UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Interorganizational relationships related to funding in nongovernmental organizations Manson-Singer, Sharon 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A5 W54.pdf [ 7.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095061.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095061-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095061-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095061-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095061-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095061-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095061-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095061-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095061.ris

Full Text

INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS RELATED TO FUNDING IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS by SHARON E. WILLMS B.S.W. UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 197 9 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Social Work) We accept t h i s Thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AUGUST 1980 ©SHARON E. WILLMS, 1980 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the l i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my department or by his/her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. School of Social Work, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 2075 Wesbrook Place, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. V6T 1W5. i i A B S T R A C T Interorganizational Relationships are defined by Levine and White (1961) as 'any voluntary ac t i v i t y between two organizations which has consequences actual or anticipated, for the realization of their respective goals or objectives'. This model of exchange i s enhanced by the development of General Systems Theory, and the contribution of R.L. Warren's model of the Interorganizational Fi e l d (1967). In this research the definition of IOR i s viewed as a natural consequence for organizations that exist within the systems' framework. Exchange exists due to the pre-existing networks i n the 10 f i e l d . The purpose of this research was to examine the nature and structure of 10 behavior around information exchange related to funding as perceived by Executive Directors of Non-governmental Organizations i n the Social Service f i e l d , i n the City of Vancouver. It was hypothesized that NGOs must main-tain a balance of information exchange in the. systems context of input, throughput and output i n order to maintain a healthy funding picture. A model of collaborative information exchange' was introduced as a viable method of ensurinf funding for NGOs. Seventy Executive Directors responded to a mailed questionnaire which was labelled Factors Related to Organizational Funding. The survey included seven demographic items as well as twenty-nine items about infor-mation needs and p r i o r i t i e s i n organizations. There were nine information categories i n which three questions were repeated . They were about in f o r -mation needs; p r i o r i t y assisgned; and with whom and why the organization shared the organization shared information. The remaining two items asked the respondents to rank the importance of the constituency groups plus one overall item ranking the the purpose of information sharing by constituency groups. The study design was Exploratory-Descriptive and explored issues related to funding i n the 10 network. Thus the conclusions drawn merely suggest what the data indicates rather than providing hard proof about the validity of the collaborative exchange model i n the IOR context. The findings indicate that cooperation around funding among agencies was viewed as the least important constituency with which to share Infor-mation. Executive Directors were willing to share information with funders and the public. Consumers ranked third i n the majority of information i i a categories. These findings seem to indicate support for a mixed-motive model o of IOR rather than the collaborative model presented 'in this report, or the resource dependency (conflict) model espoused by some researchers. The report includes several recommendations designed to strengthen collaboration among social service agencies to Improve funding i n the social services system. Chapter Two provides an overview of the IOR literature, and the General Systems framework used i n developing the collaborative exchange model. < Acknowledgements It i s t r a d i t i o n a l for the writer of any thesis or research report to acknowledge i n t e l l e c t u a l , personal and even s p i r i t u a l debts. The fact that i t i s t r a d i t i o n a l makes i t no less desirable, nor less important to include here. The grat e f u l acknowledgements prefacing most theses and papers embodies the t r a d i t i o n and essence of the university setting where students are encouraged by t h e i r professors to s t r i v e for new knowledge. Having said t h i s , I wish to g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge Dr. Brian Wharf of the University of V i c t o r i a who introduced me to t h i s area of research and encouraged my i n i t i a l c u r i o s i t y . Once upon the path I was guided by my committee: Dr. Richard Nann, Dr. Christiane McNiven and Dr. John A. Crane. Dr. Nann as the chairman of my committee, acted as an advocate to move obstacles that r e s i s t e d my attempts. He f a c i l i t a t e d my work as a student, by creating an environment that was conducive to research. Dr. McNiven was my resource and guide i n developing an understanding of the theory underlying t h i s research, and i n formulating my own conceptual framework to describe t h i s research. Her c r i t i q u e s of my early and subsequent work were f a i r , understandable and encouraged me to c l a r i f y , adapt and grow. Dr. Crane was at times l i k e a magician, and I his neophyte apprentice. He led me into the strange and wonderful land of computers and s t a t i s t i c s , and provided me with the resources and i n s t r u c t i o n to reap the benefits. Together, i v these professors shared a commitment to improving the standard of s o c i a l work research, which they were able to transmit to the i r student. There are many other people who have played a role i n th i s research. I am gratef u l to a l l of the Executive Directors of Non-Governmental Organizations who responded to the ques-tionnaire. Without t h e i r e f f o r t , t h i s report never would have been completed. To E l s i e deBruijn, and the s t a f f of the Social Work Library, I am indebted for th e i r patient and ever pleasant attitude while completing t h i s work. I also wish to acknowledge the encouragement that I received from colleagues i n the School. F i n a l l y , to Mrs. Doreen Greig who typed th i s manuscript, from longhand notes, my appreciation and thanks. As always, the errors and omissions found i n t h i s thesis are e n t i r e l y my own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Sharon Willms, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 1980. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I - Introduction 1 A. Summary Statement of the Problem Creating a Need for Research 1 B. Population Affected by the Problem 2 C. Limitation and Biases 5 D. Organization of the Research Report. . . . . . . . 6 Chapter II - Literature Review 8 A. Conceptual Foundations 8 B. H i s t o r i c a l Development 14 C. Relevance to Social Work Practice 19 D. Current State of the Art 2 8 Chapter III - Study Design 38 A. Theoretical Framework 38 B. Hypotheses and Assumptions of the Study 44 1) Hypotheses . . . » 44 2) Operational Definitions of Dependent and Independent Variables 47 3) Assumptions 50 C. Level of Research Design 52 1) Plan of Data Analysis 54 D. Sampling Procedures 56 E. Method of Gathering Data 58 1) Sources 58 2) R e l i a b i l i t y / V a l i d i t y of Instrument 58 3) Questionnaire 60 v i 4) P r e t e s t 63 5) P i l o t Study 64 Chapter IV - Study F i n d i n g s 6 8 A. Problems Encountered 68 1) Sampling 6 8 2) Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s 70 B. Demographic R e s u l t s 71 C. F i n d i n g s i n Study Questions 88 Chapter V - C o n c l u s i o n s and P r o p o s a l s f o r F u r t h e r Research .126 A. . C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations .12 6 B. P r o p o s a l s f o r F u r t h e r Research .136 References .139 Appendices: I - Survey Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Covering L e t t e r . . . . 148 I I - P i l o t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , R e s u l t s and Covering Letter.159 I I I - SPARC-SPAR Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Covering L e t t e r . . 1 69 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table I - Type of Organization 73 II - Age of Organization 74 III - Staff i n Organization 76 IV - Volunteers i n Organization 77 V - Board Members of Organization 7 8 VI - Members of Organization 79 VII - Percentage of Funds Received by Source 81 VIII - Rank Order of Source of Funds 82 IX - Total Amount of Funds Received 8 4 X - Percentage of Request for Funds Met 86 XI - Negative Correlations 91 XII - Importance of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y by P r i o r i t y Assigned 94 XIII - Rank Order of Information Categories 96 XIV - Rank Order of Constituency Groups 100 XV - Rank Order of Links With Constituency . . 101 XVI - Rank Order of Purpose 103 XVII - Need for Services 109 XVIII - Problem D e f i n i t i o n 110 XIX - Goals and Objectives 112 XX - Description of Programs 114 XXI - Budget 115 XXII - Management Structure 116 XXIII- P u b l i c i z e Organizational A c t i v i t i e s 119 v i i i Table XXIV - Annual Report 120 XXV - Evaluation Report 122 XXVI - Rank Order Overall of Constituency Groups and Purpose - 12 3 i x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Open System Model 10 2. Types of Inclusive Context 2 3 1 Chapter I - Introduction A. Summary Statement of the Problem Creating a Need for Research There i s an increasing concern about the a b i l i t y of organizations to form and maintain interorganizational r e l a t i o n -ships (IOR) i n the turbulent environment that characterizes human service agencies. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are of in t e r e s t because they appear to face continual problems i n securing funding. As competition for funds becomes f i e r c e in t h i s era of r e s t r a i n t , there i s a growing pressure on voluntary organizations to demonstrate accountability for t h e i r programs. Exchange of information appears to play a v i t a l r o l e in creating awareness i n the interorganizational (10) f i e l d , gaining cooperation from constituencies i n the environment and f i n a l l y i n e l i c i t i n g support to accompany funding requests. Very l i t t l e has been written about the nature and structure of IORs i n NGOs i n the human services arena as i t relates to funding. The purpose of t h i s research i s to examine the nature and structure of 10 behaviour around information exchange related to funding as perceived by Executive Directors of NGOs i n the Cit y of Vancouver. The conceptual framework of the study i s derived from General System Theory (GST) and the Open System Model of Input, Throughput, Output and Information Feedback. It i s hypothesized that NGOs must maintain a balance of i n f o r -2 mation exchange i n each of these categories i n order to survive i n the s o c i a l service delivery system. A model of collabora-t i v e information exchange i s introduced as a viable method of ensuring the continuation of NGO's. The collaborative exchange model i s derived from the early work of Levine & White (1961) who characterized IOR as "any voluntary exchange of resources". This research i s based on that i n i t i a l i n t erpretation and sub-sequent modifications found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The collaborative IOR exchange model then has i t s roots in GST, i s deduced from the l i t e r a t u r e on IOR, and i s shaped by t h i s researcher's experience i n the f i e l d . The model i s proposed as a vehicle for strengthening the network of exchange among NGO's, thus strengthening the i n d i v i d u a l organizations and improving the s o c i a l service delivery system o v e r a l l . B. Population Affected by the Problem There are four main constituencies affected by the problem: Consumers, Non-Governmental Organizations, the "Public", and Funders. Social Workers and Soc i a l Work Admini-strators are concerned with each of these groups as they are affected by, and a f f e c t the s o c i a l service delivery system d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y . Consumers and d i r e c t l y affected when s o c i a l service agencies are forced to eliminate or cut back services to the community due to lack of funding. When s o c i a l agencies neglect 3 to share information with one another, they may be unable to refer c l i e n t s to other more appropriate services. Also, the wide variety of NGO's that currently e x i s t i s an advantage for the consumer. Individual agencies (rather than govern-ment organizations) may be able to be more responsive to the ind i v i d u a l concerns of c l i e n t s , be more accessible and amenable to changes according to c l i e n t needs. NGO's are usually able to avoid becoming "super agencies" or monolithic bureaucracies that f a i l to meet the needs of the goup(s) they are attempting to serve. Non-Governmental Organizations are c e r t a i n l y affected, as lack of secure funding threatens t h e i r continued v i a b i l i t y . Arbitrary decisions about the a l l o c a t i o n and d i s -t r i b u t i o n of funding precludes r a t i o n a l planning for most service agencies. I f one conceives of NGO's as part of a so c i a l service network, then the reduction of members of the agency network through inadequate funding reduces the potency of the f i e l d . NGO's should be concerned not only about t h e i r own funding position, but also that of other NGO's i n the net-work of agencies. In system's terms, the i n d i v i d u a l strength of the sub-systems contributes to the o v e r a l l vigour of the s o c i a l service delivery system. The public as a general constituency may have the most to lose i f NGO's are forced out of existence. The public has 4 an inte r e s t i n having adequate s o c i a l services that work to solve s o c i a l problems. The public also has an i n t e r e s t i n having t h e i r views heard and heeded through c i t i z e n p a r t i c i -pation on the Boards of Directors of NGO's. Mechanisms for c i t i z e n input i n government agencies are usually cumbersome and/or non-existent. Funders who must contend with organizations that com-pete (knowingly and unknowingly) for l i m i t e d funds would benefit from a more coordinated and informed approach. NGO's that understand the whole network of services would make more knowledgeable demands on the funding bodies. Funders may stand to lose power i f a collaborative model of information exchange related to funding was adopted by NGO's. I t may be much more d i f f i c u l t to o f f e r reduced funding i n the s o c i a l services sector to a u n i f i e d body of s o c i a l service agencies than to the current fragmented and bickering body. Instead of the funders making the f i n a l decisions about funding, there would be a coordinated demand to share the power with NGO's. Overall, s o c i a l workers need to understand the i m p l i -cations of IOR i n the human service arena, e s p e c i a l l y as i t relates to funding. IOR will become the new community develop-ment model of the 1980's, where organizations group together to preserve and enhance the s o c i a l service delivery systems 5 that were conceived i n the 1960's and established i n the 1970's. C. Limitations and Biases The research report i s limited by the state of the art of IOR theory. Presently there are c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms about the nature of IOR among organizations. The research on IOR does not have a s o l i d t h e o r e t i c a l model on which to accumulate propositions to describe an area of behaviour. Instead, the research must take an exploratory form that searches for propositions which might contribute to theory building. This researcher admits to four general biases which may have affected t h i s study. F i r s t , General System Theory i s accepted as a useful a n a l y t i c a l t o o l for describing and under-standing the nature and process of IOR in human service agencies. Second, collaboration i s a preferred strategy of change as i t i s believed to o f f e r more alternatives than con-f l i c t s trategies. I t also appeals on some l e v e l to profes-sional s o c i a l work ethics that s t r i v e to protect the interests and position of affected p a r t i e s . Third, t h i s researcher expresses a commitment to the concept and continuance of NGO's as a vehicle for d e l i v e r i n g s o c i a l services. NGO's are believed to be more accessible to consumers, and have greater opportuni-t i e s for the c i t i z e n input and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The fourth and f i n a l bias i s a general b e l i e f about the importance of studying 6 problems i n s o c i a l service delivery systems i n an e f f o r t to understand and correct them. Soc i a l workers must be concerned with how we d e l i v e r services, not only with what we d e l i v e r , because inevitably "the how" a f f e c t s "the what". D. Organization of the Research Report Chapter I - Introduction. This section contains a summary statement of the problem, a description of the population affected by the problem, and a statement of l i m i t a t i o n s and biases a f f e c t i n g the research. Chapter II - Literature Review. This chapter contains a complete review of the development of IOR theory, and describes i t s underlying conceptual foundations. The relevance to s o c i a l work practice, as well as the current state of the a r t , are discussed. Chapter III - Study Design. This chapter includes the t h e o r e t i c a l framework that guided t h i s enquiry, l i s t s the questions that were asked, provides d e f i n i t i o n s of the variables and states assumptions. The f i n a l sections describe the l e v e l of research design, the sampling procedures and method of gathering data. Chapter IV - Study Findings. This chapter describes the problems encountered i n sampling and data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis. The results to the demographic section of the 7 questionnaire, and the study questions make up the l a s t portion of t h i s chapter. Chapter V - Conclusions and Proposals for Further Research. This chapter b r i e f l y highlights some of the more s i g n i f i c a n t findings, both p o s i t i v e and negative; draws some conclusions about the nature of IOR behaviour related to funding; and makes some recommendations based on the data received. The f i n a l section makes some proposals for further research. 8 Chapter II - Literature Review The purposes of t h i s chapter are to provide an overview and review of the l i t e r a t u r e on Interorganizational Relation-ships (IOR). The chapter has four sections: Conceptual Foundations of IOR; H i s t o r i c a l Development; Relevance to Social Work Practice; and Current State of the Art. This introduction to the f i e l d of IOR should a l e r t the reader to some of the problems and prospects currently facing organizational theorists at t h i s time. I t should also demon-strate that the c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms extant presently l i m i t the l e v e l s of enquiry possible. Research i n t h i s area must continue to serve an exploratory function, e s p e c i a l l y when directed to the population of s o c i a l service organizations. A. Conceptual Foundations U n t i l about 1960, research and theory concerning organizations had been concerned p r i n c i p a l l y with i n t r a -organizational phenomena, or a c t i v i t i e s and structures within the organization. In the early 1960's several organizational researchers i d e n t i f i e d the lack of investigation i n the area of in t e r a c t i o n of organizations (Etzioni, 1960; Litwak & Hylton, 1962). The notion of General System Theory (Bertalanffy, 1950) was beginning to be used as a to o l to 9 conceptualize organizational behaviour. The concept of GST was born i n the f i e l d of biology. Ludwig Von Bertalanffy published the f i r s t a r t i c l e describ-ing GST i n 1950. The key to GST was the notion of a l l l i v i n g systems as "open systems" as opposed to "closed systems". Open systems could be described as having c e r t a i n properties or q u a l i t i e s which distinguished them from closed systems. The properties described in GST form the basis for understanding and conceptualizing IOR. In f a c t , leading organizational theorists have used GST concepts as a basis for developing organizational theory (Katz and Kahn: 1966; Baker and O'Brien: 1971). The appeal of t h i s theory i s that i t looks at the organization as parts of the whole - i . e . t h e i r relationships to one another - rather than the i n d i -vidual parts themselves. An open system model of organiza-t i o n a l behaviour emphasizes that organizations are embedded in an environment made up of other organizations. Figure 1 demonstrates the Open System Model. It i s important to describe some of the basic charac-t e r i s t i c s associated with GST to provide a foundation for conceptualizing IOR, as the terms and processes share operational d e f i n i t i o n s . INPUT THROUGHPUT OUTPUT-'S FEEDBACK 1 4" OPEN SYSTEM MODEL F i g u r e 1 11 I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to understand why GST came from the b i o l o g i s t s when you look at the s t r u c t u r e o f a l i v i n g c e l l . A c e l l must have i n p u t , throughput, output and i n f o r -mation feedback i n order f o r i t t o s u r v i v e i n i t s environment. Thus the f i r s t r u l e of GST i s developed: 1) a l l l i v i n g systems must have i n p u t and output. C l o s e r examination of the c e l l r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e were d i f f e r e n t p a r t s to t h a t system, or smal l subsystems r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c a r r y i n g out d i f f e r e n t processes w i t h i n the c e l l . The second r u l e o f GST i s : 2) a l l l i v i n g systems c o n t a i n sub-systems which are f u n c t i o n a l l y interdependent and f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . Through the work of an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y team from b i o l o g y (L. Von B e r t a l a n f f y ) , economics (Kenneth B o u l d i n g ) , mathematics (R. K. F i s c h e r ) , and l a t e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s C.G. B. Hearn, W. Buckley) a g e n e r a l theory r e l a t e d t o open systems was developed. The appeal of t h i s theory i s t h a t i t d e s c r i b e s a framework t o analyze r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the pro-cesses of those r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s a way of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of one c e l l t o o t h e r s , or whole n a t i o n s t o the r e s t of the world. I t i s about the c l o s e s t we have come to a U n i f i e d Theory of Science and Behaviour. B r i e f l y , then, the terms and processes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h GST and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory are as f o l l o w s : 12 Terms: Supra-system - higher l e v e l system of which the system i s a subsystem. System - "[A] set of units or elements which are a c t i v e l y i n t e r -related and which operate i n some sense as a bounded uni t " . (Baker; 197 3: 4). Subsystem - any one of the units or elements within a unit. Environment - includes a l l that exists outside the system, boundary. Some writers have attempted to define t h i s as a l l that externally a f f e c t s the organization (Pffefer and Salancik; 1978). Boundary - the perimeter of the system. How the system defines i t s e l f . Processes: Entropy - the tendency of a l l systems to move toward d i s s o l u t i o n or disorganization. If an organization does not adapt to the changing forces within the environment, i t w i l l eventually dissolve. Negentropy - forces associated with homeostasis, or equilibrium. This i s achieved by maximizing the r a t i o of input to output, or balancing forces. Permeability - the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of systems to include or exclude other systems. Boundary Maintenance - the a b i l i t y of the system to maintain i t s 13 assembly or l i n k subsystems under the auspice of a single system. In organizational terms, the process by which the organization p u l l s together a l l of i t s various components to operate as a single u n i t . Functional Interdependence - the tasks and roles of the various subsystems that unite the system as a single u n i t . Functional D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n - t h i s recognizes that subsystems have p a r t i c u l a r roles to play at various times. In the organi-zational context, roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are fun c t i o n a l l y segmented so that the organization can continue to operate. Feedback - parts of output returned to input to modify subse-quent outputs. This i s a form of evaluation, where the system measures i t s output and returns that information to the system. E q u i f i n a l i t y - d i f f e r e n t routes to the same end. Organizations with similar goals w i l l not necessarily use the same methods to achieve the same ends. From t h i s broad overview, the t h i r d rule of GST i s derived: 3) the whole i s greater than the sum of i t s parts. Systems can be understood i n terms of t h e i r interdepen-dency by focussing on: 1) the interdependence of the system on i t s environment, 2) the interdependence of the system on i t s subsystems, and 3) the process by which systems i n the environment become linked to one another. The study of Interorganizational Relationships i s the 14 t h i r d focus - the process by which systems i n the environment-become linked to one another. The f i r s t i s the.study of the environment while the second i s the study of intraorganiza-t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A system's approach to IOR views an organization as a part of a set of organizations i n an environment with which i t has a re l a t i o n s h i p . The nature of the environment w i l l a f f e c t the interactions among the organizations. The goals and objectives of the organizations, the resources available to accomplish same, and the agreement among the organizational network as to the respective domain of each w i l l have implica-tions for the relationships between the organizations. B. H i s t o r i c a l Development Levine and White (1961:368) i n a study of community health organizations, defined organizational exchange as "any voluntary a c t i v i t y between two organizations which has conse-quences actual or anticipated, for the r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e i r respective goals or objectives". The elements which were exchanged between organizations f e l l into three categories: 1) r e f e r r a l s / c l i e n t s , 2) labour services, and 3) resources other than labour. 