in networks of local and

provincial nonprofit service providers. In many instances, respondents identified

that the intention of these networks is to increase the capacity of individual

nonprofit organizations in their efforts to influence the direction of public policy

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2593

123

within their municipal district and across the province. Respondents described

participating in groups that are focused on more widely impacting social issues,

such as poverty, and also being engaged in specific sector related service provider

groups. For many respondents, these networks were utilized to collectively discuss

the issues that are having the greatest impact on their service user populations and to

bridge service delivery organizations and sectors around some common goals and

messages. Other respondents described involvement in national networks and with

international academic communities interested in their particular approaches and

models of practice.

Finally, the fourth way—and least reported way—that respondents described

having an influence on public policy directions was through invited participation in

formal gatherings that were aimed specifically at changing public policy. For all

cases reported, this process involved being formally invited by the government to

participate in discussions and provide input on the focus of the policy direction.

Capturing some of these ideas, one respondent from a long-term care nonprofit

described participating in a local initiative with the municipal government around

creating a more accessible city. This respondent described:

One of the things that we are doing, and we started about three years ago now,

we hosted a forum in [respondent names city] broadly looking at seniors

issues. We looked at the Age Friendly Communities framework, and had

people comment on that relative to their view of the world or area of practice.

Out of that initiative we developed a bit of a relationship with the city

government, who had taken a position of wanting to create an Age Friendly

city. And out of that we have been working with the City, and we are now in

the process of doing a series of community forums in one geographic area to

map out what an Age friendly community would look like here. So that forum,

in conjunction with the city, is supposed to go to the cities social planning

committee this summer (017).

As another example one local organization working with youth around employment

access, described the role of a local network involving the Chamber of Commerce,

the public school system, other youth serving nonprofits in the community, and

representatives from two leading post-secondary institutions in the city:

The intention of the network is to bring the public school perspective to the

business and post-secondary education communities. By bringing our voices

to the other members and having that information intersect. We can help those

employers to understand what is happening in the school systems and what is

lacking. And certainly that the chamber perspective is a good lobby group, and

they can then have the potential to impact some change and put some pressure

on different political groups if need be (011).

Product-Based Social Innovations

Product-based social innovations are important because they address limitations in

existing service delivery models by creating new programs (and even organizations

2594 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

in some cases) to meet emerging need that is a result of changes in the external

environment. Three thematic categories emerged for product-based social innova-

tions. For the first, respondents described efforts at creating more inclusive services. Respondents identified several ways that they create social change by creating new services to be more inclusive of the range of service users able to

access services. For instance, some organizations described extending services

beyond a particular age threshold determined by funders. Others described creating

new programming to be more inclusive of the needs of their changing demographic

population. And some respondents described creating new inter-professional teams,

or amalgamating the services of multiple organizations into a single organization, to

address the interrelationship between social needs. Capturing some of these ideas,

one respondent described creating social enterprise businesses within their

organization to support inclusion of developmentally delayed adults within the

labor market:

A lot of our businesses began as a structure around individuals who were

vulnerable who needed some kind of infrastructure or support them to be a

contributor. Catering, we had a group of staff who were great cooks, and three

or four individuals that expressed an interest in food services and they wanted

to be in the food services industry but they didn’t want to wash dishes for the

rest of their lives. The idea serving food and contributing with food prep is

meaningful to a lot of people because everybody eats. And so rather than

finding people jobs in dish rooms, which we did initially, we started our own

catering company and got people to participate in food prep. We now own

three cafeterias and a catering group that serves about 1000 meals a day (023).

For the second thematic category of product-based social innovations, respon-

dents described adapting existing programming as a means to create social change for their service user population. The underlying intention of these social change

efforts was to create better outcomes for service users. For some respondents, this

involved incorporating new intervention models in their existing service delivery

programs. For other respondents, the adaptation was not just to individual programs,

but included the incorporation of multiple services in a single location through

formal inter-agency networks to create service delivery hubs for individuals, or by

linking multiple programs within a single organization. Capturing some of these

ideas, one respondent from a counseling services organization described changing

the therapeutic format for treating people with depression:

And the new protocol is based on the evidence we collected. And the evidence

tells us that after about 6 or 7 sessions of individual client counseling, that a

client starts to deteriorate, but those clients that can be moved to group are

changing two standard deviations across the mean. So the combination of

individual and group therapy is way more powerful than individual therapy

alone, and provides an opportunity for longer sustainable change (025).

