CJA1

vices is one way nonpro�ts can overcome the e�ects of devolution, but it is by no means the most popular choice. In many cases, those using the assistance of non‐ pro�ts cannot a�ord to purchase the services in the �rst place; otherwise, they would likely go to a for-pro�t agency for the service. When a fee is involved, the agency is concerned that those most in need of the service can‐ not receive it because of the fee, and clients are concerned about how to pay for the service in the �rst place (McNamara, 2007). As a result, assessing fees may put a hardship on the client as well as the agency. A second re‐ sponse to devolution is to bill an outside party for the fee. In some cases, state or county agencies are able to bill the federal government for each client who uses their ser‐ vice. The billed amount may not cover the full cost of the service, but it reimburses the nonpro�t for some of the money spent on the client, and it does not require the federal government to make a commitment as signi�cant as a grant (McNamara, 2007). One example of this is in court-ordered counseling services where the client re‐ ceives individual mental health counseling for free from a nonpro�t agency referred by the court. The agency then bills the state or federal government for each client serviced by the therapist. The therapist receives a monthly salary regardless of the number of clients coun‐ seled, and the clients receive the treatment they need re‐ gardless of the cost.

Priorities for services by nonpro�ts are determined by43% of sample

You are viewing a sample of the Kindle version

Jennifer M. Allen and 1 more

Administration and Management in Criminal Justice: A Service…

Kindle Edition:

Buy now with 1-Click

By clicking "Buy now with 1-Click", you agree to Amazon's Kindle Store Terms of Use. Sold by Amazon.com Services LLC

73 ratings

$78 49

Close