15 The exchange of these elements are determined according to three main factors: 1) access to resources, 2) objectives and functions of the organization, and 3) degree to which domain consensus e x i s t s . Domain consensus i s the agreement between organizations about the nature and function of each other's services, or the t e r r i t o r y they attempt to claim as t h e i r own. Litwak and Hylton (1962) used system theory as a basis for conceiving IOR. In t h e i r view, interdependence was a key issue i n understanding organizational behaviour. They developed three variables which they believed affected the relat i o n s h i p between organizations: 1) the number of interdependent organizations i n the environment, 2) the in d i v i d u a l organization's degree of awareness of other organizations, and 3) the extent of standardization of responses between organizations. They found that low interdependence between organizations led to no coordination among organizations, while high interdepen-dence resulted i n mergers of the organizations. Wm. Evan (1966) developed the organization-set as a le v e l of analysis using an input set and output set r e l a t i n g 16 to a single organization as the f o c a l unit for analysis. Evan described seven dimensions that were c r i t i c a l to understanding IOR a c t i v i t y : 1) input vs. output organizational sets, 2) comparative vs. normative reference organizations, 3) size of the organization set, 4) concentration of organizational set, 5) overlap i n membership, 6) overlap i n goals and values, and 7) boundary personnel. Each of these dimensions has been the subject of empirical and t h e o r e t i c a l research by a variety of authors i n the l a s t decade (Van Auken, Alonso and B e l l ; 1976). Warren (1967) introduced the concept of the Interorgani-zational f i e l d which did not imply a denied membership i n a larger suprasystem. The concept of the 10 f i e l d i s based on the observation that the i n t e r a c t i o n between two organizations i s affected by the nature of the organizational network i n which the organizations find themselves. Thus the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two organizations i s affected by the pre-existing t i e s and networks of organizational r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Again, here i s a reference to the concepts of system theory, that there are sub-systems within a system which are interdependent. He described four possible configurations of IOR from unitary to s o c i a l choice arrangements. This typology may also be used to describe 17 horizontal or v e r t i c a l patterns of rel a t i o n s h i p s . Thus organi-zational relationships could be seen as multi-dimensional depending upon the unit of exchange, and the focus of analysis. While these concepts about the nature of IOR were being formulated, similar explorations were directed at the environ-ment of organizations. The e f f e c t of the environment on the formation and maintenance of IOR has come to be recognized as a s i g n i f i c a n t factor in the study of IOR. Emery and T r i s t (1965) described the environment of organizations i n four ideal types. The f i r s t three types the "placid randomized", the "placid clustered", and the "disturbed reactive" environment had previously been understood in the l i t e r a t u r e of biology, economics and mathematics (Terreberry; 1968: 180). The fourth type, "a turbulent f i e l d " i d e n t i f i e d dynamic processes a r i s i n g from the f i e l d i t s e l f , rather than the interactions of the component organi-zations. The turbulent f i e l d , characterized by complexity as well as rapid change i n the environment, has gained sup-port as a term to describe the human service agency environment. D i l l (1958) i d e n t i f i e d those parts of the environment upon which an organization's goal achievement i s p o t e n t i a l l y dependent as the task environment. The nature of the required performance of the organization had consequences on i t s i n t e r -active behaviour. The examination of interactions among various units i n the environment led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of 18 appropriate organization-sets as the l e v e l of analysis (Evan, 1966; 1972). The transactions of members of the organization-set with members of the task environment was further described by Thompson (1967) and more recently by Nuerhing (1978). These approaches used a f o c a l organization as the u n i t of analysis to describe IOR. Lawrence and Lorsch's (1967) Contingency Theory i s based on Emery and T r i s t ' s concept of the environment. I t states that there must be a f i t between in t e r n a l organizational charac-t e r i s t i c s and the external environment i f the organization i s to survive. They found that i n highly turbulent f i e l d s , highly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and complex relationships were found among organizations. These descriptions of the context and nature of IOR set the stage for researchers to introduce the concept of IOR as a s o c i a l system. The understanding of IOR had moved from the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the environment of the organization, to the interaction of organizations, to viewing the f i e l d of IOR as a s o c i a l system within i t s e l f (Warren, 1967s Hage, 1974; VandeVen, Emmett & Koenig, 1974; Lauman, Galaskiewicz, Marsden, 1978). Levine and White (1975) i n a subsequent a r t i c l e sug-gested a need to s h i f t the focus of research away from the relationships between organizations (dyadic approach), to the relationships among the agencies as an exchange network. 19 In summary, three factors may be i d e n t i f i e d as c o n t r i -buting to the o v e r a l l development of IOR theory: 11 General System Theory, 2) concept of exchange between or among organizations, 3) description of the environment i n which 10 a c t i v i t y takes place, and a fourth factor noted by Berne (1977) was the U.S. federal government programming which mandated coordi-nation among Health and Welfare Organizations i n Model C i t i e s programs. This provided the funds and arena for IOR research. C. Relevance to Social Work Practice The 10 f i e l d i s relevant to s o c i a l workers for three reasons: 1) i t has implications for s o c i a l p olicy, 2) i t has implications for the coordination of s o c i a l services, and 3) i t i s a target for change. Given the fact that we recognize the s o c i a l service environment as being i n motion i t s e l f , " i n d i v i d u a l organizations, however large, cannot expect to adapt successfully simply through t h e i r own d i r e c t actions" (Emery and T r i s t ; 1965: 28). The 10 f i e l d presents an opportunity for action, to strengthen IOR among s o c i a l service agencies so that they may more e f f e c t i v e l y control the environment. The f i r s t step i s to i d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g IOR's and potential l i n k s r e l a t i n g to the p a r t i c u l a r agency. An 20 assessment of the l i n k s i n terms of strengths and weaknesses enables the s o c i a l worker to plan and implement strategies for change. The goal i s to strengthen the network of services to improve service delivery. Whereas coordination and integration were the bywords of s o c i a l service analysts and change agents during the 197O's, the new slogan of the 1980's may well become IOR. Disenchantment with model c i t i e s programs and community action programs (Moynihan; 1969) have encouraged the reassessment of the values that guided early e f f o r t s . Wharf (1978) argues that the integration of human services into one monolithic agency may actually reduce access, and increase stigma for the low income consumer. Clearly, a major restructuring of thinking about the mechanisms for coordination i s i n order. The interorganizational arena o f f e r s one such opportunity, as i t does not add any more organizations to the f i e l d , but works with available resources to improve a l l o c a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n . Implications for s o c i a l p o l i c y evolves from the current s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l constraints facing s o c i a l service agencies. The era of r e s t r a i n t has forced cutbacks i n programs and services used by the most vulnerable and dependent consumers. In order to protect the f i e l d of s o c i a l services, a concerted c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t i s necessary by agencies i n the f i e l d . This i s a new form of community organization, that works with agencies serving consumers to organize and e f f e c t change at the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l . 21 Just as grass roots organizations were encouraged i n Canada by federal program monies from the Secretary of State during the late '60's and early '70's, IOR may also be developed through l e g i s l a t i v e mandates. In t h i s era of cut-backs, accountability has become the byword of federal and p r o v i n c i a l grants o f f i c e r s . Grant applications that demand that agencies coordinate at l o c a l levels to agree on domain, and rol e s , encourage the development of IOR. The concept of IOR has d i r e c t implications for s o c i a l work practice whether one i s a l i n e worker, manager or s o c i a l planner, as a l l of us are working i n an organization within the 10 f i e l d . VJarren (1967) suggests that there are three c l a s s i f i -cations for organizations around any s p e c i f i c issue: 1) not involved, 2) involved i n the issue i n a manner that supports the f i r s t organization i n i t s goals, or 3) involved i n the issue i n a manner that hampers the f i r s t organization i n the pursuit of i t s goals. This scheme has the advantage of assembling organizations according to a s p e c i f i c issue as f o r , against or neutral. The notion of s p e c i f i c issue recognizes that the network of r e l a -tionships between organizations i s not s t a t i c , and can change over time. The network can also change depending upon the issue and i t s impact on the organization(s). 22 This model can be used successfully i n conjunction with Kurt Lewin's (1959) Force F i e l d Analysis model when reviewing threat or promise of interorganizational collaboration or c o n f l i c t . Lewin's model i d e n t i f i e s pressures for and against change, so that plans of action may be i d e n t i f i e d to reduce negative and increase p o s i t i v e factors for change. For example, i f one organization was considering taking a public stand on abortion, i t would need to assess which organizations were neutral, which organizations supported the organization's stand and which organizations were against the organization's stand. At the time of t h i s assessment, the organization should also evaluate the strength and weaknesses of i t s stand based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of support or threat of c o n f l i c t i n the 10 f i e l d . One of Warren's most useful contributions i n t h i s f i e l d i s his "Types of Inclusive Context" (see figure 2). He formu-lates four types of organizational i n t e r a c t i o n based on six variables. The u t i l i t y of t h i s model i s that i t relates goals to structure and internal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the various u n i t s . It has shown some predictive value for success of organiza-t i o n a l interactions based on s i m i l a r i t y of goals, structure and commitment experienced by the u n i t s . For instance, a group of organizations with l i t t l e or no c o l l e c t i v i t y experienced by the various units should not attempt 23 TYPES OF INCLUSIVE CONTEXT Type of Context Dimension Unitary Federative Coalitional Social choice Relation of units to an inclusive goal Locus of inclusive decision-making Locus of authority Structural provisions for division of labor Commitment to a leadership subsystem Prescribed collectivity orientation of units Units organized for achievement of inclu-sive goals At top of inclusive structure At top of hierarchy of inclusive structure Units structured for di-vision of labor within inclusive organization Norms of high com-mitment High Units with disparate goals, but some formal organiza-tion for inclusive goals At top of inclusive structure, subject to unit ratification Primarily at unit level Units structured autono-mously; may agree to a division of labor, which may affect their structure Norms of moderate commitment Moderate Units with disparate goals, but informal collaboration for in-clusive goals In interaction of units without a formal inclusive structure Exclusively at unit level No inclusive goals Within units Exclusively at unit level Units structured autonomously; No formally structured may agree to ad hoc division of division of labor within labor, without restructuring an inclusive context Commitment only to unit leaders Minimal Commitment only to unit leaders Little or none From: Warren, R.L. "The Interorganizational F i e l d as a Focus for Investigation" i n Administrative Science Quarterly December, 1967. F i g u r e 2 24 to organize for the achievement of i n c l u s i v e goals. This would be, i n Lewinian terms, a force against change which would need to be modified before attempting a c o l l e c t i v e action. In review of the Types of Inclusive Context proposed by Warren, there are several observations which can be made about the proposed model. The "Unitary configuration" appears to be the most s t a t i c of the four types. Both authority and locus of authority are situated within the structure. Warren notes that "The units are expected to orient t h e i r behaviour toward the well-being of the incl u s i v e organization, rather than toward t h e i r own respective subgoals" (Warren; 1967: 185). An example of the Unitary type of organization i n B.C. i s the Ministry of Human Resources. An agency of t h i s type may be the most d i f f i c u l t to bring into the 10 f i e l d due to i t s s i z e , com-pl e x i t y and d i v e r s i t y . However, for these very reasons, as an organization i t often f a i l s to obtain commitment from the various departments regarding i t s goals,or agreement on what goals a c t u a l l y guide the a c t i v i t y of the organization. And while the prescribed c o l l e c t i v i t y o rientation of units i s sup-posed to be high, the agency i s seldom able to achieve these norms. Similar observations can be made about the other three types when they are applied to an actual organization. While the organization may appear to f i t into one type, invariably i t does not meet a l l of the dimension requirements set forth 25 by Warren. When applying t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l model i n practice, some adjustments are necessary for the r e a l i t y of the organi-zation. Yet, i t s t i l l serves as a useful model, and a st a r t i n g place for analyzing and predicting success of s o c i a l action strategies involving more than one organization. A t h i r d contribution to s o c i a l work practice from 10 Theory i s relevant to s o c i a l p o l i c y makers. Warren (1967: 193-194) raises t h i s i n his a r t i c l e "The 10 F i e l d as a Focus for Investigation" under the subheading of ' S a t i s f i c i n g versus Maximizing'. Borrowing his terms from Herbert Simon (.1965) , Warren sets before us the c l a s s i c problem of o p t i -mality. This problem i s also associated with GST models. The problem of optimality can be i l l u s t r a t e d by a simple story of a flock of birds a l l attempting to b u i l d t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l nests using grass from one s p e c i f i c grassy k n o l l . Let us assume that the one kn o l l i s the l i m i t of resources available, or the boundary of the system. As each bird pads his own nest, he i s reducing the number of blades of grass available. When there i s plenty of grass, there i s l i t t l e problem. However, i n periods of scarce resources there i s much competition. The r e s u l t may be that some birds get nests, though not a l l , and that i s seldom optimal f o r the whole community. In t h i s era of constraint, human service agencies are experiencing the problem of optimality. How do we maximize 26 our values (agency) without jeopardizing other values (agencies)? This i s the problem that faces s o c i a l p o l i c y planners, as s o c i a l p o l i c y i s b a s i c a l l y about choices between c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic objectives and how those objectives are formulated. Warren (1967:193) postulates that choices made i n the 10 f i e l d constitute a series of s a t i s f i c i n g resolutions i n which values are mixed, usually to the complete s a t i s f a c t i o n of none of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . In order to improve the aggre-gate value of these choices, Warren suggests a number of strategies to strengthen the 10 f i e l d . He encourages the sharing of information at a l l lev e l s of 10 analysis to r a t i o n -a l i z e and optimize the a l l o c a t i o n of resources. The recommen-dations also encompass a provision to break impasses or resolve c o n f l i c t s that may arise i n the 10 f i e l d . In summary IOR a f f e c t the delivery of services by a f f e c t i n g resource a l l o c a t i o n both within and without the organization. By strengthening the IOR i n the s o c i a l service f i e l d , there i s an opportunity to improve or optimize the mix of value choices facing s o c i a l service agencies, and perhaps even reduce value c o n f l i c t s . The collaborative approach proposed seems to have stood the t e s t of time. Schindler-Rainman & L i p p i t t (1978), i n a review of interagency collaboration, summarize the possible problems and benefits when non-governmental organizations work together. They i d e n t i f y ten bar r i e r s to collaboration that may be categorized 27 as Information, Domain, Personnel, and System Related Problems. In order to counteract these barriers they suggest a va r i e t y of strategies to i n i t i a t e and maintain collaboration. One area where they suggest that i n i t i a l collaboration may occur i s i n the area of funding. Organizations may be mandated to coordinate funding applications by funders, or seek to cooperate with each other i n order to get funding. They stress that at a l l stages information and communication must be kept a l i v e and relevant i f the collaborative structure i s to succeed. An open system model of information that i s directed by s k i l f u l , rotating leadership i s proposed to ensure feedback on goals and objectives. These authors l i k e Warren, see benefits i n c o l l a -borative sharing of information and resources. S p e c i f i c a l l y they l i s t f i v e p o t e n t i a l benefits of interagency collaboration. 1) maximization of expertise available i n the 10 f i e l d , 2) creation of an influence base for new funding and/or programs, 3) new understanding of s o c i a l service arena through the interpersonal interface, 4) concentration of energy and commitment to shared goals, 5) power r e d i s t r i b u t i o n amongst the agencies. Together, they hope that these f i v e benefits have an additive function of bringing about improved s o c i a l service delivery systems. 28 D. Current State of the Art In the previous sections, a collaborative strategy of IOR has been described. This paradigm sees resource exchange as a function of collaboration among organizations i n the 10 f i e l d to ensure mutual s u r v i v a l . At present there are perhaps three competing theories of IOR, although they are not mutually exclusive. They are the voluntary exchange model, the c o n f l i c t resource dependency model, and the mixed-motive model. A l d r i c h (1971) espouses the c o n f l i c t resource dependency model. It focuses on decisions, power and influence r e l a t i o n -ships that a f f e c t organizational actions and oh strategies .that seek to manage the environment. This model d i r e c t s inquiry at the l e v e l s of power and authority, 10 c o n f l i c t and member compliance. A l d r i c h predicts that organizations are more l i k e l y to tighten t h e i r organizational boundaries than to expand t h e i r boundaries when engaged i n 10 c o n f l i c t , thus reducing 10 a c t i v i t y . Benson (197 5) may also be classed i n the c o n f l i c t resource dependency school. He conceives of 10 networks as a p o l i t i c a l economy concerned with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of two scarce resources, money and authority. He sees the po s i t i o n of organizations i n the network as dependent upon t h e i r respective market positions and power to a f f e c t the flow of resources. The four components of equilibrium i n the system are: 29 1) Domain Consensus, 2) Ideological Consensus, 3) Positive Evaluation, and 4) Work Coordination. The components vary together and are affected by the p o l i t i c a l and economic substructure. Jones (.1978) , i s also a member of the c o n f l i c t school. In his work, he investigated the variables of interagency power, control and sanctioning (reward) system present i n the 10 f i e l d . He concludes that hidden 10 agendas subvert o r i g i n a l agency goals regarding IOR, and that the domination of the hidden agenda goals shape the variables. Studies supporting the c o n f l i c t resource-dependency model generally f i n d that slack or performance excess conditions i n the organization r e s u l t i n more 10 a c t i v i t y . This means that when intraorganizational concerns are s a t i s f i e d , the organization w i l l become more involved i n IOR. Sheldon (1978) finds support for Aldrich's model i n her study of j o i n t programs of s o c i a l service agencies i n a single urban area. Comprehensive s o c i a l service delivery systems are not enhanced merely by urging voluntary coordination and appeal-ing to professional i d e a l s . She suggests that funds are required to make coordination f e a s i b l e . Zeitz (.1980:86) c r i t i c i z e s the resource dependency model 30 as o f f e r i n g too s i m p l i s t i c a set of alternatives - "either organizations manipulate and control environments, or environ-ments dominate and constrain organizations". In accepting the c o n f l i c t model, strategies for action are severely lim i t e d , and i n many senses unworkable. Zeitz (1980:86) also c r i t i c i z e s exchange theory as being nothing more than n e o - c l a s s i c a l economic theory, and for ignoring the dynamic state of 10 linkage. He seems to have ignored more recent formulations of exchange theory, and i n p a r t i c u l a r Warren's (1967) concept of 10 as constituting a dynamic f i e l d . Zeitz i s proposing a new form of the c o n f l i c t model - D i a l e c t i c a l Intervention, based on Marxian p r i n c i p l e s . The theory proposed by Zeitz (1980) i s appealing on i n t e l l e c t u a l grounds, e s p e c i a l l y as i t keys on the d i s t r i b u -t i o n of resources as i t affects the i n t e r a c t i o n among organiza-tions. However, i t s appeal i s undermined when one considers the l o g i c a l extension for action based on Marxist doctrine. For p r a c t i s i n g s o c i a l workers and s o c i a l work administrators, i t seems impractical to consider revolutionary t a c t i c s at the present time. The c o n f l i c t school i s conceptually li m i t e d by the nature of c o n f l i c t i t s e l f . C o n f l i c t seems to presuppose a clashing of two opposing forces. In the dynamic state of the 10 f i e l d i t i s d i f f i c u l t to conceive of one agency being able to i d e n t i f y i t s e l f i n c o n f l i c t with a l l other members. The dyadic nature of c o n f l i c t theory l i m i t s i t s application when 31 the 10 f i e l d i s defined as a network of agencies. The t h i r d paradigm of IOR can be described as Mixed-Motive. This c a l l s for an integrated view of both exchange and resource dependency models to f u l l y understand 10 theory (Schmidt and Kochan; 1977). Cook (1977) proposed an extension of the exchange model to incorporate the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power as one element of exchange. She disagrees with A l d r i c h that exchange theory i s conceptually barren to deal with unequal power and resource d i s t r i b u t i o n (1977:77) but urges the addi-t i o n a l development of the theory. The c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms of IOR are no comfort to s o c i a l work p r a c t i t i o n e r s seeking to extract hints for techniques for change i n the 10 f i e l d . To t h i s writer, the Mixed-Motive model seems to o f f e r the most pote n t i a l for developing guidelines for action. I t recognizes the existence of c o n f l i c t between organizations, but by avoiding that element as the central aspect of the theory, i t accommodates both c o n f l i c t and collaboration as a r e a l i t y of the 10 f i e l d . C o n f l i c t can be used i n a constructive sense for system building and should not be excluded. Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden (1978) i n an excellent summary of the state of the art of IOR c a l l e d upon researchers to focus upon three areas: 1) linkages between organizations, 2) what leads to the development of l i n k i n g mechanisms, 32 and 3) the implications of IOR for public p o l i c y decisions i n order to more f u l l y understand IOR theory. When reviewing the current l i t e r a t u r e on IOR from these three reference points one becomes aware of the overlap of a l l three schools, and lack of consistent findings i n the l i t e r a -ture. This indicates that the development of IOR theory i s i n i t s infancy, and needs both exploratory research and concep-t u a l i z a t i o n to further the f i e l d . Examples are based on the three issues for researchers i d e n t i f i e d by Laumann, Galaskiewicz and Marsden (.1978) as above follow. Recent studies of IOR linkages have been based on resource transfers or interpenetration of organizational boundaries. These relationships may be viewed as a r i s i n g out of collaboration or c o n f l i c t strategies employed by member organizations to meet the requirements for s u r v i v a l i n the 10 f i e l d . Linkages among organizations have been viewed i n terms of coordination of services (Aiken & Hage, 1968; Sundquist, 1969; Mott, 1970; Baker & Schulberg, 1970; T. Jones, 1974; Warren, Rose & Bergunder, 1974; H a l l & Clark, 1974; Lehman, 1975; Gans, 1975; Davidson, 1976; H a l l , 1977; and Paulson, 1976). These studies have reviewed various segments of 10 linkages and possible s t r u c t u r a l implications a r i s i n g from dependent and independent variables i d e n t i f i e d . There i s 33 growing support for Levine, White and Vlasak's ( 1 9 7 5) concep-t i o n of exchange as a dependent variable, while the open-systems context i s the independent v a r i a b l e . Studies have concentrated t h e i r approach on segments of 10 linkages ( i . e . dependent variables) and possible s t r u c t u r a l implications. The number of shared functions, or shared or coordinated a c t i v i t i e s around such items as personnel, funds, r e f e r r a l s , information, support, and c l i e n t s have a l l been the subject of study. Cans (197 5) i n his study of Integration of Human  Services (USA) proposes a set of twenty-two linkage mechanisms ranging from j o i n t budgeting and colocation to c l i e n t r e f e r r a l s . Frumkin C 1 9 7 8 ) uses Gans 1 (1975) l i s t as a basis for understand-ing IOR. He states that an understanding of services integration as an interorganizational r e l a t i o n s h i p mechanism i s an e s s e n t i a l administrative s k i l l . This returns us to the second question posed by Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden (1978) - "What leads to the development of l i n k i n g mechanisms?" Studies on cooperation and c o n f l i c t have sought to i d e n t i f y factors a f f e c t i n g l i n k s between organizations. Molnar and Rogers (1978) i d e n t i f y comparative s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences among organizations i n a model of IOR c o n f l i c t . This seems to build on the work of A l d r i c h (1971) who argues for including c o n f l i c t i n the concept of IOR by examining the nature of interdependence among organizations i n the environment and IOR. In his d i s -cussion of 10 c o n f l i c t , he describes two strategies that are 34 available for heightening the member p a r t i c i p a t i o n necessary for providing resources used i n 10 competition. One strategy i s to c o n s t r i c t the organization's boundaries, the other i s to expand the boundaries to take i n the competition. Baker and O'Brien (1971) question t h i s approach as useful to describe interdependence as i n t h e i r view organizations may be highly interdependent i n some but not a l l areas. IOR are affected by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, authority and influence. The actual location of t h i s power, etc. whether i n the organization i t s e l f , the individuals who comprise the organization, or as a part of the environment has been a subject of study. Perruci and P i l i s u k (1970) examined power i n terms of 10 t i e s which create resource networks that can be mobilized to meet organizational require-ments. P f e f f e r (1972) examined the external influence from s p e c i f i c organizations on managerial behaviour. Turk (1973) found i n a study of urban communities that influence was more s i g n i f i c a n t when organizations were linked to one another than when individuals were linked to t h e i r environment. This finding gave added credence to interorganizational l e v e l s of analysis. The development of l i n k i n g mechanisms i s seen as the role and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administrators (O'Brien, 1973). Their degree of commitment to the task w i l l a f f e c t the outcome of the relationship (Weirich, 1977; G i l b e r t & Specht, 1977). Schermerhorn (1976), in his study of h o s p i t a l administrators' 35 information sharing a c t i v i t y , attempted to discern whether they were motivated to exchange on the basis of d i s t r e s s or slack ( a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u f f i c i e n t time and resources to perform task). He found support for the slack theory, thus c a l l i n g into ques-ti o n the resource-dependency model. Adamek and Lavin (1975), i n t h e i r study of 321 health and welfare agencies, found that r e l a -t i v e abundance of resources and not s c a r c i t y promoted exchange. Warren, Rose and Bergunder (1974) assess the s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y . They describe c o n f l i c t i n organizational net-works as requiring cooperation merely by the fa c t that two or more organizations are engaged i n contact even i f only through c o n f l i c t . Thus t h e i r approach asserts that there i s a pre-ex i s t i n g network of t i e s i n the organizational environment. If Warren's view of the pre-existing network of 10 t i e s i s accepted, then the 10 f i e l d has implications for planning and policy decisions. Davidson (1976) urges planners to con-sider 1) environmental pressures acting on the organizations; 2) cert a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those organizations and 3) aspects of the 10 planning process i t s e l f . Investigation of the implications of IOR a c t i v i t i e s i n a r u r a l environment has received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention. Hassinger (1961) con-sidered the linkage mechanisms required between centralized and l o c a l systems of urban and r u r a l s o c i a l systems as a key to understanding r u r a l society. Sundquist and Davis (1969) i n t h e i r review of federalism and program coordination recommended 36 A two levels of cooperation depending upon the goals of coordina-t i o n and the environment (urban or rural) - either multi-county organizations, or a single federal authority with planned devolution as l o c a l organizations became more competent. Benson (1975) describes 10 networks as belonging to a larger environment consisting of a u t h o r i t i e s , l e g i s l a t i v e bodies, bureaus and publics that are constantly seeking equilibrium among the forces i n the larger structure. Centralized decision structures are found not to be complementary to good service i n r u r a l elements due to a lack of awareness of the 10 network at the l o c a l l e v e l . Nuerhing (1978) studied task environment patterns and the organizational context. He concludes from his r e s u l t s that there i s a strong c o r r e l a t i o n between p a r t i -cular styles of 10 i n t e r a c t i o n i n r u r a l environments, as they were found to be organizationally diffused over a large number of operating s i t e s . Horesji (1978) notes that IOR may be dominated by the informal s o c i a l choice model (Warren, 1967) in r u r a l areas, and c a l l s for investigators to note the developmental history of organizations. Klonglan et a l (1976) found three le v e l s of IORs corresponding to the h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l of government at state, multi-county, and d i s t r i c t l e v e l s . Understanding v e r t i c a l and horizontal patterns of IOR (Warren, 1963) has special impact for human service organiza-tions due to the unique requirements put upon them to s a t i s f y l o c a l demands within p r o v i n c i a l or v e r t i c a l constraints. 37 It i s apparent from t h i s review that although much work has been done i n the IOR f i e l d , questions such as the ones posed by Laumann, Galaskiewicz and Marsden (1978) remain to be answered. No theory has yet been developed to adequately explain linkages between organizations, what leads to the development of l i n k i n g mechanisms; and the implications of IOR for public p o l i c y decisions. In the next chapter a model of IOR related to informa-t i o n sharing i n the funding context w i l l be introduced. The model i s not purported to solve the problems i n theory building so far i d e n t i f i e d but to contribute to the search for th e o r e t i c a l underpinnings. 38 Chapter III - Study Design A. Theoretical Framework The model that has guided t h i s inquiry i s based on several elements a r i s i n g from the l i t e r a t u r e on IOR. The conceptual foundation of the model i s dependent upon General System Theory as the basis f o r conceiving of and understanding IOR. GST encompasses the notion of interdependence within a network of organizations, i n the environment. Contributions made by theorists (Emery & T r i s t ; 1965. Terreberry; 1968) have characterized the Human Service Agency environment as turbulent. The notion of a turbulent environment implies a l i v i n g system that i s constantly i n motion, receiving input, processing i t , and producing output that i s subsequently modified by the system as feedback. The model of input, throughput, output and feedback implies that there must be exchange within the larger supra-system for the smaller units to function as l i v i n g systems. Exchange, defined by Levine & White (1961) i n the context of IOR as "any voluntary a c t i v i t y between two organizations which has consequences actual or anticipated for the r e a l i z a t i o n of th e i r respective goals or objectives" must be extended to account for the nature of a l i v i n g system. Exchange must be viewed as a natural consequence for organizations that e x i s t within a systems' framework. Warren (1967) extended the notion of exchange when he 39 described the Interorganizational F i e l d , which did not imply a denied membership i n a larger supra-system. The 10 f i e l d , according to the formulation by Warren, i s a network of pre-e x i s t i n g t i e s among organizations. This network of pre-e x i s t i n g t i e s i s not limited to merely voluntary a c t i v i t y , or collaborative exchange, but includes relationships among organizations that are based on c o n f l i c t . C o n f l i c t among organizations does not i m p l i c i t l y serve to separate organiza-tions from one another, but rather to es t a b l i s h a l i n k based on the connection alone. The intent of the l i n k i s in c i d e n t a l information i n the systems context. Thus, as Warren, Rose & Bergunder (1974) have described i t , c o n f l i c t between organiza-tions can serve as a tool for collaboration by vi r t u e of the fact that there i s a l i n k between them. This l i n k can be the c o n f l i c t r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h i s model, IOR exists i n the human service agency environment by virtu e of the systems' context. IOR's are based on interdependence which may or may not be the r e s u l t of voluntary, intentional or collaborative modes of exchange. The organizations exchange because they are interdependent upon one another. They must receive input and produce output i n order to survive as a l i v i n g , or functioning, system. Exchange exists because there are pre-existing networks i n the 10 f i e l d . The focus of t h i s model i s information exchange. Infor-mation i s only one of the many linkage mechanisms (Gans; 1975) 40 that can be i d e n t i f i e d i n 10 exchange. Linkage mechanisms, or the t i e s that form the networks among organizations include c l i e n t s , s t a f f , resources, space, funds, j o i n t t r a i n i n g , adminis-t r a t i o n and the service population. Information was chosen as a key element because i t i s i m p l i c i t in any exchange of other more tangible elements of exchange. Also, information gathering, processing and disseminating have become a c r i t i c a l factor for human service agencies i n the 1980's. In t h i s decade i n p a r t i -cular, human service agencies w i l l be c a l l e d upon to demon-strate accountability to funders through the presentation of information. The information items required are related to the documentation of need, problem d e f i n i t i o n , c l e a r l y written goals and objectives, program descriptions, budgetary and administrative management, p u b l i c i z i n g the agencies' programs and services, Annual Report and f i n a l l y Evaluation Reports. Information sharing can be a useful way to diminish competition, by replacing misconceptions about other agencies with factual data. Agencies presently compete with one another for a share of the decreasing s o c i a l service agency allotment. By sharing information related to t h e i r target population and need for resources, a collaborative network may be established which w i l l j o i n together those agencies or groups struggling to maintain t h e i r services. Warren (1967) and Schindler-Rainman & L i p p i t t (1978) both support information exchange as the v i t a l f i r s t step i n 41 setting up a collaborative network of human service organiza-tions. Both arrive at the same set of recommendations: to promote information exchange among organizations to maximize values and ultimately improve the network of s o c i a l service delivery systems. Information exchange, then, i s a key factor i n develop-ing c ollaborative IOR's. Increasingly information i s being demanded to demonstrate accountability to consumers, the public and funders. The information required by these constituencies f a l l s into three main areas: documentation of need for the proposed service; adequate management of the programs and services; and evaluation of the services delivered. The a b i l i t y to gather and disseminate information i n these cate-gories has improved dramatically i n the l a s t few years. Atten-t i o n must now be directed at ways that these kinds of informa-t i o n b i t s may be used to improve the service delivery system. Chris Sower (1957) describes a process of legitimation which s o c i a l service organizations must f u l f i l i f they are to continue to e x i s t . Legitimation refers to gaining public acceptance from a l l constituencies regarding the service(s) offered by the voluntary agency. Obviously, legitimation of the agency and i t s services i s achieved i n a variety of forms. Some organizations are l i g i t i m i z e d merely by the length of t h e i r existence i n the f i e l d . They have stood the t e s t of time and survived, therefore they are viewed as 42 legitimate. There are few organizations that meet t h i s c r i t e r i a in the turbulent s o c i a l service f i e l d , p r e c i s e l y because the f i e l d i s turbulent. Since the avenue of time as a l e g i t i m i z i n g influence i s not available to a l l agencies i n the f i e l d , other techniques for l e g i t i m i z i n g programs must be explored. Sower (1957) proposes a concept of a "Bank of Goodwill". The Bank of Goodwill i s predicated upon a model of exchange among organi-zations whereby they exchange information, goods and services which are useful to other agencies. Inherent i n t h i s concept i s an intent to share c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y items which w i l l c o n t r i -bute to the success of the other agencies i n the f i e l d . I m p l i c i t i n the "Bank" concept i s that by maintaining a po s i t i v e balance i n the s o c i a l service community, in t e r e s t w i l l naturally accrue to the benefit of the i n i t i a t o r of the goodwill action. I f a l l participants i n the s o c i a l services network contribute to the bank of goodwill, then the whole w i l l benefit. The Bank of Goodwill concept has i t s roots i n the private enterprise system. However, competition for scarce resources diminishes the u t i l i t y of t h i s approach. The model of legitimation through goodwill must be extended to a collaborative system that benefits the group. The i n t e r e s t or goodwill accumulated must be reinvested into the s o c i a l services community. 43 Mancur Olson (1965), a Harvard economist, discusses in his book The Logic of C o l l e c t i v e Action the conditions for in d i v i d u a l contributions for group benefit. He states that action on behalf of the group ceases orice benefits to the in d i v i d u a l are exhausted. However, i f the contributions by in d i v i d u a l agencies to the c o l l e c t i v e good of the s o c i a l service community cease, the whole community's s u r v i v a l i s endangered. In periods of scarce resources, i f there i s not a c o l l e c t i v e action to ensure the continuance of the system, then the i n d i v i d u a l members must either f a i l to survive or be taken up by another system. Non-governmental organizations appear to be facing exactly t h i s dilemma i n the 19 80's. They have b a s i c a l l y two options - to j o i n another system (in t h i s case the government system) or to work together to maintain t h e i r own system. The model proposed here i s a collaborative IOR exchange network based on information. Information, as a key factor i n demon-st r a t i n g accountability which contributes to success i n obtaining funding, must be shared among non-governmental organizations. In order to legi t i m i z e the NGO's, and th e i r role i n the delivery of s o c i a l services, the bank of goodwill must use that i n t e r e s t to benefit the whole community. Infor-mation exchange as the currency of goodwill must be promoted to maintain and strengthen the base of support for NGO's i n the human services arena. 44 In summary, the t h e o r e t i c a l framework that i s guiding t h i s inquiry i s a collaborative model of IOR. The element of exchange that i s the focus of t h i s research i s information as i t relates to funding of NGO's i n the s o c i a l services f i e l d . The premise i s that information exchange between agencies i s related to success i n obtaining funds. A complete description of the hypotheses used i n thi s research are described i n the next section. B. Hypotheses and Assumptions of the Study 1) Hypotheses The hypotheses guiding t h i s inquiry might more properly be referred to as the issues that were explored i n the survey. The reason for the d i s t i n c t i o n i s the l e v e l of the study (explora-tory) which precludes experimental t e s t i n g of the hypothesis. An exploratory study design i s necessary due to the current state of IOR Theory conceptualization. The study then i s designed to explore the rel a t i o n s h i p between interorganizational relationships and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The f i r s t hypothesis may be stated as: a) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the nature of IOR pursued by NGO's and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The IOR's being reviewed are the sharing of i n f o r -mation by Executive Directors of NGO's i n nine , categories with four d i f f e r e n t constituencies. The 45 information categories and the constituencies are the predictor variables for the hypothesis stated above. The information categories are based on the Open System Model of input, throughput and output. In order to address the hypothesis the study generated questions around three issues. These three issues are explored i n each information category throughout the instrument. The f i r s t issue i s related to the importance attached to each information item as i t relates to the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding i n each organization. The second issue addresses the p r i o r i t y attached by the organization to actually providing the information considered important to obtaining funding. The t h i r d issue was addressed by using a matrix format designed to s o l i c i t information regarding whom the agency shares informa-t i o n with and for what purpose. The inc l u s i o n of the f i r s t two questions on importance of a c t i v i t y and p r i o r i t y assigned to a c t i v i t y served a twofold purpose. The f i r s t purpose was to act as a measure of i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y by com-paring the perceived importance of the information sharing a c t i v i t y and the actual p r i o r i t y given to the a c t i v i t y . The second purpose was to indicate i n a general way how Executive Directors used t h e i r time in r e l a t i o n to the information sharing a c t i v i t i e s . This data was presumed to be useful to further describe 46 the nature of IOR pursued (how important and what p r i o r i t y ) and to contribute to the understanding of the nature of IOR and i t s rel a t i o n s h i p to the l e v e l of success i n funding obtained by NGO's. The second hypothesis may be stated as: b) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the importance attached to the information sharing a c t i v i t y and the p r i o r i t y assigned to i t , and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The t h i r d question i n the survey was designed to more adequately describe the nature of IOR by ind i c a t i n g with whom the agency shares information and for what purpose. The t h i r d hypothesis may be stated as: c) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the con-stituencies with whom the agency shares information and the purposes for which the information i s shared, and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. In both of the l a t t e r two hypotheses, each information category i s treated as in d i v i d u a l items. Therefore, there are nine items subsumed under hypotheses two and three, as per the indi v i d u a l information categories. The categories are: a) Need for Services; b) Problem D e f i n i t i o n ; c) Goals and Objectives; d) Program Description. e) Budget; f) Management Structure; g) P u b l i c i z e Organizational A c t i v i t i e s ; h) Annual Report; i) Evaluation Report. The tenth and f i n a l matrix i n the questionnaire i s the ov e r a l l question which asks the respondent to.rank i n importance the purposes for which he/she shares information with each d i f f e r e n t constituency. This item refers only to the t h i r d hypothesis. 2) Operational Definitions of Independent and Dependent  Variables Before defining the variables measured i n t h i s study i t w i l l be useful to review the central concepts involved i n t h i s study. Interorganizational Relationships refers to the relat i o n s h i p among the network of s o c i a l service organizations i n the environ-ment. This d e f i n i t i o n assumes a rel a t i o n s h i p between agencies as long as they share membership i n the same s o c i a l service delivery system, which i s similar to Warren's (1967) notion of the pre-existing t i e s found among the network of organizations. Open System Model i s derived from General System Theory which holds that a l l l i v i n g systems must have input, throughput, output and information feedback i n order to survive i n the environment. The given e s s e n t i a l i n thi s research i s the need for funding. 