A final way that organizations described creating social change through product-

based social innovations was by changing the general focus of their efforts with service users. For some respondents, this included changing the focus of how they

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2595

123

intervened with service users. Essentially, these respondents described adapting the

focus of ‘where they meet their clients’; meaning where they start their work with

their clients. Other respondents described a change in the general focus in their

approaches to client engagement and the types of service delivery models that were

offered. Capturing some of these ideas, one respondent described the need to change

the focus of their intervention in supporting families with disabled children. As this

respondent describes, supporting families to meet basic needs has recently become

an instrumental step in their helping process:

One of the longstanding issues has been housing. And for families to find a

place that is large enough and affordable. So that has impacted our ability to

support families adequately. Lots of times, because of the economic climate,

we work with families on housing supports, just meeting basic needs, as

opposed to working on the next step which is to work with the family around

supports for their disabled child. So the economic climate can shift some of

our support model so we can provide them with some basic need information

and support. And we realize that is a step we have to take before we can work

with the family around the child with a disability (007).

Process-Based Social Innovations

Process-based social innovations are adaptations made at the organizational level

that aim to support the organization in their social change efforts. Two thematic

categories emerged around process-based social innovations. For the first,

respondents described adaptations to methods of engagement with key stake- holder groups. The first group is service users. Some respondents described changing the general way that they approached their mission, essentially moving

from a more restrictive service delivery support model to a model of engagement

that sought input from service users. Other respondents described including service

users in governance structures of their organization, or including structured

processes of getting feedback from service users to help better align programs with

their perceived needs.

The second area in which engagement processes were adapted by respondents

was with other organizations. Many respondents described the need to work

collaboratively with other nonprofit or public organizations to address the range of

issues that individual service users were experiencing. Some respondents described

developing partnerships in order for them to meet their intended program goals, and

others came together among organizations with a common interest.

To a lesser extent, some organizations described adapting the way that they

engaged with funders. For instance, respondents described creating sustainable

funding through the development of social enterprise businesses, or establishing

their programming within a funding model of fee for service. In both cases,

organizations are able to establish the costs associated with a particular service, and

the funder (or customer) themselves can determine if they are going to utilize that

service.

2596 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

The fourth area in which respondents described adapting their engagement

processes was with organization staff. For many respondents, this took on the form

of increased training and awareness exercises around the relationship between staff

and service users and creating a learning culture within the organization around

some of the underlying issues that are impacting service user groups. Capturing

some of these ideas, one respondent from a disability children’s service organization

described:

I am meeting with [respondent names organization], and part of my proposal is

that they have staff from September until June, and then when kids are out of

school they have no contact. But they have developed those relationships, so

what if we could support that ongoing relationship. Because we get the

funding for the summer to do the camps, could we take their staff, or however

this would work, where the kids that they are supporting could go to a camp

and continue to get that support by a staff member that they are already

comfortable with (013).

The second way that process-based social innovations were manifested in

organizations was through adaptations to organizational practices, processes, and structure. Some respondents described adaptations to operational aspects of their organizations to create social change. A few organizations described the

creation of new positions within their organization that were orientated directly

toward advocacy. Other respondents described the need to change the hours that

they operated to better meet the needs of services users. Some organizations

described the need to implement practices within their organization where staff were

cross-trained to other positions to increase awareness of the interrelationship

between departments and the need to work together to solve the underlying issues

that individuals were presenting.

Capturing some of these ideas, one respondent described how previously,

individual workers would be responsible for dealing with advocacy-related issues as

they emerged with individual service users. A more structured approach, by having a

centralized person tasked with tracking these challenges, enables the organization to

undertake a more focused effort towards social change. This respondent describes:

We have a position on staff, an advocacy coordinator, and that position,

anybody, a family member of someone living with mental illness or somebody

with mental illness, can call that individual if they feel they are not getting

access, that advocacy coordinator can assist that person in getting access. It is

a new position in the agency, and we are streaming those service requests so

we can see if there is one major area that needs to be addressed, and then we

can focus the systemic advocacy around that (029).