48 The need for funding precedes a l l other a c t i v i t i e s of a non-governmental organization, and i s ongoing and persistent. The independent variable i n t h i s research i s IOR. I t i s assumed that IOR exists i n the environment of the human services arena. The study i s designed to explore what factors of IOR influence funding for NGO's. The dependent variable i n t h i s research i s the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The way i n which success i s measured i s by reference to the question asking the respondent to indicate what percentage of t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds was met i n the 1979 f i s c a l year. A response of 96-100% i s considered successful. A l l items i n d i c a t i n g 95% or less received of the i n i t i a l request for funds are to be considered less than successful. A l l items i n d i c a t i n g 101% or more are to be considered more than successful. The predictor variables used i n t h i s study are the nine information categories plus the o v e r a l l item, the c o n s t i -tuencies and the purposes described i n each matrix of the questionnaire. The nine information categories are divided into input, throughput and output items. While the informa-t i o n items are self-explanatory and w i l l not be defined again here, a few words about the grouping of the items i s i n order. Input category contains three information items which are the need for service, the d e f i n i t i o n of the problem and a description of goals and objectives. Information about these three areas i s esse n t i a l to any organization to set up or i n i t i a t e a service. Throughput category contains three items which are des-c r i p t i o n s of programs offered, budget, and information about the management structure. These items describe how the agency operates i t s service. Output category contains a further three items which are p u b l i c i z i n g organizational a c t i v i t i e s , an annual report and an evaluation report which together describe how an agency delivers i t s programs. The f i n a l item i s a summative question which asks the respondent to gauge o v e r a l l information sharing a c t i v i t y and i t s relationship to achieving success i n funding with regard to the four constituency groups and purposes. The operational d e f i n i t i o n s for each of the constituency groups, and the purposes attached to the information categories are as follows: Constituency Groups Consumer: member of the c l i e n t group the agency i s attempt-ing to serve; user of services. Other Agencies: members of the same interorganizational network i n the human services f i e l d . The "Public": includes members of the community who are 50 not consumers; r a t e and taxpayers; p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s not i n v o l v e d i n funding; spokesperson(s) f o r the community standard. Funders: p u b l i c or p r i v a t e sources of funds, i n c l u d i n g the government, co r p o r a t e donors, and foundations t h a t p r o v i d e funds f o r human s e r v i c e programs. Purposes Awareness: the f i r s t stage reached through i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r i n g ; a l e r t i n g c o n s t i t u e n c i e s to the e x i s t e n c e of s e r v i c e and/or programs. Cooperation: the second stage reached through i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r i n g ; may demand c o n s i d e r a b l y more i n f o r m a t i o n than the f i r s t step; c o n s t i t u e n c y group w i l l not impede o r g a n i z a t i o n i n i t s quest f o r funds, and i n f a c t may a i d the agency i n i t s requests by s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , and/or other r e s o u r c e s . Support: the t h i r d stage reached through i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r i n g ; a commitment to a i d the s u r v i v a l of the agency by p r o v i d i n g a c t u a l funds, donations i n k i n d and/or m a t e r i a l t h a t may be used to back the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s request f o r funds. T h i s may i n c l u d e l e t t e r s , p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n of programs and s e r v i c e s , u n i f i e d response to funders or other c o n s t i t u e n c y groups. 3), Assumptions The assumptions u n d e r l y i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h are s e v e r a l . The f i r s t assumption i s r e l a t e d to the way i n which IOR's have been d e f i n e d . I t i s assumed t h a t t h e r e i s a network of p r e - e x i s t i n g t i e s among agencies i n the human s e r v i c e s f i e l d t h a t connect them i n the environment. The b a s i s f o r these t i e s does not 51 necessarily mean that the agencies collaborate or v o l u n t a r i l y exchange resources, nor'that they compete i n the environment with one another. The notion of the network i s based on the General System Theory edict that a l l sub-systems (organiza-tions) are interdependent with the larger system (human services arena). The second assumption, then, i s related to the f i r s t , or the underlying conceptual foundation of IOR, namely, GST. I t i s assumed that GST i s a useful and v a l i d concept for under-standing and interpreting IOR, thus the open system model employed i n t h i s research i s also useful and v a l i d . The t h i r d set of assumptions i s related to information sharing a c t i v i t i e s . It i s assumed that l o g i c a l l y information sharing cannot be separated from exchange of more tangible forms of resources. Also, i t i s assumed that there are three stages or purposes for sharing information, and awareness precedes cooperation which precedes support. The f i n a l assumption i s about the nature of the c o l l a b -orative model of IOR. I t i s assumed that collaboration holds more promise for agency su r v i v a l than c o n f l i c t strategies. And as i n the f i r s t assumption, that even i f the only basis for a relationship i s c o n f l i c t , then there are t i e s connecting the organizations to one another. 52 C. Level of Research Design The study employed a combined Exploratory-Descriptive design (P. Tripodi et a l ; 1969). The rationale for u t i l i z i n g t h i s p a r t i c u l a r method was to gain f a m i l i a r i t y with the phenomena of IOR's i n non-governmental organizations i n order (or "and") to achieve new insights i n order to formulate a more precise research problem. The design of the study meets the basic c r i t e r i a outlined for an Exploratory-Descriptive design. Systematic procedures for gathering and analyzing data were employed. Both q u a l i t a -t i v e and quantitative descriptions were used to describe the phenomena. An attempt was made to relate the independent variables measured to the abstract concepts described in the l i t e r a t u r e . The purpose of the study was to consider possible relationships between the IOR behaviour of NGO's, and funding. No attempt was made to control extraneous variables, such as the agency's p r i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p to funders or the amount of money available, (in other words, the context of the funding app l i c a t i o n s ) . Two methods were chosen to complete t h i s research. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e was the f i r s t step i n i d e n t i f y i n g key concepts i n IOR theory to construct the hypotheses that guided t h i s inquiry. Previous experience and values of the researcher f a c i l i t a t e d the s i f t i n g of the various paradigms presented i n the l i t e r a t u r e to arr i v e at the variables measured i n t h i s study. 53 The second method chosen was a standardized mailed questionnaire to the population of concern, namely NGO's i n the human services arena. A mailed questionnaire was chosen as the most e f f i c i e n t method for a solo researcher to gather information on a large number of variables and a r e l a t i v e l y large sample. A questionnaire has the benefit of being self-administered, which i s desirable when seeking sub-je c t i v e responses as intended by t h i s survey. Respondents may have f e l t freer to express t h e i r views on the importance of information-sharing related to funding using an anonymous questionnaire, than i n an interview s i t u a t i o n . The disadvantages to using a questionnaire are well-known. S e l l t i z et a l (1976; 296) estimate that "When ques-tionnaires are mailed to a random sample of the population, the proportion of returns i s usually low, varying from about 10 to 50 percent". I t i s believed that those who do respond are generally better educated, more interested and more partisan than the t o t a l population. This may skew the r e s u l t s of the questionnaire, thus c a l l i n g into question the repre-sentativeness of the sample. These disadvantages were considerably less than the anticipated disadvantages of using other methods such as personal interviews or telephone interviews i n terms of economy of the researcher's time and energy. Regarding the rate of returns, t h i r t y responses was set as the minimum data base for 54 analysis. Thirty responses only would represent merely 16% of the t o t a l sample. I t was predicted that the rate of re-turns would exceed t h i s minimum l e v e l . 1) Plan of Data Analysis Data analysis was accomplished i n four stages. The raw data was coded and transcribed onto Fortran sheets for key-punching at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's Computing Centre. During t h i s stage some e d i t i n g of the data was done to eliminate decimal points i n the data received. A l l decimals were rounded to the nearest whole number with the exception of decimals of less than one which were rounded to one. In ordinal questions where there was more than one response, the f i r s t item c i r c l e d closest to the l e f t hand margin was recorded. A l l non-responses were coded as blanks. The second stage of analysis u t i l i z e d the Michigan Interactive Data Analysis System (MIDAS) from the S t a t i s t i c a l Research Laboratory of the University of Michigan. The MIDAS program was selected because i t i s terminally oriented, par-t i c u l a r l y fast and e f f i c i e n t , with a wide variety of s t a t i s -t i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s and uses the Michigan Terminal System (MTS) mode of command. The f i r s t set of s t a t i s t i c s obtained were descriptive for each variable i n a l l cases. This included the number of responses i n each case, the maximum l e v e l for each 55 variable, mean, and standard deviation. One-way tables showing marginal and cumulative percentages were also requested. The t h i r d stage involved some manipulation of the exi s t i n g data f i l e . The data was edited using the Mul t i -variate Tabulation (MVTAB) program to convert a l l blanks to zeros to allow for variable transformation. Once edited, a l l variables contained within each matrix were transformed to be read as a set of single variables or aggregates. This was to prepare the data for co r r e l a t i o n s . The f i n a l stage was the c o r r e l a t i o n of key variables with one another using the Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t method. The variables selected were a l l aggregate variables (matrices) which were correlated with each other, and the success variable (percentage of i n i t i a l request for funds received). The success variable was correlated with several demographic variables including age of organization, funds received, source of funds, and number of s t a f f and volunteers. The measures of association produced using the cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l given a value of .2352 or more, and s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l given a value of .3060 or more. Correlations showing more than .2352 levels were accepted as s i g n i f i c a n t for the purposes of t h i s study. Findings that exceeded the .3060 l e v e l were preferred. 56 D. Sampling Procedures The sampling design may be considered a purposive sample (Bailey; 1978:83, S e l l t i z ; 1976:521) as the units of analysis were selected from the source deemed most appro-priate by the researcher. The target population consists of non-governmental organizations providing human services either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y i n the City of Vancouver. The sample was drawn from the Vancouver Volunteer Bureau Directory (197 9) which l i s t s over 200 agencies representing health and s o c i a l services, c u l t u r a l and l e i s u r e programs, and some government programs where volunteers are used. This source was considered to be the most up to date record of organizations meeting the c r i t e r i a for the target population. From the description of the objectives of each agency given i n the directory, a l l exclusively c u l t u r a l organizations, and those unrelated to the delivery of s o c i a l services were excluded. For example, the Vancouver East C u l t u r a l Centre, and the Society for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals were not included i n t h i s survey. Also, a l l organizations under the d i r e c t auspices of the P r o v i n c i a l Government ( i . e . the Ministry of Human Resources) were excluded. The survey was directed to the Executive Director of each organization, as i t was believed that t h i s i n d i v i d u a l would be the most aware of interagency r e l a t i o n -ships related to funding. The f i n a l sample was 186 organiza-tions, of which 75 returned the questionnaire. 57 Three factors l i m i t e d the size of the sample. F i r s t , to maintain representativeness, i t was decided to focus on a single urban area i . e . , Vancouver, rather than include neighbouring m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I t was not possible to determine the exact number of the population for t h i s survey. Second, i t was not feasible to consider comparing two urban areas i n B r i t i s h Columbia, as there i s no other c i t y of comparable size i n the province. Third, surveys are expensive to prepare, mail and tabulate thus the size was li m i t e d by the available resources. A follow-up mailing was planned following the deadline for returns. The follow-up was to serve as a thank you notice, and reminder that the questionnaires were now due. As each questionnaire was date stamped when received, a l l responses afte r the mailout were to be coded separately. The follow-up mailing stage was abandoned due to external factors. 58 E. Method of Gathering Data 1) Sources Data on Interorganizational Relationships related to funding i n Non-Governmental Organizations were gathered through the use of a mailed questionnaire. Executive Directors of 186 human services agencies were mailed a questionnaire, covering l e t t e r and a prepaid envelope. The respondents to the questionnaire provided the data base for analysis. The questionnaire was mailed on February 28, 1980 with a return requested by March 31, 1980. The timing of the mailing was considered p a r t i c u l a r l y b e n e f i c i a l , as i t coincided within sixty days of almost every organization's f i s c a l year. It was presumed that information related to t h e i r yearly income and percentage would be r e a d i l y available and fresh i n t h e i r memories. Also, i t was assumed that i n t e r e s t i n Factors Related To Organizational Funding would be stimulated at that p a r t i c u l a r time, thus enhancing the response rate. 2) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y of Instrument The questionnaire was constructed e s p e c i a l l y for t h i s survey. I t was designed to measure Executive Directors' perception of the importance of sharing information with Consumers, Other Agencies, "The Public", and Funders to create Awareness, Cooperation and Support as i t relates to funding i n Non-Governmental Organizations. Responses to the survey were accepted at face value. 59 The variables selected to be measured as awareness, cooperation and support, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the four constituency groups for information sharing i n the funding context were created s p e c i f i c a l l y for t h i s survey. The v a l i d i t y of the construct employed here has not been previously established. However, sim i l a r variables have been used i n other contexts as reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e on IOR (viz. chapter 2). Due to the developmental stage of the research on IOR, i n the human services environment, and the c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms presently extant, no standardized scales e x i s t to indicate the v a l i d i t y of the measures employed. Indeed, i n one r e p l i c a t i o n of Perruci and P i l i s u k ' s (1970) study of community power i n IOR performed by Koch and Lebovitz (197 6) many discrepancies were noted i n the subsequent research. Here again, one must note that r e p l i c a t i o n s of studies on IOR are d i f f i c u l t to perform due to the turbulent environment (Emery & T r i s t ; 1965) experienced by human service agencies; intervening variables such as organizational age, experience of the execu-t i v e d i r e c t o r as well as the p o l i t i c a l , economic and s o c i a l context of the agencies at the time of the study; and f i n a l l y the lack of consensus i n IOR theory as to the motivation for forming and maintaining r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The data should, however, provide some indicati o n of convergent v a l i d i t y amongst the variables, as the constituent groups should be highly correlated when information a c t i v i t i e s are compared. 60 3) The Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of seven demographic items containing 43 variables, and twenty-nine further items con-taining 162 variables. The t o t a l number of variables measured was 185. The questionnaire was l a b e l l e d Factors Related To  Organizational Funding. This was somewhat of a misnomer, as the instrument was designed to look at information-sharing a c t i v i t i e s related to funding i n the interorganizational f i e l d . The f i r s t l a b e l was chosen as being more r e a d i l y understandable to the respondent, and also to stimulate i n t e r e s t i n the questionnaire. I t was also misleading to some extent, and as one respondent noted: "I don't think you are getting at a l l the issues related to funding". Thus the questionnaire may have appeared to some respondents as lacking i n some esse n t i a l items, as the purpose of i t was not made e x p l i c i t . A l l items on the questionnaire e l i c i t e d discrete responses, or were closed questions. The exception to t h i s was the f i n a l item (not included as a variable) which asked for Any Further Comments? This was included as a courtesy question, to allow respondents to express t h e i r views. The seven demographic items were designed to determine: - type of organization - age of organization - number of s t a f f and volunteers 61 - source of funds for 1979, and percent of t o t a l budget - source of core funding ( i f any) and percent of t o t a l budget - t o t a l amount of funds received for 1979 (collapsed categories) - percentage of request for funds met i n 1979 (collapsed categories) The percentage of request for funds was deemed the success variable for the questionnaire. An organization would be judged successful i f i t received 96%-100% or more of i t s i n i t i a l request for funds during the 197 9 f i s c a l year. The twenty-nine items following the demographic data followed a basic format that was repeated nine times. The items were preceded by th i s introductory statement: "The following statements are about information needs and p r i o r i t i e s i n organizations. Please indicate which answer i n each statement best describes your organization's behaviour". The f i r s t item of each set of three asked the respondent to rate on a scale of f i v e whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: In our organization i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to [document the need for s e r v i c e s ] . The bracketed phrase represents one information sharing a c t i v i t y , which was changed i n each subsequent set of items. 62 The second item of the set was to determine the amount of p r i o r i t y given to the p a r t i c u l a r information sharing a c t i v i t y . A scale of f i v e was employed to designate no p r i o r i t y to very high p r i o r i t y . The t h i r d item was a matrix of twelve c e l l s of four columns by three rows. The columns were the four constituency groups (Consumers; Other Agencies; The Public; Funders) that they com-municated with, while the rows represented the purpose of com-municating with each as: Awareness, Cooperation or Support. The respondent was asked to t i c k a l l appropriate boxes i n each case. The nine a c t i v i t i e s selected to share information around were described as follows: (a) document the need for services (b) define the problem area (c) written statement of goals and objectives (d) written description of programs (e) budget (f) description of the management structure (g) p u b l i c i z e a c t i v i t i e s of the organization (h) Annual Report (i) Evaluation Report Each one of these a c t i v i t i e s may be further divided into equal sets of three to f i t the t h e o r e t i c a l framework described i n General Systems Theory. Input Variables (a-c) were contrasted 63 with Throughput Variables (d-f) and both were compared with Output Variables ( g - i ) . The l a s t two items were ranking questions. Item 2 8 asked the respondent to rank importance of l i n k s between the Executive Director and the four constituency groups. Item 29 asked the respondent to rank o v e r a l l the importance of communi-cating information to which groups for which purposes from 1 as most important to 3 as least important. The questionnaire and covering l e t t e r are attached i n Appendix I. 4) Pretest The pretest was conducted i n early February, u t i l i z i n g the members of t h i s researcher's advisory committee and one volunteer. The major concern was the length of the questionnaire, and the amount of variance that would be found among respondents. The f i r s t d raft contained six demographic items, and t h i r t y - f o u r further items. The o v e r a l l ranking question was not part of the i n i t i a l pretest stage. The f i r s t d r a f t also contained four statements outside of the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, but related to IOR. The major item considered at the pretest stage was the procedure to be followed for e l i c i t i n g the information contained in the matrix. Two options were considered. One was to l i s t i n d i v i d u a l l y i n each area questions r e l a t i n g to the constituency groups and allow the respondent to check a l l applicable purposes. The second option was the matrix format. The l a t t e r was chosen 64 for reasons of economy. The questionnaire was already seven l e g a l - s i z e sheets long, and by l i s t i n g each question separately i t would be more than ten pages. While the matrix did present more d i f f i c u l t y for the respondent, i t was decidedly prefer-able to the more cumbersome approach. On the strength of one volunteer's response (who was the president of the Board of a l o c a l s o c i a l service organization), i t was believed a s u f f i c i e n t amount of variance would e x i s t to conduct a study. Her response varied greatly from the responses anticipated by the committee. A p i l o t questionnaire was prepared using the matrix format. 5) P i l o t Study V i c t o r i a was chosen as the s i t e to conduct the p i l o t study. This was done to prevent contamination of the proposed Vancouver sample, and as V i c t o r i a has the largest number of s o c i a l service agencies outside of Vancouver. The sample.was i d e n t i f i e d from a l i s t of agencies using volunteers, compiled by the V i c t o r i a Volunteer Bureau. Eighteen agencies were selected from the l i s t with regard to a represen-ta t i v e balance of type of agency, and t h e i r proximity to one another. The questionnaire was delivered on the morning of February 14, 1980 along with a covering l e t t e r by hand. The covering 65 l e t t e r stated that the purpose of the questionnaire was a p i l o t , and asked them to note the time i t took to respond to the questionnaire as well as any d i f f i c u l t y with the various items. At the time of delivery, the researcher stated that she would return i n twenty-four hours to re t r i e v e the questionnaire. I t was believed that t h i s would enhance the rate of return, as well as speed the process of obtaining r e s u l t s . In retrospect the procedure had many f a u l t s . The time a l l o t t e d to complete the questionnaire (one working day) was inadequate for most busy executive d i r e c t o r s . Also, i t consumed a great deal of energy d e l i v e r i n g the questionnaires personally. Although i t was believed that the personal appearance did enhance the rate of return (66%), and information was gleaned i n the contact following completion of the questionnaire that was not written regarding the format of the instrument. A t o t a l of 12 respondents out of 18 completed the ques-tionnaire. Only 10 are included i n the tabulation, as two were received af t e r the deadline. The covering l e t t e r and p i l o t questionnaire complete with raw results are appended i n Appen-dix I I . The discussion that follows i s concerned only with those items that were revised or reformulated for the final d r a f t . Item A. Type of organization represented i n the sample indicated that many respondents f e l t they belonged i n more than one category. In the f i n a l analysis t h i s was taken into account, and thus the t o t a l for variables 1-16 far exceeds the actual number of respondents. 66 Item C: Total number of s t a f f and volunteers, was expanded to include number of board members and members of the organiza-t i o n . This was due to the fact that one respondent i n the p i l o t study included a l l members of the organization i n the same category as volunteers thus skewing the sample considerably. Item D: Type of funding received during the 197 9 f i s c a l year i n i t i a l l y contained an item asking about Core Funding. As several respondents expressed a lack of understanding of the term, i t was dropped down to become a separate item. Item F: Approximate percentage of i n i t i a l request for funds met was expanded to include two lower categories less than 70%, and 70-79% of the i n i t i a l request for funds. Item 3: The matrix item indicated that some respondents had d i f f i c u l t y with the term "support". I t was variously i n t e r -preted as meaning f i n a n c i a l support to emotional support. In the f i n a l instrument an explanatory note was added to describe support as used to denote public support or backing sought by the organization from others. The term f i s c a l or f i n a n c i a l support was deliberately l e f t out, as the variable i s used to indicate a broader l e v e l of possible support. Item 13: Importance of a budget was divided i n i t i a l l y into three categories: a l i n e budget; a detailed l i n e budget; and a functional budget. There was a low response rate to t h i s item (50%) as well as some confusion over the terms. In order to 67 preserve continuity, the item on importance of budget i n order to obtain funds was converted to match a l l other items of that category, Items 28, 29, 30, 31 were b a s i c a l l y hypothetical state-ments of relationships between information sharing, c o n s t i - . tuency groups and purpose i n the funding context. These items were eliminated from the f i n a l questionnaire, and were replaced with the ranking matrix. Item 34: Time to complete the questionnaire was dropped from the f i n a l instrument as i t had served i t s purpose. F i n a l l y , i n the covering l e t t e r the description of the purpose of the research was changed from: "to determine what factors are important to voluntary agencies i n obtaining funds" to ". . . are important to non-governmental organizations". The purpose of t h i s change was to eliminate confusion as three of the respondents to the p i l o t questionnaire interpreted voluntary agency as one that was staffed exclusively by volunteers. 68 Chapter IV - Study Findings A. Problems Encountered 1)„ Sampling There were two main problems encountered i n the sampling phase, one predictable, the other an unplanned event. I t was evident from the .very beginning that i t would be impossible to id e n t i f y every non-governmental organization i n the Vancouver area. Thus i t was not known what was the t o t a l target popula-t i o n of NGO's i n the Vancouver area. The sampling design then was limited to a purposive type of sample using the best source available to i d e n t i f y possible respondents. However considered the state of the art of knowledge about IOR related to funding i n NGO's, a purposive sample was appropriate to the exploratory nature of the research project. The second problem encountered was the advent of another questionnaire related to funding sponsored by the Soc i a l Planning and Review Council of B.C. (SPARC of BC) and the Social Planning and Research department (SPAR) of the United Way of the lower mainland. The focus of the SPARC-SPAR ques-tionnaire was to gather information on the funding patterns experienced by NGO's. The purpose of the questionnaire was to use the information to influence government funding p o l i c i e s e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to cost sharing and block funding between the federal government and the provinces. While the purpose of the SPARC-SPAR questionnaire was 69 quite d i f f e r e n t from the questionnaire used i n t h i s study many of the questions, or areas of i n t e r e s t , were nearly i d e n t i c a l , even though both instruments were developed independently and without knowledge of the other's existence. The researcher for t h i s report learned of the existence of the SPARC-SPAR questionnaire two days p r i o r to the mailing date for t h i s survey. At that late date there was l i t t l e room for more collaborative e f f o r t s other than o f f e r i n g to share r e s u l t s . The concern of course was the e f f e c t of sending out two s i m i l a r questionnaires to the same agencies i n the Vancouver area. The impact of two lengthy surveys within a very short period could c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t the number of r e p l i e s received, or otherwise skew the results received, i f not for the f i r s t survey, then possibly for the second. SPARC-SPAR attempted to circumvent any negative reactions by attaching the following memo to a l l questionnaires that were directed to agencies who had previously been surveyed: By way of explanation, you w i l l have received a copy of a questionnaire prepared by Ms. Sharon Willms which also has a funding orientation.. Although i t may appear that the two are s i m i l a r , Sharon's questionnaire looks at i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s within the funding context whereas t h i s one focuses on funding p o l i c i e s and patterns. We hope that you w i l l see the value to your organiza-t i o n and the s o c i a l services sector i n B.C. i n completing the attached form. The two studies are complementary and together w i l l give a c l e a r and complete understanding of funding r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n B.C. Please read the enclosed covering l e t t e r f o r a further explanation of t h i s study. 70 Of the 7 5 responses received to the survey reported on here, only one respondent commented on the existence of the SPARC-SPAR study. Another type of problem was the description given to the IOR questionnaire, as "interorganizational relationships within the funding context". P r i o r to the mention given to i t by the SPARC-SPAR memo, nowhere had IOR appeared i n either the questionnaire or covering l e t t e r . The term was purposefully avoided as i t was believed to be jargon-l i k e and confusing to most readers. I t i s not known whether the memo sent out by SPARC-SPAR created confusion or quelled i t . Copies of the SPARC-SPAR covering l e t t e r and survey questionnaire may be found i n Appendix I I I . 2). Data C o l l e c t i o n and Analysis There were no r e a l problems encountered i n the data c o l l e c -t i o n phase. A l l researchers may wish f o r more money, time and resources to allow for more sophisticated methods of c o l l e c t i o n , but there were no serious handicaps to the data c o l l e c t i o n phase. There were several analyses decisions that had to be made during the editing phase. Nine returns were edited out of the study as they were returned as not applicable or with less than f i f t y percent of the questionnaire completed. Other decisions made were to round o f f a l l decimal figures i n the f i r s t section, as the f i e l d s planned for those questions only allowed 3 d i g i t numbers, and no decimals. Thus 71 a l l figures were rounded o f f to the nearest whole number. A l l numbers that were less than one were rounded o f f to one. In questions where the respondent was asked to rank t h e i r response they were not recorded i f the ranking was not ca r r i e d through as directed. Thus, i f the respondent was asked to rank an item one to three, and marked a l l the same rather than ranking them, there was no attempt to interpret the response. The use of the computer program MIDAS also created a few problems. While i t i s fa s t and e f f i c i e n t , i t also has quite a few idiosyncracies which were not anticipated. As an example, i t would not transform blanks to zeros i n a consistent fashion, and eventually the MVTAB program was used to complete that step. On the whole, there were no major problems i n the data c o l l e c -tion or analysis phase. B. Demographic Results The t o t a l sample consisted of 186 questionnaires sent to Vancouver based non-governmental organizations. One was returned as unknown, and nine were returned as not applicable. This represents a 5% reduction of the i n i t i a l sample to 17 6. By March 31, 1980 70 r e p l i e s had been received or a 40% rate of return. Six more r e p l i e s were received after the com-puter cards had been punched, and were not included i n the f i n a l r e s u l t s . I t did mean that 43% of the respondents had returned the questionnaire. I t was f e l t that t h i s was a s a t i s f a c t o r y rate of return. There were seventeen types of organizations l i s t e d (including other) i n the questionnaire. Many respondents checked more than one box, as a way of describing the multi-faceted nature of t h e i r agency. There were 13 5 boxes checked or an average of 1.9 per respondent. See Table I. The mode response was Other, and a breakdown of t h i s category i s shown i n Table I. The second most frequent response was Youth, and then Seniors. Welfare organizations reported the lowest response with only one response. This i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y surprising since the target group was non-governmental organizations, and welfare i n B.C. i s delivered primarily through the p r o v i n c i a l government. Thir t y percent of a l l the organizations were between two and f i v e years old. Sixty percent were less than f i f t e e n years old. At the other end of the spectrum, 26% were more than 26 years old. This describes the non-governmental agency f i e l d quite well. There are some obvious long term organizations such as the YWCA, John Howard and Family Services that occupy the s o c i a l welfare f i e l d . And then there are others that have sprung up as a r e s u l t of a recently i d e n t i f i e d need by a group of consumers, e.g. Foster Parent Association of B.C. and Parent Finders Association or i n response to a community need l i k e Recreation. See Table I I . 73 •k Type of Organization N=70 Type of Organization N % Family Service 15 21% Volunteer Bureau 6 8% Mental Health 3 4% Corrections 2 3% Welfare 1 1% Religious 2 3% Educational 8 11% Employment 5 7% Physically Handicapped 10 14% Mentally Handicapped 5 7% Infant 8 11% Youth 18 25% Seniors 17 24% Women1s Groups 3 4% Immigrant Services 2 3% Other 30 42% % of Other - Health 7 10% 23% - Community/Recreational 10 14% 33% - Planning/Research 2 3% 6% - Self Help 3 4% 10% - Day Care 5 7% 6% - Housing 2 3% 6% - Red Cross 1 1% 3% TABLE I *Note: Many respondents checked more than one category, thus the N shown i n the table far exceeds the actual number of respondents. 74 Age of Organization i n Years N = 70 Years 2 2--5 6--15 16--25 26--50 50 Q. "O 4.3 30. 0 25. 7 14 3 12. 9 12.9 TABLE II 75 F i f t y - s i x percent of the organizations have less than ten s t a f f , and have three times as many volunteers as can be seen by comparing Table III and Table IV. These numbers cor-relate p o s i t i v e l y with the average income received by the NGO. Table V indicates the approximate number of board members for each organization. Ninety percent response was received for t h i s question, thus one may assume that most organizations have boards of directors that are smaller than 25 members (83%). Seventy-nine percent of the respondents indicated that they were a membership organization. The numbers varied from 1 to 10,000, which produced a large standard deviation of 2098.5, and a mean of 1335.9. However, 50% had less than 220 members. See Table VI for further d e t a i l s . The p r o v i n c i a l government was the most common source of funds for a l l organizations i n the survey. The least common i n a perfect inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p were corporate donors. Corporate donors were the source of funds for only 12.8% of a l l respon-dents, while only 12.8% d i d not receive money from the p r o v i n c i a l government. The second least frequent source of funds was the federal government with only 34% reporting that they received anything from the federal government. I t seems from these results that the private sector i s not maintaining i t s share of funding requests, or that organizations are not tapping t h i s group as a source of funds. 76 S t a f f i n O r g a n i z a t i o n N = 68 # 1-3 4-8 10-15 17, r22 30-50 56-90 107--134 216-600 Q. *o 16.2 36.7 11.8 8. .8 8.9 8.8 4. .4 4.4 C o l l a p s e d Q, 52.9 29. .5 17. .6 C o l l a p s e d # 8 10--50 750 TABLE III 77 Volunteers i n Organization N = 63 # 1-5 8-25 30-88 100-500 1500-9999 17.5 22.2 25.4 23.8 TABLE IV * One agency recorded 10,000 volunteers which could not be f i t into the f i e l d space due to the extra d i g i t . 78 Board Members 5-25 82.5 26-75 17.5 TABLE V 79 Members of O r g a n i z a t i o n N = 63 # 1-50 54-100 103-200 220-500 515-800 1100-4500 5000-9500 % 23.6 14.6 10.9 14.5 3.6 23.6 9.1 TABLE VI 80 Table VII i l l u s t r a t e s the percentage of funds received by source. Certainly the most frequent donor i s also the largest donor. Twenty-five percent of the survey group receive more than 80% of t h e i r d o l l a r s from the p r o v i n c i a l government, and 17% receive more than 90% of t h e i r d o l l a r s from the p r o v i n c i a l government. These findings, i f they could be generalized, have implications for the control of the s o c i a l welfare f i e l d by the government. As the major funder, the government may have command over the whole voluntary sector. This becomes important when one considers recommendations to improve a l l o c a t i o n amongst the agencies. Table VIII shows the Rank Order of Source of Funds. Less than half the agencies i n the Vancouver sample receive any money from the municipal government. Seventy per-cent receive less than 20% of t h e i r funds from City H a l l . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to do a longitudinal study on the percen-tage of t o t a l funds received from City H a l l . One may assume that the present system of i n s i s t i n g on more than an absolute majority to have applications for community grants pass i n council i s one b a r r i e r to NGO's receiving a larger portion of t h e i r funds from t h i s source. Individual donors and membership fees were quite s i m i l a r . About 75% i n each case receive less than 10% of t h e i r t o t a l funds from either of these sources. And only 40% use either of these avenues to raise money. 31 Percentage of Funds Received by Source Source 25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% %N Municipal Gov't. 70% 11% 9% 9% 34 48% P r o v i n c i a l Gov't. 34% 23% 17% 26% 58 83% Federal Gov't. 70% 25% 5%. — 24 34% Foundation Grants 100% .. • — — — 19 27% Individual Donors 93% 7% — — 29 28% Membership Fees 93% 7% — — 27 38% Funding Campaigns 72% 16% 12% — 25 38% Corporate Donors 72% -- 14% 14% 7 10% Other 58% 25% 8% 14% 36 51% TABLE VII 82 Rank Order of Source of Funds 1. P r o v i n c i a l Government 2. Other (includes: fees for service (10) church donations (3) investment income (5) commercial ventures (9) United Way (8))„ 3. Municipal Government 4. Membership Fees Funding Campaigns 5. Federal Government 6. Individual Donors 7. Foundation Grants 8. Corporate Donors TABLE VIII 83 Only 35% of the survey group reported using funding campaigns as a source of revenue. However, of those who did, 50% raised less than 15% of t h e i r t o t a l requirements. From th i s question i t i s not clear whether or not the respondents included United Way Campaigns, or only t h e i r own s p e c i f i c campaigns. The questionnaire did not ask respondents to i n d i -cate i f they were United Way members. Question E asked respondents to indicate i f any of the sources l i s t e d represented core funding (received on an annual guaranteed basis) and i f so what percentage. The responses were d i f f i c u l t to analyze as many recorded more than one core funder, and some respondents merely indicated a question mark. This limited the interpretation of the re s u l t s and therefore t h i s question was edited out of the f i n a l r e s u l t s . In order for the question to be useful, i t would need to of f e r an explanation of core funding, and to provide more space for multiple answers. Table IX shows the t o t a l amount of funds received by each organization i n eight collapsed categories from less than $10,000 per annum to more than one m i l l i o n . One surprising r e s u l t was that less than 5% of a l l organizations who responded operate on less than $20,000 per annum. The res u l t s were d e f i n i t e l y weighted toward the larger end of the scale with eleven respondents checking o f f more than $1,000,000, and more than 25% of the t o t a l reporting incomes above the quarter 8 4 Total Amount of Funds Received From A l l Sources for 1979 F i s c a l Year N = 68 10,001 20,001 50,001 100,001 250,001 500,001 <10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 1000,000 >1 M 2.9 1.5 20.6 14.7 19.1 13.2 11.8 16.2 TABLE IX 85 m i l l i o n mark. These figures are stark reminders of the cost of operating s o c i a l services i n the 1980's. While the curve d e f i n i t e l y pulled to the r i g h t , the centre curve belled as normally expected. The mode response was for between $20,000 and $50,000 with 20%, and the second most frequent response $100,000 - $250,000 received per annum with 19%. The l a s t question i n the demographic section was to determine the success rate of the various organizations i n meeting t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds. This was a control question that was used i n c o r r e l a t i o n tables with other variables. As descriptive information, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g on i t s own. Table X shows the percentage of request for funds met. The b e l l curve i n this question i s c l e a r l y the reverse of the previous question, with the curve being pulled to the l e f t . Nearly one out of four respondents received less than 75% of t h e i r request. Forty percent received less than 8 5% of t h e i r t o t a l request for funds. Reassuringly perhaps, i s that the second most frequest response was for the 95-100% category with 23% indicating that t h e i r request for funds had been met. It i s d i f f i c u l t to state what these figures mean in r e l a t i o n to other data. There are several interpretations including the simple conclusion that NGO's are getting less than they require; that they ask for more than they need i n the f i r s t place; or that they are concentrating t h e i r requests for money i n a single source (the p r o v i n c i a l government) that does not respond 86 Percentage of Requests for Funds Met N = 66 75% 76-80% 81-85% 86-90% 91-95% 96-100% 101-105% 105% o, "o 24.2 9.1 6.1 13.6- 15.2 22.7 4.5 4.5 Collapsed Q. "o 39.4 51.5 9.0 TABLE X 87 adequately. Certainly i n conjunction with the study questions some conclusions w i l l be drawn about the behaviour of organiza-tions i n terms of t h e i r IOR, and how i t a f f e c t s funding. 88 C. Findings i n Study Questions In presenting the study findings there are three things which together indicate that the data must be interpre-ted with extreme caution u n t i l the r e s u l t s have been r e p l i c a t e d . The reader should bear i n mind the l e v e l of the study, the population tested and the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of the study. The study i s an exploratory one meant to contribute to the understanding of the nature of IOR, not to t e s t a s p e c i f i c theory. Second, even i f i t was an attempt to test a theory the large number of variables (185) versus the number of respondents (70) does not allow for confident statements about the data to be made. The population i t s e l f may not be viewed as a representa-t i v e sample due to the purposive sampling design. The sample contained some of the non-governmental organizations i n the City of Vancouver which l i m i t s the g e n e r a l i z e a b i l i t y of the data without further t e s t i n g . The t h i r d factor which the reader should consider i s the state of theory building around IOR. Presently there i s not an accepted theory about the nature and formation of IOR, and most p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to the IOR's among s o c i a l service agencies. These cautionary notes w i l l be expanded upon i n the following discussion of the findings. However, by preceding 89 t h i s section with a statement about the inherent weaknesses of the study, i t i s hoped that the reader w i l l not adopt as a credo any of the findings u n t i l further studies r e p l i c a t -ing the res u l t s are completed. The o v e r a l l hypothesis of t h i s study was: 1) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the nature of IOR pursued by NGO's and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The variables chosen to measure t h i s hypothesis were the percentage of request for funds met (hereafter c a l l e d the "success" variable) and a l l matrices i n the information cate-gories. The matrices were added together to obtain one aggregate number. On the basis of the c o r r e l a t i o n tables which showed no s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations among any of the variables chosen indicate that the data i s inconsistent with the hypothesis. However, i n view of the data obtained i n subsequent findings, t h i s interpretation i s modified somewhat, as the information indicates that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between with whom the agency shares information, and how they rank the four constituencies. This finding w i l l be discussed i n further d e t a i l l a t e r i n the body of t h i s chapter. Returning to the i n i t i a l finding, one may interpret i t i n several ways. On face value, one may view t h i s a r e j e c t i o n of the importance of IOR for the sur v i v a l of human service organi-zations. Certainly i t i s true that at present time t h i s sample 90 of 70 Executive Directors state that IOR's are not related to success i n obtaining funding, and i n some cases indicate that i t i s negatively related to success. Eight negative correlations were found representing 6.6% of the t o t a l possible, and are shown i n Table XI. The correlations were obtained by taking the aggregate response i n each constituency and purpose of each information category and c o r r e l a t i n g them with the success variable. These findings are such a small percentage of the t o t a l that they do not allow for a confident statement about th e i r e f f e c t on the o v e r a l l study question. Since there are differences between who and why Executive Directors share information, one may doubt that the differences in behaviour are sheerly coincidental, and not related inevitably to the funding question. Another factor which raises doubt about t h i s finding i s the element of time. Through-out t h i s research, the issue of competition for funds i n a dwindling supply of resources has been raised. I t may be that the c r i t i c a l moment has thus far been avoided. The finding i n the study question does not mean that the hypothesis would not be accepted i n the future, but at thi s moment i n time, the sample of Executive Directors does not recognize IOR's as related to funding with each constituency included i n the study. This interpretation, of course, would only be correct i f the theory were true i n that the sharing of information as one 91 Negative Correlations Found in Percentage of Request for Funds Met by Information Categories Information Category Constituency Purpose Correlation With Success Need for Services Public Cooperation Support -.2712 -.2395 Program Description Funders Cooperation -.2405 Management Structure Consumer Support -.2528 Publ i c i z e Organizational A c t i v i t i e s Consumer Awareness -.3334 Evaluation Report Consumers Awareness Cooperation Support -.3693 -.2890 -.2805 TABLE XI Significance .05 = .2352 Levels .01 = .3060 8 negative correlations = 6.6% of t o t a l resource i s important to a successful funding picture. I t may be that t h i s theory i s incorrect. In f a c t , i t may indicate that success i n funding i s inversely related to the sharing of information with other agencies, the public and consumers. If t h i s were true, i t may mean that competitive strategies among the agencies i n the 10 network o f f e r more promising t a c t i c s than collaboration i n seeking a successful funding base. The second consideration i s the l e v e l of the study. As stated e a r l i e r , as t h i s i s an exploratory study confident interpretation of the data i s not p r a c t i c a l u n t i l the study i s repl i c a t e d . Second, the sampling design l i m i t s the generalize-a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s , as well as the large number of variables considered versus the number of respondents. Taken together these factors indicate that the presentation of the findings allow for only an interpretation of the data as being consistent or inconsistent with the study questions, rather than hard statements about i t s meaning i n r e l a t i o n to the study questions. The second hypothesis as a sub-hypothesis of the f i r s t was: 2) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the importance attached to the information sharing a c t i v i t y and the p r i o r i t y assigned to i t , and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. The questions from the survey that were used to inform t h i s hypothesis were the importance of each information category, and the actual p r i o r i t y assigned to each category, as they relate to funding. The data appears to be consistent with t h i s hypothesis, i n that the Executive Directors i n the sample attach a high importance and p r i o r i t y to the information items as they relate to funding. Table XII shows how Executive Directors ranked the impor-tance of sharing information related to obtaining funds i n each category as well as the p r i o r i t y they assigned to i t . In each case importance i s given a s l i g h t l y higher r a t i n g (with 5 as most important) than p r i o r i t y i n a l l but two categories, Need for Services, and Management Structure. The highest modal res-ponse was as expected i n the budget item with 79.4% giving i t the highest rating, and 71.6% giving i t the highest p r i o r i t y . This finding i s encouraging as i t could mean that organizations are finding time to devote p r i o r i t y to the items that they f i n d important. There i s an impression given by the voluntary sector at times that they are not afforded the time required to provide information that they state as being important to th e i r success i n obtaining funding. From the res u l t s i t appears that for the most part t h i s sample of Executive Directors are able to devote t h e i r energy i n the areas they state are important to obtaining funding. There were some notable differences i n the ranking when comparing importance versus p r i o r i t y . Evaluation Report ranked f i f t h o v e r a l l i n importance but was second l a s t i n terms of p r i o r i t y . Annual Report was not perceived as important as the p r i o r i t y assigned to i t . Overall when comparing the percentages there i s not a 94 Importance of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y i n Relation to Obtaining Funds, and the P r i o r i t y Assigned N Information A c t i v i t y Rank Importance Overall P r i o r i t y IJmportance/% 1-5 Prioritv/% 1-5 69 Need for services 3 5 5 (56.5) 4 (42.0) 67 Problem D e f i n i t i o n 4 3 5 (55.2) 5 (52.2) 68 Goals and Objectives 2 2 5 (60.3) 5 (53.6) 67 Program Description 7 6 5 (44.8) 5 (41.8) 68 Budget 1 1 5 (79.4) 5 (71.6) 67 Management Structure 9 7 4 (40.9) 3 (37.3) 65 Publicize A c t i v i t i e s 8 9 5/4 (41.5) 5/4 (32.8) 69 Annual Report 6 4 5 (48.5) 5 (43.5) 67 Evaluation Report 5 8 4 (53.0) 4 (35.8) TABLE XII 95 s i g n i f i c a n t difference between importance and p r i o r i t y except in the Evaluation Report category. The t h i r d hypothesis as a sub-hypothesis of the f i r s t was: 3) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the constituen-cies with whom the agency shares information and the purposes for which the information i s shared, and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. A l l of the matrices i n the survey were used to answer th i s question, plus the item asking the Executive Director to rank the importance of maintaining l i n k s with the various constituencies. The data c o l l e c t e d from the survey appears to be consistent with t h i s hypothesis. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between with whom the agency shares information, the information categories themselves, and the purposes for sharing same. More s p e c i f i c information on the findings i n each informa-t i o n category including the constituency groups and for what purpose w i l l also be presented to inform the interpretation of these findings l a t e r in th i s chapter. Table XIII i s a summative table of a l l responses i n each information category. I t shows the rank order summative response for each information sharing a c t i v i t y . There i s a wide range between the f i r s t order of Need for Services with a 67% response, and the bottom of the rank, Evaluation Report 96 Rank Order of Information Categories by Response (N = 70) Rank Information Category Response 1 Need for Services 67% 2 Description of Programs 66% 3 Publicize Organizational A c t i v i t i e s 65% 4 Problem D e f i n i t i o n 62% 5 Goals and Objectives 61% 6 Budget 46% 7 Annual Report 44% 8 Management Structure 38% 9 Evaluation Report 34% TABLE XIII 9 7 at 34% (range 33%). This means that Executive Directors have a greater i n c l i n a t i o n to share information about the Need for Services with a l l constituency groups than Budget, Annual Report, Management Structure or Evaluation Reports. There i s a clear separation between the f i r s t f i v e categories, a l l i n 60 percentile range, and the l a s t four categories ranging from the mid 40's to the mid 30's p e r c e n t i l e s . According to Systems Theory, there must be a balance between input, throughput and output i n order for any l i v i n g system to maintain equilibrium. From these findings i t i s obvious that Executive Directors i n the sample do not per-ceive that i t i s necessary to devote the same amount of a c t i v i t y to each category. The greatest amount of energy appears to be i n the input category with a l l three appearing i n the 60% range. Only one item each appears from the throughput and output categories, P u b l i c i z i n g Organizational A c t i v i t i e s and Description of Programs. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n t h i s area of accountability Annual Report and Evaluation Report are respectively l a s t on the l i s t . I t may be that i n the Human Services arena i t i s easier to i d e n t i f y a need for services, provide programs and advertise t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y than to measure t h e i r effectiveness. Table XIII shows the difference i n rank of the i n f o r -mation categories, and c l e a r l y there i s a difference. The 98 mean of the variables was calculated to show the difference between the input, throughput, and output sections. The mean for input was 63% response, throughput 50% response, and output at 48% response. These findings indicate that Executive Directors of NGO's are more l i k e l y to put time and energy into a c t i v i t i e s i n the input category than mainten-ance and production categories. The v a r i a t i o n i n response has s i g n i f i c a n t implications, when one considers the General System Theory d i c t a that a l l l i v i n g systems must have input and output, and that these processes must be equal i n order for the system to maintain equilibrium, or a steady state (see figure 1). One may interpret t h i s finding i n several ways. I t may be that i t i s not necessary for NGO's to put equal time and energy into sharing information i n a l l three categories of input, throughput and output. This interpretation would be more acceptable i f there had been a po s i t i v e finding i n the success variable i . e . that a large majority of NGO's were receiving close to 100% of t h e i r t o t a l request for funds. However, given that nearly 40% received less than 85% of t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds, a second interpretation seems more consistent with the data. I t appears that the imbalance i n the information sharing categories may be seen as a contribu-ti n g factor to the lack of success i n obtaining funds given the GST maxim on equilibrium. This interpretation assumes that the model of collaborative sharing of information i s correct, and that the results are representative of the f i e l d . These 9 9 assumptions cannot be tested, and thus these interpretations must be viewed rather as what the data suggests and not what the data proves. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n with whom the agencies shared information. Table XIV shows the Rank Order of Constituency Groups. This i s an aggregate table of a l l responses i n the information categories by constituency groups. Funders outranked a l l other groups by nearly 25%, as the group perceived to be most important to communicate with i n a l l information areas. The same results were found i n the question asking Executive Directors to rank importance of maintaining l i n k s with the various constituency groups as shown i n Table XV. Interestingly the same sort of variance i s shown i n both tables between consumers and The Public. Both are quite close to one another i n rank, and The Public as a constituency shows the highest standard deviation (Table XV) or range (Table XIV). Other Agencies i s the l a s t constituency group given preference. This finding has impact on the whole notion of a c o l -laborative model of IOR. Other Agencies are the population i n the network of organizations i n the Human Services f i e l d . The fact that they receive the least preference as a target for information sharing says something about the r e c i p r o c a l expectations among agencies. One could extrapolate that 100 Rank Order of Constituency Groups by Response (N = 70) Rank Constituency Group Response Range (I) 1 Funders 73% 62-80 (22) 2 Consumers 50% 28-62 (34) 3 The Public 49% 20-71 (51) 4 Other Agencies 47% 25-64 (39) TABLE XIV 101 Rank Order of Importance of Maintaining Links With Constituency Groups by Executive Director Rank Constituency Group Mean Standard Deviation 1 Funders 1.3 .63 2 Consumers 2.6 .98 3 The Public 2.8 1.04 4 Other Agencies 3.1 .87 Range = 1.8 TABLE XV 102 agencies s t i l l compete wi t h one another i n the network, or a t l e a s t do not attempt t o share e q u a l l y i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r s e r v i c e s between the c o n s t i t u e n c y groups. When one r e f e r s back t o Gans 1 (197 5) l i s t o f l i n k a g e mechanisms among agencies, c l e a r l y the i n p u t c o n s t i t u e n c i e s of c l i e n t s and funding can be enhanced through in t e r a g e n c y r e f e r r a l s and s h a r i n g of r e s o u r c e s . The funding base can be strengthened by the combined e f f o r t s of the in t e r a g e n c y network. Gans (1975:43) s t a t e s t h a t the g r e a t e s t f a c i l i t a t o r to i n t e r a g e n c y s h a r i n g i s when the s o c i o p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p i n the l o c a t i o n wants i t to happen, when i n t e g r a t i o n i s a h i g h - p r i o r i t y o b j e c t i v e of the p r o j e c t , when the p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r a g g r e s s i v e l y pursues c o o r d i n a t i o n and has good con-t a c t s w i t h important a c t o r s i n the pr o c e s s , and when s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s have s t r o n g i n c e n t i v e s to cooperate. Table XVI shows the rank order and aggregate percen-tages o f the purposes of s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o the 70 E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r s i n the study. The t a b l e was prepared by averaging a l l responses i n each i n f o r m a t i o n category m a t r i x . Awareness c l e a r l y outranks the other two purposes. As the f i r s t step i n s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ( c r e a t i n g awareness) t h i s r e s u l t i s to be expected. However, Support and Cooperation are r e v e r s e d by the respondents t o the survey. The v a r i a t i o n (3%) i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e between the two purposes to a l t e r the t h e o r e t i c a l order of purpose of i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r i n g , 103 Rank Order of Purpose of Sharing Information by Response Rank Purpose Response 1 Awareness 60% 2 Support 51% 3 Cooperation 48% TABLE XVI 104 but i t does indicate that unequal p r i o r i t y i s given to the three purposes. This difference appears to be consistent with the differences reported i n Tables XIV and XV or the importance of the four constituency groups. Differences i n with whom the Executive Director shares information appears also to a f f e c t the purpose of sharing information. I t i s in t e r e s t i n g to note that cooperation i s ranked l a s t . This may be related to the p o s i t i o n of Other Agencies (see Tablex XIV and XV). Cooperation with other agencies i s seen to be the least important function for Executive Directors to pursue. In terms of the collaborative model presented i n t h i s report, one must note that the key actors i n the 10 f i e l d , namely other agencies, are given the lowest p r i o r i t y . And the cooperation and collaboration advocated in the model are perceived as lower p r i o r i t i e s than other purposes. The interpretation of t h i s finding could lend credence to the c o n f l i c t model of IOR except that nearly 40% of the organizations i n the study received less than 8 5% of t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds. The strategy that they are following then may be seen as a possible i n h i b i t i n g factor in ensuring the healthy s u r v i v a l of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r organi-zation. However, one must again refer to the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study, expecially i n regard to the state of theory building about IOR. The above interpretation assumes to a cert a i n extent that the collaborative model of information sharing would enhance the funding base. The r e s u l t s that show that there i s not an equal or preferred sharing of information with other agencies i n the s o c i a l services network indicates that t h i s i s currently not the modus operandi of Executive Directors. I t appears that there are mixed motives for sharing information depending upon the p a r t i c u l a r constituency group. This finding informs us about the nature of IOR i n the human services arena. The preferred constituency i s obviously Funders. I t may be that Executive Directors pur-posefully protect t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with funders, and minimize t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with other agencies. I f t h i s i s true then t h i s finding would lend c r e d i b i l i t y to the Mixed Motive theory described,in Chapter I I , which states that i n some areas organizations compete and i n others they collaborate. This suggests that Warren's (1967) notion of pre-e x i s t i n g t i e s may need to be re-evaluated. His model suggests that each agency i n the Interorganizational f i e l d are t i e d together by virtu e of the fact that they are members of the larger supra-system of s o c i a l service delivery. C o n f l i c t as one of the t i e s suggested by Warren (1967) may actually lead to the d i s s o l u t i o n of the system. A simple analogy may explicate t h i s statement. A husband and wife who have a marital r e l a t i o n s h i p may argue considerably, so much so that c o n f l i c t appears to be the i r only connection. While they are s t i l l married a relationship s t i l l exists even though i t i s based so l e l y on 106 c o n f l i c t . The question becomes, then, what i s the nature of t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p i f they divorce? One could argue that once they had obtained a divorce, and thereby ceased engaging in th e i r c o n f l i c t r e l a t i o n s h i p that the rela t i o n s h i p no longer e x i s t s . The rebuttal to t h i s statement may be that the absence of a rel a t i o n s h i p i s s t i l l a r e l a t i o n -ship similar to negative evidence where the lack of a finding suggests a finding of a d i f f e r e n t nature. In terms of IOR, the question i s whether or not an organization may remove i t s e l f from the human services environment and thereby terminate i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with other agencies i n the f i e l d . In t h i s writer's opinion, a human service agency cannot remove i t s e l f from the environment of the s o c i a l service f i e l d and s t i l l e xist as a human service organization. Like the husband and wife who divorce, they would no longer be a part of the same system. Membership i n the system gives the parts of the system d e f i n i t i o n , i n fact existence. And membership i n the system implies a r e l a t i o n -ship between the parts. Therefore, i f the agency defines i t s e l f as a human service organization, then i t i s a member of the larger human services environment. GST t e l l s us that as a l i v i n g member (viable organization) there must be input, throughput and output i n order for the system to survive. This inherently suggests an IOR, even i f the basis for the relationship i s only c o n f l i c t . 107 The next set of data to be presented i s from the information categories. The set of nine items i n the i n f o r -mation categories refers to each s p e c i f i c section of the questionnaire used i n the survey. For each segment of input, throughput and output three questions were asked about information sharing a c t i v i t i e s . The information gleaned from these categories further informs the reader about the s i g n i f i -cance of the rel a t i o n s h i p between with whom the agency shares information and the purposes for which the information i s shared, as per hypothesis three. The findings were calculated by obtaining an average response for each of the four constituencies, and then a mean response; and the mean response for each of the purposes that appeared i n the matrices. The reader may wish to com-pare the average response to both constituency groups and purposes i n each of the categories with the aggregate mean for constituency groups i n Table XIV and purposes i n Table XVI to understand the range of responses i n each of the categories. The findings for the Input category are reported i n Tables XVII to XIX. As per the aggregate re s u l t s of the t o t a l survey, these three categories conform to the general findings. The constituency group that ranked the highest was Funders, and the most important purpose was Awareness. Table XVII shows the res u l t s to the Need for Services category. Funders and The Public ranked high, as well as 108 creating awareness. Executive Directors ranked consumers low i n t h i s question. I t appears that the Need for Services i s created by the consumer, and that once i d e n t i f i e d , i t i s assumed that consumers no longer need to be reminded of the need. Table XVIII describes the re s u l t s to the Problem D e f i n i t i o n category. Once again the results follow the general r e s u l t s of the survey. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that only Funders rank high i n t h i s category, for the purpose of creating awareness. These r e s u l t s may be interpreted as having implications about c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and collabo-r a t i o n . The fact that Executive Directors see less need to communicate to agencies, the public and consumers about the d e f i n i t i o n of the problem may mean that they are excluding valuable sources of information as well about the problem they are attempting to solve. S i m i l a r l y , the lack of commu-nication with other agencies about the problem d e f i n i t i o n may contribute to the lack of consensus about i t . This may create problems for the target group who must seek help from a variety of agencies who describe the problem d i f f e r e n t l y . An example of t h i s may be found i n the way agencies r e s t r i c t access by reasons of geographical boundaries, age, sex, status (social or economic) and/or a b i l i t y t o meet demand. Greater communication about the d e f i n i t i o n of the problem may prevent the present gaps i n service provision due to unco-ordinated problem d e f i n i t i o n s . 109 Input Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Need for Services F i r s t Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 58 Awareness 73 Other Agencies 64 The Public 66 Cooperation 61 Funders 79 Support 66 MEAN 67% TABLE XVII 110 Input Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Problem D e f i n i t i o n Second Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 57 Awareness 68 Other Agencies 57 The Public 58 Cooperation 57 Funders 78 Support 62 MEAN 62% TABLE XVIII I l l Table XIX shows the r e s u l t s to the Goals and Objectives category. This p a r t i c u l a r category i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t than the general results in that Other Agencies ranks second only to Funders as the constituency group perceived to be most important to share information about Goals and Objectives. Although i t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the remaining two constituency groups, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g for the implications i t has when one considers the l i t e r a t u r e on Domain Consensus. Creating awareness i n other NGO's of one's own organizational goals i s a f i r s t step i n establishing t e r r i t o r i a l claim over p a r t i c u l a r service delivery sectors, as described by Levine and White (1961), and Benson (1975). The r e s u l t s do not allow for an interpretation as either stemming from the voluntary exchange model, or the c o n f l i c t resource dependency school. What i t does indicate, however, i s that the sharing of i n f o r -mation about goals and objectives with other agencies ranks higher than the general response to IOR's related to funding. IOR's may be strengthened and extended from t h e i r s t a r t i n g point to establish a more collaborative network among the NGO's. I t may also be interpreted as supporting the Mixed Motive model which states that i n some areas agencies compete and i n some they collaborate. In the Throughput category, the findings conform to the general r e s u l t s and are notably lower than the Input category. I t i s inte r e s t i n g that consumers are seen as the least important constituency group to receive information 112 Input Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Goal.and O b j e c t i v e s T h i r d M a t r i x of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e C o n s t i t u e n c y Groups % Purposes % Consumers 54 Awareness 69 Other Agencies 57 The P u b l i c 54 Cooperation 56 Funders 80 Support: 58 MEAN 6 1 % TABLE XIX 113 about the programs the agency i s d e l i v e r i n g . Certainly most NGO's must demonstrate that t h e i r programs are being used i n order to receive continued funding. Yet, the consumer group ranks lower than any other, as shown i n Table XX. Table XXI shows information sharing a c t i v i t y around the Budget of the agency. There i s a strong agreement that Funders should receive copies of the budget for awareness, and that the other groups for the most part, should not. Other Agencies ranked l a s t with a 50% range between i t and Funders. Warren (1967) and Schindler-Rainman and L i p p i t t ' s (1978) proposal to strengthen interagency sharing through collabora-ti o n over budgets i s c l e a r l y not a strategy that has occurred to the majority of Executive Directors i n t h i s survey. In fact, t h i s finding indicates that most agencies guard the information contained i n t h e i r budget, and share with Funders only. Again, i n view of the f a c t that many are struggling to receive funding, t h i s action i s questionable, i f one accepts the theory of collaborative IOR as a method for strengthening the funding base. Table XXII shows information sharing around the Manage-ment Structure of the i n d i v i d u a l organization. Overall t h i s item ranked second to l a s t of a l l categories. I t i s under-standable that t h i s p a r t i c u l a r item may seem superfluous to most Executive Directors, except when i t i s viewed i n the funding context. The Management Structure gives information about the administration of the organization, which i s usually 114 Throughput Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Description of Programs Fourth Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 61 Other Agencies 62 Awareness , 73 The Public 66 Funders 75 Cooperation 62 MEAN 66% Support 63 TABLE XX 115 Throughput Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Budget F i f t h Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 37 Awareness 48 Other Agencies 30 The Public 37 Cooperation 40 Funders 80 Support 41 MEAN 46% TABLE XXI 116 Throughput Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Management Structure Sixth Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 28 Awareness 46 Other Agencies 31 The Public 28 Cooperation 31 Funders 66 Support 35 MEAN 38% TABLE XXII a key question for funders. It i s also important to consumers, and the public, as i t describes how the organization works and i t s access points. Lines of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y indicate to both consumers and the public how the organization may be approached to deal with.service problems. If the t o t a l service delivery system i s to be improved, the management structure of the organization i s v i t a l information for accessing the agency. Other agencies ranked s l i g h t l y higher than the other c o n s t i -tuency groups, but c e r t a i n l y far below Funders. In terms of improving IOR at a l l lev e l s of the service delivery system, as per the collaborative model., t h i s information should be shared with the 10 network. Personnel i n the human services arena must know how to contact t h e i r counterparts i n other agencies i n order to establish a l i n e of communication within the 10 f i e l d . The Output category varied widely among the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s . P u b l i c i z i n g organizational a c t i v i t i e s ranked t h i r d highest o v e r a l l as important for funding, while Evaluation Report also i n the Output category ranked l a s t . The reason for the wide v a r i a t i o n may be related to the perception of these a c t i v i t i e s as either p o s i t i v e or negative. Publicize Organi-zational A c t i v i t i e s may be seen, as a pos i t i v e function i n that the agency controls the output and may present i t s e l f in the most posit i v e manner. A r i p p l e e f f e c t may have occurred merely by the use of the term Publicize which connotes p u b l i c i t y , which connotes fame, which i s a stature sought aft e r i n western society. S i m i l a r l y , the use of Evaluation may have s t i r r e d 118 negative feelings about the process of evaluation as i t has a history of being used to cut funding rather than to support funding requests. Table XXIII shows the results for P u b l i c i z i n g Organi-zational A c t i v i t i e s . This item varied s l i g h t l y from the standard response i n that the Public ranked higher (+1%) than Funders. The purposes for sharing the information were a l l high compared to the average response for a l l categories (see Table XVI). The high response rate to th i s item may be i n t e r -preted as due to the s p i l l o v e r p o s i t i v e association of p u b l i c i t y , and that i t i s generally an item that i s controlled by the agency. Table XXIV shows the res u l t s of the Annual Report item. It appears from the data that Executive Directors consider Annual Reports at best a necessary duty to meet p r o v i n c i a l regulations. They c e r t a i n l y do not appear to be enthusiastic about th i s a c t i v i t y , nor see i t as highly related to Funding. This finding i s in t e r e s t i n g p r e c i s e l y because a l l l e g a l l y constituted soci e t i e s must f i l e an Annual Report with the pr o v i n c i a l government. I t i s assumed that a l l NGO's i n t h i s survey are required to f i l e an Annual Report. One may only speculate as to why th i s regular piece of information i n t h e i r organization i s viewed as such an unimportant document. Either i t appears to be merely a response to a bureaucratic request, or that the information that they include i n i t i s seen to be less than v i t a l . 