Discussion

The findings from the thematic analysis are summarized in Table 2. Overall, the

qualitative findings support the item level analysis undertaken by exploratory factor

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2597

123

Table 2 Findings of thematic analysis of social innovations in direct service nonprofits

Social innovations Examples Number of

interview

participants

Transformative social innovations

Creating public awareness 1. Changing public perceptions 9

2. Creating education initiatives 7

3. Promoting community engagement 6

Influencing policy direction 1. Conducting discussions in networks of local and

provincial nonprofit service providers

18

2. Undertaking research to influence policy 8

3. Bringing information forward to key decision

makers

5

4. Participating in invited formal gatherings 4

Product-based social innovations

Creating inclusive services 1. Extending services beyond a particular threshold 6

2. Creating new services to be more inclusive 5

3. Creating new inter-professional teams 4

4. Amalgamating the services of multiple

organizations

2

Adapting existing programming 1. Incorporating new intervention models in their

existing service delivery programs

14

Changing the focus of their efforts 1. Linking multiple programs within a single

organization

6

2. Changing their approaches to client engagement

and the types of service delivery models

5

3. Changing how they intervened with service users 4

4. Incorporating multiple services in a single

location through formal inter-agency networks

3

Process-based social innovations

Adapting methods of engagement

with key stakeholder groups

1. Creating awareness exercises between staff and

service users

6

2. Seeking input from service users 6

3. Developing partnerships with other service

providers to help meet program goals

5

4. Seeking input from other service providers 4

5. Adapting the way that they engaged with funders 4

6. Including service users in governance structures

of their organization

3

Adapting organizational practices,

processes, and structure

1. Creating new positions within their organization

orientated directly towards advocacy

4

2. Cross-training staff to other positions to increase

awareness

3

3. Changing the hours of operation 2

2598 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

analysis. For instance, with regard to socially transformative social innovations, four

items were found to sufficiently load (and give meaning) to this particular construct.

From Table 1, socially transformative social innovations include undertaking

activities to change public perceptions, to promote social inclusion, engage in

activities that might foster social cohesion within the community more generally,

and to incorporate research-related initiatives to better identify and assess need.

Interview respondents from the qualitative component of this study highlighted

specific ways that they go about achieving these ends through general thematic

categories of public awareness and influencing public policy.

Similarly, for the item level analysis for the product-based social innovations,

this construct includes adaptations to, or the creation of, new programs, services, or

intervention approaches. The qualitative findings suggest the impetus for these

social innovations is through tangible adaptations to existing programs, by creating

programs that are more inclusive by extending inclusion criteria, and changing the

general focus of their efforts in response to changing demographic and community

need. Finally, the item level analysis for process-based social innovations

characterizes this construct in terms of efforts at changing inter-personal interac-

tions within the organization and with service users and creating new positions and/

or administrative departments to better meet the needs of services users. The

qualitative findings further enhance this item level analysis by highlighting key

stakeholder groups that are the focus of changing inter-personal dynamics within

and beyond organizations, along with identifying specific organizational structures

and positions that can be supportive in creating a more social change orientated

organization.

While the quantitative findings provide a valid and reliable measure of the social

innovation efforts of direct service nonprofits through the Human Services Social

Innovation Scale, the qualitative findings provide a clearer definition of the ways

that these varying social innovation types are manifested in direct organizational

practice. On a theoretical level, these combined mixed methods findings highlight

that advocacy and service delivery are mutually reinforcing, and embedded in

multiple social change efforts undertaken within and between organizations. This is

a contrasting finding to previous research that has tended to create dichotomies

between service delivery and advocacy, suggesting that these two roles are distinct

(Moulton and Eckerd 2012; Valentinov et al. 2013). Instead, the framework

presented by the qualitative interviews in particular highlights the complex

interrelationship between systemic social change and service delivery, and the

multiple ways that social change efforts are manifested within direct service

nonprofits. In fact, one of the interesting findings that emerged from this study is

that direct service nonprofits might be engaged in political advocacy-related

activities (such as participating in invited networks to shape policy, or working in

inter-agency collaborations to discuss limitations of existing policy), but many did

not see these activities as being particularly useful with regard to the level of impact

that these efforts have on influencing public policy direction. Instead, respondents

identified being engaged in activities associated with creating public awareness, or

undertaking research-based initiatives, suggesting that systemic social change is

about more than just aiming to shape public policy.