119 Output Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y P u blicize Organizational A c t i v i t i e s Seventh Matrix of Questionnaire C o n s t i t u e n c y Groups % Purposes % Consumers 62 Awareness 73 Other Agencies 57 The P u b l i c 71 Cooperation 61 Funders 70 Support 61 MEAN 65% TABLE XXIII 120 Output Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Annual Report E i g h t h Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 38 Awareness 51 Other Agencies 36 The Public 39 Cooperation 37 Funders 62 Support 43 MEAN 44% TABLE XXIV 121 Table XXV shows the results to the Evaluation Report item. They are the lowest responses i n the whole questionnaire. Funders ranks high with a 64% response, but a l l other c o n s t i -tuency groups rank extremely low. S i m i l a r l y , the purposes for sharing the information contained i n the Evaluation Report are lower than any other category. There are two possible i n t e r -pretations to these findings. Evaluation Reports may s t i l l be associated with funding cutbacks, not funding support for most Executive Directors. I t i s also possible that given the state of the art of evaluation research, many Executive Directors either do not have evaluations of t h e i r agencies performed unless requested by funders, or do not f i n d the results useful to p o l i c y planning, and programming. It i s expected that with the increasing demand for accountability that Evaluation Reports w i l l become more, not l e s s , important to funding. Table XXVI shows the rank order of constituency groups and purpose Overall perceived by Executive Directors to be the most important i n r e l a t i o n to funding. These re s u l t s show a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n than one would predict based on the r e s u l t s to previous questions. The r e s u l t s to t h i s f i n a l question are somewhat suspect due to the low response rate i n some items (69% of the t o t a l N only), and the high standard deviations. A l l but one of the items have standard deviations exceeding .5447. However, i f the results could be accepted with confidence they would t e l l us that Executive Directors value Consumer Awareness f i r s t and followed by 122 Output Category of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y Evaluation Report Ninth Matrix of Questionnaire Constituency Groups % Purposes % Consumers 28 Awareness 39 Other Agencies 25 The Public 2 0 Cooperation 30 Funders 64 Support 29 MEAN 34 TABLE XXV 123 Rank Order Overall of Constituency Groups and Purpose F i n a l Matrix of Questionnaire Rank Constituency Group and Purpose N St.D. 1 Consumer Awareness 49 .5691 2 Funder Support 55 .6047 3 Public Awareness 49 .7359 4 Other Agency Cooperation 48 .6890 5 Other Agency Awareness 48 .7855 6 Public Support 49 .7862 7 Consumer Cooperation 48 .6437 8 Funder Cooperation 55 .4663 9 Fuder Awareness 56 .8618 10 Consumer Support 48 . 6828 11 Public Cooperation 49 .5447 12 Other Agency Support 49 .6788 TABLE XXVI 124 Funder's Support. Other Agency cooperation ranks fourth on t h i s table which may mean that t h i s group i s recognized as being important, but for. the most part, a c t i v i t i e s to gain Other Agency cooperation are not pursued according to the results i n the previous part of the survey. The bottom ranking item of Other Agency Support conforms to the c o n s t i -tuency group ranking i n other questions, but not i n purpose. Cooperation ranked lowest for purpose i n the aggregate t o t a l s . The results to t h i s question are d i f f i c u l t to interpret with any degree of confidence given the high standard deviations, and low response rate. This concludes the findings from the survey on Factors Related to Funding. Before turning to Chapter V where high-l i g h t s of the findings, recommendations for the 10 f i e l d , and proposals for further research are presented a b r i e f summary i s in order. The study design was exploratory which l i m i t s the g e n e r a l i z e a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . Also, the large number of variables versus the number of respondents makes confident interpretations of the data unfeasible. Third, the purposive sampling procedures used i n this, survey do not necessarily make for a representative group of respondents. These factors influence the way i n which the data i s interpreted, and demand that the findings be presented as consistent or inconsistent with the data. The study then was meant to explore the nature 125 of IOR's pursued by NGO's and the l e v e l of success i n obtain-ing funding. The development of a theory of IOR i s s t i l l at a pre-natal stage. There i s no consensus i n the l i t e r a t u r e about the motives for IOR, as stemming from voluntary exchange, c o n f l i c t or a mixed motive approach. The model used here was a collaborative model of IOR which i s based on GST maxims and Warren's (1967) notion of pre-existing t i e s . I t was presumed that by adopting a more collaborative approach that the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding by NGO's could be improved. The findings suggest that at the present time NGO's do not use a collaborative strategy i n sharing information with a l l of the constituencies described i n t h i s survey. I t appears that i n some instances and with some constituencies they c o l -laborate, and i n others compete or do not collaborate. There are several interpretations that may be made including timing of the survey (the c r i t i c a l stage has so far been avoided), the theory i s incorrect, and/or the population tested i s not representative of the f i e l d . The l e v e l of the study precludes firm conclusions about the data. However, i t does suggest that there i s presently both collaboration and competition in the human services arena. This indicates something about the nature of IOR pursued by NGO's, and ce r t a i n l y suggests areas for fur-ther research. 126 Chapter V - Conclusions and Proposals for Further Research A. Conclusions and Recommendations There are no hard conclusions a r i s i n g out of t h i s report. The study was limited by the exploratory design, the sampling design, and the lack of a tested and accepted theory of IOR. Therefore, t h i s section contains highlights of the findings reported on i n Chapter IV, and a summary of what the findings suggest i n l i g h t of the collaborative model tested in t h i s study. The f i r s t part of t h i s section contains a review of the demographic findings followed by the findings from the study questions. For each section, some recommenda-tions for action w i l l be made. Forty-three percent of the sample responded to t h i s survey which indicates some int e r e s t i n Factors Related to Funding. This inte r e s t may be viewed as a potential for an action group composed of Executive Directors i n the Ci t y of Vancouver. Recommendation 1. That a steering committee of Executive Directors of NGO's i n the human services i n the City of Vancouver be formed to explore the f e a s i b i l i t y of establishing an interagency committee to review funding p r o f i l e s for NGO's. In implementing t h i s recommendation, the committee would need to consider the terms of reference of the group, to r e l i e v e the anxiety of non-participant members, and even for the p a r t i c i p a n t s . In view of the findings, i t seems that agencies have d i f f i c u l t y or r e s i s t collaborating with other agency groups. Therefore, any group would need to be e x p l i c i t about the terms of reference and open membership to a l l agencies i n order to avoid the appearance of a consortium. The majority of organizations that responded to t h i s survey were young, and therefore are not afforded the l e g i t i -macy that comes with age. However, one i n four agencies report that they have existed for more than 25 years, and that there i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between funds received and age of organization (.4253). Recommendation 2. That older established agencies sponsor younger agencies' funding requests, by providing either funds, l e t t e r s of support or knowledge about funding sources. Younger agencies should draw on t h i s Bank of Goodwill u n t i l established, then provide the same service for new agencies. Most NGO's in the sample have three times as many volunteers as they do s t a f f . Volunteers that are involved and informed about the organization are p o t e n t i a l spokespersons i n the larger community. S i m i l a r l y , 7 9% of the sample state that they are a membership organization. These contributors should not be overlooked as potential support for the organization. Recomme nd a t i o n 3. That NGO's give t h e i r volunteers and members adequate information about t h e i r agency so that they might serve as spokespersons about funding requests i n the community. Source of Funds proved to be an i n t e r e s t i n g question because the results were so s t r i k i n g . F u l l y 83% of a l l organizations i n the survey report receiving some money from the p r o v i n c i a l government. In fact 25% receive more than 80% of t h e i r t o t a l budget from V i c t o r i a . In contrast, Corporate Donors are not contributing t h e i r share with only 10% receiving any money from corporate donors, and 72% less than 25% of the t o t a l . There are clear and present dangers to t h i s discrepancy. If NGO's are becoming dependent upon a single funding source (the p r o v i n c i a l government), then they become more vulnerable to cutbacks and d i r e c t i o n from the funder. Secondly, the apparent lack of contribution i n the corporate sector suggests that either NGO's have not tapped t h i s market for funds, or that corporate donors do not accept s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In either case, contributions from the corporate sector should be raised by NGO's. Municipal government contributions were also low. Forty-eight percent received money from City H a l l , but 7 0% of those received less than 25% of the t o t a l from City Council. The Community Grants Committee Rule which c a l l s for more than an absolute majority for grant approval may c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t the funding position of Vancouver agencies. Recommendation 4. That NGO's d i v e r s i f y t h e i r sources of funding and attempt to spread them evenly over a variety of funders. Recommendation 5. That NGO's form a lobby to protect t h e i r funding interests i n V i c t o r i a . The lobby group would have to be representative of a l l s o c i a l agencies i n the f i e l d to d i s p e l any fears that the lobby group would merely s t r i v e to protect i t s own c i r c l e and not the whole network of NGO's. The terms of reference for the lobby groups would have to be made clear, and the chief motivation would have to be the protection of the o v e r a l l fund-ing picture for NGO's. Recommendation 6. That NGO's lobby the municipal l e v e l of government i n the City of Vancouver to establish c r i t e r i a for grants to s o c i a l service agencies that are clear and accountable to the agency, the "public" and. the consumer, and that the c r i t e r i a be shared. It appears that the municipal government oftentimes i n granting or not granting money does so on the basis of emotional-ism, rather than clear standards. I f the c r i t e r i a for funding was explicated, a l l constituency groups would benefit as they would at least be aware of the rules of the funding game. Recommendation 7. That NGO's campaign to c o l l e c t more money from the corporate sector. 130 The cost of operating a s o c i a l service i s increasing. Less than 5% of the sample report incomes of less than $20,000 per annum. Twenty-five percent report incomes exceeding $25,00 0. Yet one out of four respondents indicate that they are receiving less than 75% of t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds, and 40% receive less than 85% of t h e i r t o t a l request. The funding s i t u a t i o n i s poor, and action must be taken to change the o v e r a l l picture i f the network of s o c i a l service agencies i s to sustain i t s e l f . The seven recommendations above are directed at the o v e r a l l funding picture; the recommendations below are s p e c i f i c to IOR behaviour. The findings from the study questions suggest that there i s a relationship between IOR and the l e v e l of success in obtaining funding. I t appears that information sharing depends on with whom and for what purpose. With Funders, i t appears that t h i s sample of Executive Directors w i l l i n g l y share information. Other agencies, however, receive less information about the fo c a l agency's operation. This finding suggests several things. The f i r s t of course i s that the finding i s not representative of the f i e l d due to the inherent study design problems. However, i f t h i s finding i s used to describe even t h i s small sample i t may suggest two possible interpretations. The f i r s t scenario i s that the c r i t i c a l moment has so far been avoided, and there-fore NGO's do not recognize the importance of maintaining 131 IOR's with a l l constituency groups, e s p e c i a l l y other agencies. The second i s that the collaborative model of IOR presented in t h i s report i s not accurate to describe the r e a l i t y of the f i e l d , and, in fact, a mixed motive model i s more t r u l y d e s c r i p t i v e . If one accepts the former, (the c r i t i c a l moment i s yet to come) then there are two possible scenarios when one consi-ders the cut-off of funds. The f i r s t scenario envisions that NGO's w i l l f a i l to establish a power base, and w i l l be vulnerable to government takeover and/or d i r e c t i o n . The second v i s i o n , s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e , envisages the network of human service agencies banding together to preserve, protect and expand t h e i r funding bases. The collaborative model of IOR d i r e c t s that interagency networks be strengthened to safeguard funding bases through the i n i t i a l vehicle of information sharing. The f i n a l i nterpretation, that there appears to be a mixed motive for sharing information, may mean that the i n t e r -agency network may only improve i t s e l f by strengthening relationships v/ith funders at the expense of other agency relationships. This interpretation has implications for under-standing of the nature of IOR, and the pot e n t i a l benefits of IOR. The finding i n Hypothesis 2 which measured the r e l a t i o n -ship between importance of a c t i v i t y and p r i o r i t y assigned related to the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding, indicated that Executive Directors are able to p r i o r i z e t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s 132 according to t h e i r perceived importance. From t h i s finding, one may suggest that i f the formation and maintenance of IOR's among the agency network were considered important, then Executive Directors would f i n d time to devote to t h i s activity. Time for the a c t i v i t y appears not to be a problem. I t may be that Executive Directors lack understanding of the benefits of IOR, or that they currently are s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r approach There was a high degree of variance reported between the information categories of input, throughput and output. According to General System Theory there must be a balance of the three i n order for any l i v i n g system to maintain e q u i l i -brium. The f a i l u r e of Executive Directors to balance the a c t i v i t y of t h e i r organization throughout the system may c o n t r i -bute to the imbalance of the system. Certainly, i t appears from the results that an unequal picture of NGO's i s presented outside of the organization. The d a i l y operation of the agency i . e . the management structure, the Annual Report and the Budget are a l l items that are not generously shared with Other Agencies, the Public, or Consumers. The f a i l u r e of Executive Directors to maintain li n k s with these constituencies about the d a i l y grind of t h e i r organization may i n the long term a f f e c t t h e i r funding base. There i s a variance i n the constituencies with whom Executive Directors share information. Funders c e r t a i n l y rank the highest on the scale. While t h i s may appear to be a l o g i c a l action, closer scrutiny of these actions raises questions about i t s effectiveness. A collaborative model of IOR based on information exchange would not give preferred status to any one group. Each constituency i s important and contributes to the o v e r a l l success in obtaining funding. Each constituency has a role i n creating the environment i n which funding requests are made. To ignore, or downplay, a certain constituency at any one time may bring the system into a fur-ther state of imbalance. This of course assumes that preferred status for one constituency over another i s not desirable, and that a collaborative model which reduces competition i s better than a mixed motive approach. From the findings, i t seems that a mixed motive model i s more consisten with the data. Executive Directors i n t h i s sample appear to devote most of t h e i r energy to placating funders. This strategy, while on the surface may seem sound, may have negative implications. In systems terms, the more energy (input) devoted to Funders by applicant agencies, the more power they are able to take from the o v e r a l l system. NGO's may fi n d i t more productive to strengthen the agency network, and to b u i l d t h e i r own power base, rather than to contribute to the growth of Funders. Others may argue that the long-term e f f e c t of building a strong interagency network may be to reduce the power of funders to do t h e i r job i . e . to fund, or that some agencies i n the network would benefit more from collaboration than others. In e f f e c t , a second interpretation assumes that there i s a constant imbalance i n the re l a t i o n s h i p and i t i s f r u i t l e s s to t r y and 134 ri g h t i t through collaboration. The variance i n purpose of sharing information was sur-p r i s i n g i n view of the t h e o r e t i c a l model which held that awareness preceded cooperation, which preceded support. Executive Directors valued awareness, then support, then cooperation i n order of p r i o r i t y . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to conceive of support as actually preceding cooperation i n fa c t . I t seems u n r e a l i s t i c to believe that one may gain support without f i r s t garnering cooperation from the various constituencies. There appears to be some resistance to the thought of cooperating with other constituencies. One may only surmise that t h i s term conjures up compromise and therefore some weakness on the part of the focal organization. However, i f thi s t h e o r e t i c a l model i s cor-rect, c o l l e c t i v e action may be the only solution to maintaining the o v e r a l l network of NGO's. On the other hand, the data appears to be more consistent with a mixed motive model that describes competition with some groups for some purposes, and competition with others. S p e c i f i c a l l y i n the Information categories there were three very inte r e s t i n g findings worth repeating here. Executive Directors share information about t h e i r Goals and Objectives with Other Agencies. This may be an important f i r s t step i n developing a collaborative exchange model. Second, Executive Directors do not share the information contained i n t h e i r budgets with any other group except funders, e a s i l y . Third, 135 Evaluation Reports i s the lowest category of information sharing which indicates either that Evaluations are negatively viewed or not u t i l i z e d . This i s surprising i n the so-called era of accountability of today. These three findings suggest that there may be a beginning avenue for collaboration i n the area of Goals and Objectives. They also demonstrate NGO's v u l n e r a b i l i t y to the whims of funders. By f a i l i n g to share the information contained i n t h e i r budget, they are r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r access to valuable information about the global funding picture. Also, by denigrating the value of Evaluation Reports prepared by the agencies themselves, they are making themselves prime candi-dates for evaluations externally planned and implemented. External evaluations are not generally as useful as int e r n a l evaluations. The l a t t e r two findings indicate that i f Funders mandated coordination of funding applications from above, NGO's would be i n a poor p o s i t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the plan-ning of the regulations that would govern the coordination. Overall, the recommendations i n r e l a t i o n to IOR related to funding are: Recommendation 8. That NGO's improve t h e i r IOR behaviour among the consumer, other agency and the public constituency groups; and, Recommendation 9. That NGO's balance t h e i r energies between the various categories of information i n the input, throughput, and output areas, and 136 Recommendation 10. That NGO's explore areas where cooperative ventures among agencies may be introduced e s p e c i a l l y those related to funding. These recommendations are congruent with acceptance of the collaborative model of IOR. Further studies need to be devoted to determining the motive for IOR as either ready for collaboration, or a mixed motive model. B. Proposals for Further Research The whole study of IOR i s such a vast uncharted area, th i s p a r t i c u l a r section could go on i n d e f i n i t e l y . Chapter 2 indicated the current state of the art i n regards to theory building i n IOR as an area that s t i l l requires conceptuali-zation and theory t e s t i n g . This research report was an exploratory study designed to review the nature and structure of IOR as i t relates to funding for NGO's. I t provides an in d i c a t i o n of areas that may prove f r u i t f u l for further research. For instance, the study suggests that agencies share information with the various constituencies i n such a way that funders are preferred, and other agencies rank l a s t . For the l i t e r a t u r e review, i t seems that t h i s type of behaviour i s in d i c a t i v e of the mixed motive theory. Research that employed a mixed motive model may contribute more to the understanding of the nature and formation of IOR. It would be i n t e r e s t i n g to pursue a longitudinal study 137 on the sources of funding and IOR behaviour among the NGO's in Vancouver. I t would be inte r e s t i n g to d i s t i n g u i s h between those agencies which followed a collaborative stragegy, and those engaged i n competition to determine which had the greater success i n obtaining funds. This would contribute to theory building by answering the question about how IOR contributes to the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funds. For t h i s researcher, however, an action research project seems to be the most t a n t a l i z i n g . The process of forming an interagency group with the intent of c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y pursuing, and creating funds for NGO's would be the subject of a fas-cinating report. The opportunity exists i n such a setting to introduce the collaborative model of exchange and measure the outcome of the project. Base rates could be established by c o l l e c t i n g information on funding pre-network, and measuring the difference ( i f any) a f t e r a cer t a i n time period. Mean incomes for the network could indicate whether or not the group was successful i n creating new funding sources or expanding e x i s t i n g ones. Such a project would o f f e r a micro-cosm of the larger supra-system of NGO's, and would provide useful observations about the network of s o c i a l service agencies; how they relate to one another i n the environment. Given the state of understanding about IOR, there are many more exploratory studies to be done that w i l l contribute to the understanding of what i s the nature of IOR, how they are 138 formed and what impact they have on the whole environment the s o c i a l services delivery system. 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, M. & Hage, J . "Organizational Interdependence & Intra-organizational Structure" American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 33, 1968 pp. 912-30. Al d r i c h , Howard & Jef f r e y P f e f f e r "Environments of Organizations" in Alex Inkeles (ed) Annual Review of Sociology 11, 1976 pp. 79-106. Ald r i c h , Howard "Organizational Boundaries & Interorganiza-t i o n a l C o n f l i c t " Human Relations (24(4) 1971 pp.279-93. Baker, F. ed Organizational Systems: General Systems Approaches  to Complex Organizations (Homewood, I I I : Richard D. Irwin, (1973). Beal, George M., G. E. Klongken, P. Yarbrough, J. M. Bohlen & D. Diliman. System Linkages Among Women's Organizations (Ames: Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology, Iowa State Univ., 1967) 159 p. B e l l , E. C , Ramon C. Alonso, H. E. VanAuken An Annotated Bibliography of Interorganizational Studies (Centre for Economxc & Mgmt. Research: College of Business Aministration, Univ. of Oklahoma, A p r i l 1976). Benson, J . K. "The Interorganizational Network as a P o l i t i c a l Economy" Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 20, No.2, 1975 pp. 229-249. Berne, R. "Interorganizational Analysis - A n a l y t i c a l Handle on Complexity of Service Delivery Systems" Urban A f f a i r s  Quarterly 12, 3, 1977-411-422. . Bertalanffy, L.F. General System Theory (N.Y.: G. B r a z i l l e r , 1969) . Bilodeau, Frank. Community Development i n the Counties of  Prescott - Russell A.R.F. - Eastern Region. Addiction Research Foundation Staff Conference, St. Catherines, Ont. June 15-17, 1970, 16 pp., duplicated. Black, B. & M. Kase "Inter Agency Cooperation i n Rehabilitation & Mental Health" Social Services Review 37, 1963 26-32. Buckley, W. Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral  S c i e n t i s t : A Source Book (Chicago: Aldine, 1968). 140 Cook, K.S. "Exchange & Power in Networks of Interorganiza-t i o n a l Relations". S o c i o l o g i c a l Quarterly 18 Winter 1977 pp. 62-82. Davidson, S. M. "Planning & Coordination of S o c i a l Services i n Multiorganizational Contexts". Social Services Review 50(1) 117-37, 1976. Emery, F.E. & E.L. T r i s t "The Causal Texture of Organiza-t i o n a l Environments". Human Relations 18, Feb. 1965 pp. 21-31. Evan, William M. Organizational Theory: Structures Systems ,& Environments (N.Y.: Wiley, 1976) 312 p. H.M. 131 E.9 1976 Main. Evan, Wm. "An Organization Set Model of Interorganizational Relationships" i n M.F. Tuite, M. Radnor & R.K. Chisholm, (eds.) Interorganizational Decision Making (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1972) pp. 181-200. " Flaherty, E.W. & Frances G. Martin "The Process of Development of Interagency Relationships" Administration i n Social  Work v o l . 2(1). Spring 1978, pp. 95-103. Frumkin, Michael L. "A P r a c t i c a l Guide to Service System Reorganization". Administration i n Social Work vol 2(1). Spring 1978, pp. 15-27. Frumkin, Michael L. An Exploratory Study of Services Inte-gration with Organizations Serving Problem Youth. Ph.D. Brandeis, Feb. 1977. Unpublished. Galaskiewicz, Joseph James. "Hierarchical Patterns in a Community Interorganizational System". American Socio-l o g i c a l Association 1978 2748 (#78S09173) Gi l b e r t , N e i l & Specht, Harry, Dynamics of Community Planning (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub., 1977), 185 pp. Goldsmith, David Walter. Health Care Services i n Lytton, B.C.  