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2599

123

The findings from this study also provide a foundation for further research. While

the qualitative interviews provide an analytical framework of the tangible ways that

direct service organizations create social change, and is generally supportive of the

item level analysis, the qualitative findings also provide a starting point to further

develop the empirical scale. The intention of such an effort would be to offer greater

specificity of the measurement of the various social change efforts undertaken by

direct service nonprofits. For instance, while the four items used to measure socially

transformative social innovations generally apply to the qualitative findings, the

interview respondents were very specific on the types of efforts that they engage

in to create this type of social change. The scale could therefore be adapted to

include greater item coverage on the various ways that organizations actually

engage in these types of social change efforts. Similarly, while items were included

in the subscale of process-based social innovation that related to the inter-personal

interactions within organizations, greater item coverage could be included in an

adapted version of the scale for each of the different stakeholder groups identified.

Or more specifically, efforts by organizations to provide the training to help staff

and volunteers see beyond the challenges of individual clients, and look more

generally toward the impact of the external environment on their service user

population. Of course, one of the challenges with increasing specificity for a scale

on social innovation is the extent to which the scale is up to date. Organizations are

changing and finding new ways to be innovative. Increasing specificity may act to

limit (or constrain) what is understood to be social innovation at a given point in

time.

There are a few limitations to this study. The first is with regard to

representativeness. Respondents in both phases of the research were informed

about the purpose of the study. This may have resulted in some level of non-

participation by executive directors that do not perceive their organization as being

orientated toward this social change related role. However, in both stages of the

study, random samples were used in order to address some of this nonresponse bias.

Efforts at better representativeness were also achieved by having a diverse mix of

organizations in general service area and geographic location in this provincial

study.

Second, the study did not seek to measure the impact of these social change

efforts. While the Human Services Social Innovation Scale might demonstrate

sufficient factorial validity, and provides a measure of the extent to which

organizations engage in these three forms of social innovation, it does not provide a

measure of the level of impact these innovation types has on achieving social

change. Further research in this regard is warranted.

Finally, while item level wording in the Human Services Social Innovation Scale

suggests that organizations were responding to service user identified need when

reflecting on their social change efforts, this was something that could not be

measured or assessed in either of the mixed methods stages. It could have been the

case that some of the reported social innovation by respondents was in response to

professional identified client need, rather than based holistically on the actual

experiences from the perspectives of service users. As this program of research

moves forward, it would be important to be able to differentiate between different

2600 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

types of motivation when engaging in social change efforts, along with identifying

where the impetus for the social change effort emerged.

Implications

The findings have implications for direct service nonprofits that are seeking to create

social change. Understanding social change from a conceptual model of social

innovation, as opposed to a model of political advocacy, highlights the varied ways

that direct service nonprofits are creating social change for their service users and

within their communities. As respondents here point out, creating social change is

not just done through political advocacy based efforts, but through a concerted

effort of change initiatives implemented at services user, programmatic, organiza-

tional, community, and socio-political levels of practice, from a very diverse sector

of nonprofit organizations. Together, this conceptual model of social change

highlights the proactive role of direct service nonprofits in creating social change,

rather than simply being reactive agents to an inequitable public policy framework.

Furthermore, the findings from this study also have implications for education

programs that seek to train leaders of direct service nonprofits. While there has not

been any formal analysis undertaken of programs in schools of social work on the

structure of course content around nonprofit organizations, Mirabella (2007) has

reviewed graduate level programs around nonprofit leadership. However, within that

study, Mirabella (2007) shows that the emphasis is primarily on the internal

management practices of organizational leaders, with little emphasis on the role of

nonprofit leaders in creating social change. The findings from this study highlight

the active role played by a diverse range of direct service nonprofits within their

external environments. As direct service nonprofits take on an increasing presence

within their communities, and in the absence of government direction in creating

improved outcomes for service users, greater attention needs to be made in nonprofit

leadership, social work, and other allied discipline education programs that aim to

develop the skills and training needed to successfully support social change.

Acknowledgments This research was possible due to the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Resource Council of Canada’s Doctoral Fellowship Program.

References

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A

critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.

Alvord, S., Brown, L., & Letts, C. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An

exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 219–232.

Anheier, H. (2009). What kind of non-profit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections.

American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1082–1094.

Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2014). What to make of social innovation? Towards a framework for policy

development. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 411–421.

Boyd, N. M. (2011). Helping organizations help others: Organization development as a facilitator of

social change. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 39, 5–18.

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2601

123

Boyd, A. S., & Wilmoth, M. C. (2006). An innovative community-based intervention for African

American women with breast cancer: The Witness Project. Health and Social Work, 31(1), 77–80.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructionist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Child, C., & Gronbjerg, K. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities.

Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact

of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

Evers, A. (2009). Civicness and civility: Their meanings for social services. Voluntas: International

Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20, 239–259.

Fetterman, D. M. (2008). Ethnography. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative

research methods (pp. 288–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New York: Aldine Press.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. P. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Grohs, S., Schneiders, K., & Heinze, R. G. (2013). Social entrepreneurship vs. intrapreneurship in the

German social welfare state: A study of old-age care and youth welfare services. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0899764013501234

Guo, C., & Saxton, G. (2014). Tweeting for social change: How social media are changing nonprofit

advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.

Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.). (2010). Human services as complex organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Ife, J. (1996). Community development: Creating community alternatives—Vision, analysis and practice.

Melbourne, AU: Addison Wesley Longman.

Jaskyte, K., & Lee, M. (2006). Interorganizational relationships: A source of innovation in nonprofit

organizations? Administration in Social Work, 30(3), 43–54.

Jones, J. M. (2006). Understanding environmental influence on human service organizations: A study of

the influence of managed care on child caring institutions. Administration in Social Work, 30(4),

63–90.

Kimberlin, S. E. (2010). Advocacy by nonprofits: Roles and practices of core advocacy organizations and

direct service organizations. Journal of Policy Practice, 9, 164–182.

Kline, T., & Graham, J. R. (2009). The social worker satisfaction scale. Canadian Social Work, 11(1),

53–59.

Kluver, J. D. (2004). Disguising social change: The role of nonprofit organizations as protective masks for

citizen participation. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 26(3), 309–324.

Mano, R. S. (2009). Information technology, adaptation and innovation in nonprofit human service

organizations. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 27(3), 227–234.

Mellinger, M. S. (2014). Beyond legislative advocacy: Exploring agency, legal, and community

advocacy. Journal of Policy Practice, 13(1), 45–58.

Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University based educational programs in nonprofit management and

philanthropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 11S–27S.

Mosley, J. E., & Ros, A. (2011). Nonprofit agencies in public child welfare: Their role and involvement in

policy advocacy. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5, 297–317.

Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and

public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.

Mulroy, E. A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on the social environment to guide management and

community practice: An organization-in-environment approach. Administration in Social Work,

28(1), 77–96.

Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: A bridge for the research-practice gap in

counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(1), 108–116.

Netting, F. E., O’Connor, M. K., & Fauri, D. P. (2007). Planning transformative programs: Challenges for

advocates in translating change processes into effectiveness measures. Administration in Social

Work, 31(4), 59–81.

2602 Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603

123

Nichols, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Perri 6. (1993). Innovation by nonprofit organizations: Policy and research issues. Nonprofit Management

and Leadership, 3(4), 397–414.

Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-

Economics, 38(6), 878–885.

Powell, F. P. (2007). The politics of civil society: Neoliberalism or social left?. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Prince, J., & Austin, M. J. (2001). Innovative programs and practices emerging from the implementation

of welfare reform: A cross-case analysis. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 1–14.

Salamon, L. (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

SAS Institute Inc. (2013). SAS � 9.4 guide to software updates. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Schmid, H. (2004). The role of nonprofit human service organizations in providing social services:

Prefatory essay. Admininstration in Social Work, 28(3/4), 1–21.

Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service organizations:

Implications for policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 581–602.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shier, M. L. (2010). Human service organizations and the social environment: Making connections

between practice and theory. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Shier, M. L., & Graham, J. R. (2013). Identifying social service needs of Muslims living in a post 9/11

era: The role of community-based organizations. Advances in Social Work, 14(2), 379–394.

Shier, M. L., McDougle, L. M., & Handy, F. (2014). Nonprofits and the promotion of civic engagement:

A conceptual framework for understanding the ‘civic footprint’ of nonprofits within local

communities. The Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(1), 57–75.

Simpson, D. D. (2009). Organizational readiness for stage-based dynamics of innovation implementation.

Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 541–551.

Spergel, I. A., & Grossman, S. F. (1997). The Little Village Project: A community approach to the gang

problem. Social Work, 42(5), 456–470.

Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2013). The meaning of nonprofit advocacy: An ordonomic

perspective. The Social Science Journal, 50, 367–373.

Wood, S. A. (2007). The analysis of an innovative HIV-positive women’s support group. Social Work

with Groups, 30(3), 9–28.

Voluntas (2015) 26:2581–2603 2603

123

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