A Study of the Relationship Between the Hospital and the  Rural Community (Vancouver: U.B.C, 1978) 294 p. Greenley, J.R. and S. A. Kirk "Organizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Agencies & the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Services to Applicants" Journal of Health & S o c i a l Behavior 14 (1973): 70-79. Gummer, B. "The Interorganizational Relationships of a Public Welfare Agency: Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare v o l . 3(1) Sept. 1975 pp.33-47. 141 Gummer, B. "The Ef f e c t s of Patterns of Interorganizational Relationships on the Delivery of Social Services". Bryn Mawr, Ph.D. 1973, unpublished. H a l l , R.H. et a l "Patterns of Interorganizational Relation-ships" Administrative Science Quarterly 22(3), 1977 pp. 457-474. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel & J. E. Tropman "Interorganizational Relationships: Implications for Community Organizers and Community Organization" i n F.E. Cox et a l (ed) Strategies of Community Organizing 3rd ed. (Itasca: Peacock, 1979) p.262-278. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel. "People Processing Organizations: an Exchange Approach". American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 37, 1972 p.256-263. Hasenfeld, Y. "Organizational Dilemma i n Innovating Social Services: The Case of Community Action Centres" Journal of Health and Social Behaviour vol. 12, No.3 (Sept. 1971) pp. 208-216. Hassinger, Ed. "Social Relations Between Centralized and Local S o c i a l Systems" Rural Sociology 26, 1961, p.354-364. Hassinger, Edward W. & Chas. E. Grubb "The Linking Role of the Local Public Health Nurse i n Missouri", Rural Sociology 30, 3, 1965, pp.299-310. Hearn, G.B. ed. The General Systems Approach (N.Y.: Council on Social Work Educ, 1969) Horesji, Chas. "Client Services Coordination: Training & Retraining for So c i a l Workers i n Rural Areas" Human  Services i n the Rural Environment March 1978 pp.6-19. Jacobs, Davia. "Dependency and V u l n e r a b i l i t y : An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organizations" Administrative  Science Quarterly v o l . 19, No. 1. 1974 pp. 4 5-59. Jones, D.M. "Interagency C o n f l i c t , Power and Sanctioning Systems: An Alaskan Example" Journal of Sociology and  Social Welfare 5 (3), 1978, pp.435-445. Jones, Terry. "Coordination of Services i n a Neighborhood Service Center" Berkeley, D.S.W., December 1974. Unpublished. Kahn, A. "A Framework for Public Voluntary Collaboration i n the S o c i a l Services" The Social Welfare Forum, 1976. 142 Kane, R.L. & D. Moeller "Rural Service Elements Foil.Co-ordination," Hospitals 48, 1974 pp. 79-83. Kane, T. J. A Study of the Interorganizational Relationships  Between Community Mental Health C l i n i c s & Family  Services Association. Catholic University D.S.W.> 1972, unpublished. Klonglan, G. E. et a l "Interorganizational Measurement i n the Social Services Sector: Differences by H i e r a r c h i c a l Level". Administrative Science Quarterly v o l . 21, No.4 (December, 1976) pp. 675-687. Knoke, David & David L. Rogers. "A Block Model Analysis of Interorganizational Networks". (78S09190 American Soc i o l o g i c a l Association, 1978, 2765) . Koch, Agnes, and Sanford Labovits "Interorganizational Power in a Canadian Community", The S o c i o l o g i c a l Quarterly, 1976, 17, 1, Winter 3-15. Larson, Vernon W. The Community Council, Case Studies i n  Success and F a i l u r e . (Saskatoon Centre for Community Studies, University of Saskatoon, September 19 65) 64 pp. (C.C.S.D. l i b r a r y ) . Laumann, E. 0., J . Galaskiewicz and P. V. Marsden. "Community Structure as Interorganizational Linkages". Annual Review  of Sociology 4, 1978, 455-484 . • . Lawrence, P.R., and J . W. Lorsch. Organization and Environment, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1967) . Lehman, Ed. W. Coordinating Health Care: Explorations i n  Interorganizational Relationships. (Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a : Sage Pub., 1975) 251 pp. Levine, Sol and Paul White. "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships". Administrative Science Quarterly. 3 March 1961, pp. 583-597. Levine, Sol; P.E. White and B. D. Paul. "Community Interorganizational Problems i n Providing Medical Care and Social Services". American Journal of Public Health, v o l . 53, No. 8 Aug. 1963, pp. 1183-1195. Lemieux, Vincent and Rene F o r t i n . "Reseaux et Appareils dans 1 1 implantation de deux C.L.S.C." (Networks and Apparatuses i n the Implementation of 2 Local Centres for Community Services). Recherches Sociographiques, 1977, 18, 2, May-Aug., 177-190. 143 Litwak, E. and L. F. Hylton. "Interorganizational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Coordinating Agencies" i n Administrative  Science Quarterly, v o l . 6, 1962, pp. 395-415. Litwak, E. and Jack Rothman. "The Impact of Organizational Structure and Linkage on Agency Programs and Services" in F. E. Cox et a l (eds) Strategies of Community  Organizing 3rd ed. (Hasca: Peacock, 1979) pp. 249-261. Mathieson, Thomas. Across the Boundaries of Organizations; an Exploratory Study of Communication Patterns i n 2  Penal I n s t i t u t i o n s , (Berkeley, Ca: Metro Centre, Sydney, Nova Scotia. Adult Education. Nova Scotia, v o l . 8, No. 6, November-December, 1971, 3 pp. Mindlin, Sergio E. and Howard A l d r i c h . "Interorganizational Dependence: A Review of the Concept and a Reexamination of the Findings of the Aston Group". Administrative  Science Quarterly, v o l . 20, No. 3, 1975, pp. 382-392. Molnar, J.J. and D. L. Rogers. "A Comparative Model of Interorganizational C o n f l i c t " . Administrative Science  Quarterly, September, 1979, v o l . 24, pp. 405-425. Molnar, Joseph J. "Interorganizational Dyads: Measurement of Dyadic Properties". Rural Sociology 42, 1977, 268-71. Muhlberger, Ester V. "Collaboration for Community Mental Health". Social Work, vol.20, No. 6, November 1975. Mulford, Chas. L. and Mary A. Mulford. "Community and Interorganizational Perspectives on Cooperation and C o n f l i c t " . Rural Sociology 42, 1977 569-590 and "Comments" by Wakely, Ray, pp. 591-5 92. Negandhi, Anant R. ed. Interorganizational Theory (Kent, Ohio: Comparative Administrative Research I n s t i t u t e , Kent State Press, 1975) 283 pp. Nuerhing, E. M. "The Character of Interorganizational Task Environments". Administration and Society 9 (4) 425-446, 1978. O'Brien, G.M. "Inter-Organizational Relations" i n The Administration of Mental Health Services, S. Feldman ed. (Springfield, 111: Chas. C. Thomas, 1973). Paulson, S.K. "Causal Analysis of Interorganizational Relationships: An Axiomatic Theory Revised". Administra- t i v e Science Quarterly, 319-37, 1974. 144 Paulson, Steven K. "A Theory of Comparative Analysis of Interorganizational Dyads". Rural Sociology 1976, 41, 3 f a l l , pp. 311-329. Pf e f f e r , J e f f r e y , and Gerald R. Salancik, The External Control  of Organizations: a Resource Dependence Perspective, (N.Y.: Harper Row, 1978) 300 p. HD60 P46, 1978 Main. Randell, R. "Influence of Environmental Support and Po l i c y Space on Organizational Behavior". Administrative  Science Quarterly 18 (1973); 236-47. Reid, W. "I.A. Coordination i n Delinquency Prevention and Control". Social Services Review, 38(4), 1964, pp. 418-428. Rogers, David L. "Sociometric Analysis of Interorganizational Relationships: Application of Theory and Measurement". Rural Sociology 39, 4, 1977, pp. 487-504. Rogers, David L. and Jos. Molnar. "Organization Antecedents of Role C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity i n Top-Level Admistration." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 4, December, pp. 598-608. Ryant, Joe. "The Integration of Services i n Rural and Urban Communities". Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, v o l . 3, No. 1, f a l l 1976, pp. 5-14. S a r r i , Rosemary, and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. The Management of Human Services. (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1978) 3 66 p. Bibliography. Schermerhorn, J.R. Sr. "Information Sharing as an Interor-ganizational A c t i v i t y " . Academy of Management Journal 20(1), 1977, pp. 148-153. Schermerhorn, John R. J r . "Openess to Interorganizational Cooperation: A Study of Hospital Administrators". Academy of Management Journal 19, 2, 1976, pp. 225-236. Schindler-Rainman, E. and L i p p i t t , R. "Toward Inter-Agency Collaboration". Volunteer Administration v o l . 10(2), summer 1978. Schmidt, Frances, and Harold N. Weiner ed. Public Relations  in Health and Welfare (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1966) 278 p. Schmidt, S.M. and Thomas A. Kochan. "Interorganizational Relationships: Patterns and Motivations". Administrative  Science Quarterly, 22, 2, June 1977 pp 220-234. 145 Sebring, R. H. "The 5M$ Misunderstanding: A Perspective on State Government - University Interorganizational C o n f l i c t s " . Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 3, September, 1977, pp. 505-523. Sheldon, Ann W. "Improving the Delivery of S o c i a l Services Thru Multiagency Programs". Society for the Study of  Social Problems 1978. Smith, Marjorie J. "The Case Worker i n the Community" i n Rural Case Work Services (N.Y.: Family Welfare Association of America, 1943). Social Work Education for Practice i n Rural and Northern Regions. (Canadian Association of Schools of S o c i a l Work 1976). 156 pp. Sower, Chris, Community Involvement: The Webs of Formal and  Informal Ties That Make for Action. (Glencoe, 111: Free Press, 1957). Spearman, L.B. Comparison of S o c i a l Welfare Needs with Service Network i n Two Northern Manitoba Communities, (Winnipeg: Centre for Settlement Studies, University of Manitoba, 1975) 84 pages. Sundquist, James L. and David W. Davis. Making Federalism Work: A Study of Program Coordination at the Community  Level (Washington, D.C: Brookings I n s t i t u t e , 1969) 294 pages. Terreberry, Shirley. "The Evolution of O r i g i n a l Environments", Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 March 1968, pp.590-613. Thompson, J.D. Organizations i n Action (N.Y.: McGraw H i l l , 1967). Turk, Herman. "Comparative Urban Structure from an Interorganizational Perspective". Administrative Science  Quarterly, v o l . 18, No. 1, 1973, pp.37-55. Turk, Herman. "Interorganizational Networks in Urban Society: I n i t i a l Perspective and Comparative Research". American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 35, 1 (February 1970) pp.1-17. Van de Ven, A.H. "On the Nature, Formation,, and Maintenance of Relations Among Organizations". Academy of Management  Review 1 Oct. 1976, pp. 24-36. Wakely, R.E. "Community and Interorganizational Perspectives on Competition and C o n f l i c t " . Rural Sociology, vol.42(4) 1978, pp. 591-92. 146 Warren, R.L., A. Bergunder, and S. Rose. The Structure of  Urban Reform (Lexington; Lexington Books, 1974). Warren, R. L. "The Interorganizational F i e l d as a Focus for Investigation". Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 Dec. 1967, pp. 396-419. Warren, R. L. Truth, Love and Social Change. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971). Warrinder, Chas. K. "Approaches to the Study of Soc i a l Structure" in International S o c i o l o g i c a l Abstracts 1978. Weirich, T.W., F. D. Perlmutter and W. Richan. "Interorganiza-t i o n a l Behavior Patterns of Line Staff and Services Integration". Social Services Review, 51 (4), 1977, pp. 574-89. White, P. E., Vlasak, G. E. Interorganizational Research i n Health Bibliography (Washington D.C: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Pub. # HSM72-3028, 1972) . Wilson, P. "Linkages among organizations: considerations and consequences". Health & Social Work, 3(2): 13-33, 1978. Zald, Mayer N. "Organizations as P o l i t i c s : An Analysis of Community Organization Agencies" i n F.E. Cox et a l (eds.). Strategies of Community Organizing, 3rd ed. (Hasca: Peacock, 1979) pp.238-239, reprinted from Social Work v o l . 11, No.4, October 1966, pp.56-65. Zeitz, G. "Interorganizational D i a l e c t i c s " . Administrative  Science Quarterly, v o l . 25, March 1980, pp.72-88. 147 Bailey, K. D. Methods of Social Research (Toronto: McGraw H i l l , 1978). Fox, D.J. and K. E. Guire. Documentation for MIDAS 3d e d . ( S t a t i s t i c a l Research Laboratory: University of Michigan, Sept. 1976). Gans, S.P. and G. T. Horton. Integration of Human Services. The State & Municipal Levels (New York: Praeger Publisher, 1975). Lewin, Kurt, "Group Decision & Social Change" i n Readings i n Social Psychology Swanson, Newcomb & Hartley (eds) (New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1959) pp. 459-473. Moynihan, D. P. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding (New York: Free Press, 1969). Olson, Mancur. The Logic of C o l l e c t i v e Action (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965). S e l l t i z , C., L. S. Wrightman & S. W. Cook. Research Methods  in Social Relations 3d ed. (New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1976). Tripo d i , P., T. F e l l i n & H. J . Meyer. Exemplars of Social  Research (Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock, 1969). Wharf, B. Integrating Social into Human Services ( V i c t o r i a : University of V i c t o r i a Press, 1978). APPENDIX I FACTORS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL FUNDING A. Please indicate the type of organization you represent: Family Service-• • • • • £ 7 Volunteer Bureau-••« Z 7 Mental Health-. . • - •> CJ Corrections••• - a Welfare- -ZL7 Religious CJ Educational Cl Employment Cl P h y s i c a l l y Handicapped Cl Mentally Handicapped Cl Infant - • -CJ Youth CJ Seniors . . . . . £ 7 Women's Group a Immigrant Services. • ... • o Other (please specify) B. Please indicate the age of your organization as of Dec. 31, 1979 less than 2 yrs CJ 16 - 25 yrs £j 2 - 5 yrs CJ 26 - 50 yrs... ' . . . £ 7 6-15 yrs CJ more than 50 yrs f~J C. Please indicate the t o t a l number of paid s t a f f Volunteers_ board members members of your organization. D. Please indicate the type of funding your organization received during the 1979 f i s c a l year. I f more than one type, please indicate approximately what percentage f o r each. Government Grants: Municipal-• CJ $ P r o v i n c i a l • CJ t Federal*••• Foundation Grants-••• CJ * Individual Donors.••• CJ * Membership Fees Cl a/° Funding Campaigns Cl % Corporate Donors /~7 ?° Other (please specify) % 150 E . ; Do any of the above types of funding represent Core Funding fo r your organizat ion? I f yes, please ind ica te source and percentage of t o t a l funds for the 1979 f i s c a l year. Source ; . % F. Please indicate the t o t a l amount of funds received from a l l sources for the 1979 f i s c a l year. le s s than 10 ,000. . . -CJ 100,001 - 250,000 CJ 10,001 - 20,000 CJ 250,001 - 500,000 CJ 20,001 - 50,000 CJ 500,001 - 1,000,000 CJ 50,001 - 100,000 CJ more than 1,000,000 CJ G. Please indicate the approximate percentage of your i n i t i a l request f o r funds that was met i n the 1979 f i s c a l year. l e s s than 75% CJ 91 - 95% CJ 76 - 8 0 % . . . .ZL7 96 - 100% .CJ 81 - 85%. CJ 101 - 105% . . . . . . . . >CJ 86 - 90% CJ m o r e t h a n 105%- « • > • >C7 The fo l lowing statements are about information needs and p r i o r i t i e s i n organizat ions . Please indicate which answer i n each statement best describes your organiza t ion ' s behavior. 1. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to document the need fo r serv ices . 5 disagree cLisagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly s t rongly 2. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to documenting the need for serv ices . 1 2 2 k 5 no p r i o r i t y low some™ ~~ high very high 151 3 - In our organizat ion we communicate information about the need for services to the fo l lowing groups i n order to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) NB. The term support i s used to denote publ ic support or backing sought by your organizat ion from others . Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness Cooperation Support In our organizat ion in order to obtain funds, i t i s important to define the problem we are attempting to so lve . 1 2 3 5 . disagree s t rongly disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly 5- In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to the problem we are attempting to so lve . def in ing 1 2 3 no p r i o r i t y low some high very high 6. In our organizat ion we communicate information about the problem we are attempting to solve to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the fo l lowing purposes. (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness Cooperation Support 152 E . Do any of the above types of funding represent Core Funding for your organization? I f yes, please ind ica te source and percentage of t o t a l funds f o r the 1979 f i s c a l year. Source F. Please indicate the t o t a l amount of funds received from a l l sources for the 1979 f i s c a l year. le s s than 10 ,000. • . . C7 100,001 - 250,000 CJ 10,001 - 20,000 CJ 250,001 - 500,000 CJ 20,001 - 50,000 CJ 500,001 - 1,000,000 CJ 50,001 - 100,000. .. -CJ more than 1,000,000 £J 7. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to have a c l e a r wri t ten statement of goals and ob ject ives . disagree s t rongly disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly 8 . In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to s e t t i n g down a c l e a r wr i t ten statement of goals and ob ject ives . 1 no p r i o r i t y low 4 some high very high 9- In our organizat ion we communicate information about our goals and object ives to the fo l lowing groups i n order to achieve the fo l lowing purposes. (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) r.-uxner.,j»ge nm.es ,., rne run pp. Awareness Cooperation Support 153 10. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to have a wri t ten de sc r ip t ion of a l l of our programs. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree s t rongly disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly 11. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to a de sc r ip t ion of a l l of our programs. v/r i t ing 1 2 3 4 5 no p r i o r i t y low some high very high 12. In our organizat ion we communicate information about our programs to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i ck a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness \ Cooperation Support 13- In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to prepare a budget. disagree s t rongly disagree . 1 4 neutra l J L agree agree s trongly 14. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to preparing a budget. 1 2_ no p r i o r i t y low some 4 high 1__ very high 154 15- In our organizat ion we communicate the information contained i n our budget to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders i 1 Awareness Cooperation Support 16. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to have a d e s c r i p t i o n of our management s t ructure . disagree s t rongly disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly 17. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to preparing a de sc r ip t ion of our management s t ruc ture . no p r i o r i t y low some high very high 18. In our organizat ion we communicate information about our management s tructure to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Fundei Awareness Cooperation Support 155 19- In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important that we p u b l i c i z e our organizat ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s . l 2 2 It 5 disagree disagree neutra l agree agree strongly s trongly 20. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to p u b l i c i z i n g our organizat ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 ^ Ll no p r i o r i t y low some high very high 21. In our organizat ion we_communicate information about our organiza t ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s to the fo l lowing groups for the fo l lowing purposes. (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consume: Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness C ooperation Support 22. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important that we produce an Annual Reprt. 1 2 2 5 disagree disagree neutra l agree agree s t rong ly s t rong ly 23« In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to producing an Annual Report. 4 j , 2 3  1_ no p r i o r i t y low some "high very high 156 24. In our organizat ion we communicate the information contained i n our Annual Report to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the the fo l lowing purposes. (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness Cooperation Support 25- In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important to prepare an Eva luat ion Report. 1 2 3 4 disagree s t rongly disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly 26. In our organizat ion we an Eva luat ion Report. give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to preparing 1 2 3 4 no p r i o r i t y l o w none n i S h very high 27. In our organizat ion we communicate the information contained i n our Eva luat ion Report to the fo l lowing groups i n order to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers OtherAgencies The Publ ic Funders — — — Awareness Cooperation Support 157 28. In our organizat ion i n order to obta in funds i t important fo r the Executive D i rec to r to have l i n k s with: (Rank 1 mos important, 4 l eas t important) Consumers . . . . . . . .JJ The Publ ic . . . . ./JJ Other Agencies • . • f ~ J Funders f j 29. O v e r a l l , i n our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s most important to communicate with the fo l lowing groups i n order to achieve the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Rank 1 most important, 3 l eas t ) Consumers Awareness 1 Cooperation 2 Support 3 EXAMPLE: This would mean that o v e r a l l i n our organizat ion i t i s most important to communicate with consumers to to achieve awareness, leas t important to gain t h e i r support, Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness Cooperation Support 30; ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? 158 Thank You For Completing the Questionnaire. PLEASE RETURN TO: S. Willms School of S o c i a l Work U n i v e r s i t y of B .C. 160 APPENDIX I I FACTORS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL FUNDING A. Please indicate the type of organization you representt Family Service /j& P h y s i c a l l y Handicapped . .£CJ Volunteer Bureau • •••/•J Mentally Handicapped . . . ./5*7 Mental Health /JJ Infant JJJ Corrections /TJ Youth . '/s7 Welfare /57 Seniors . f i j Religious f^/ Women's Group /3J Educational CJ Other (please specify) / B. Please indicate the age of your organization as of Dec.31• 1979-less than 2 yrs /TJ 16 -25 yrs /J? 2 - 5 yrs /JJ 26 - 50 yrs /JJ 6 - 1 5 yrs. fJJ more than 50 yrs. . ,0 C. Please indicate the t o t a l number of paid s t a f f X IQ-k volunteers 13. H-D. Please indicate the type of funding your organization received during the 1979 f i s c a l year. I f more than one type, please indicate approximately what percentage f o r each. Government Grants Z37 % Foundation Grants /JJ J° Core Funding ( i e . United Way, Gov't.)... /JJ -fp' Individual Donors . . . . Z37 % Membership Fees 757 % Funding Campaigns /37 ?» Corporate Donors..,. %/7J $ Other (please SpeC.ify) 3 161 E. Please i n d i c a t e the t o t a l amount of funds r e c e i v e d from a l l sources f o r the 1979 f i s c a l y ear. l e s s than 10 ,000 • ; . . .0 100,001 - 250,000 JTJ~ 10,001 - 20,000 0 250,0C1 - 500,000 ^7 20,001 - 50.00Q & 500,001 - 1,000,000 JE7 50,001 - 100,000 /JJ more than 1,000,000 JTJ F. P l e a s e indicate the approximate percentage of your i n i t i a l r e q u e s t f o r funds t h a t was met i n the 1979 f i s c a l year. l e s s than 80% ZE7 96% - 100% Zg 80% - 90% / 2 F 101> - 105%, . . \%0 9 1 / - 95% JCJ TQore than 105/» , , 0 The f o l l o w i n g statements are about i n f o r m a t i o n needs and p r i o r i t i e s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e which answer i n each statement be s t d e s c r i b e s your o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s b e h a v i o r . 1. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n order to o b t a i n funds i t i s important to document the need f o r s e r v i c e s . d i s a g r e e d i s a g r e e n e u t r a l agree agree s t r o n g l y s t r o n g l y 2. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we g i v e the f o l l o w i n g p r i o r i t y to documenting the need f o r s e r v i c e s . M C ( Q i 2 3C3) ^) 3 fa) no p r i o r i t y low some high h i g h e s t 3. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we communicate i n f o r m a t i o n about the need f o r s e r v i c e s to the f o l l o w i n g groups i n order to achieve the f o l l o w i n g p u r p o s e ( s ) . Consumers Other Agencies The P u b l i c Funders Awareness <? C o o p e r a t i o n 0 O $ Support 4 6 1 162 4. In our organization, i n order to obtain funds i t i s important to define the problem we are attempting to solve. 1 2 3 U s ) 5 Q disagree strongly disagree neutral agree agree strongly 5* In our organization we give the following p r i o r i t y to defining the problem we are attempting to solve. 2 s f ' J no p r i o r i t y low some high highest 6. In our organization we communicate information about the problem we are attempting to solve to the following groups f o r the following purposets).. Consumers Other Agencies The Public Funders Awareness I) Cooperation 4 f Support 5 b 7 . In our organization i n order to obtain funds i t i s important to have a c l e a r written statement of goals and objectives. _J 2 J O 2 - U P IX) disagree disagree neutral agree agree strongly strongly 0. In our organization we give the following p r i o r i t y to setting down a c l e a r written statement cf goals and objectives. _ i 2 no p r i o r i t y low some high highest 163 9- In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we communicate i n f o r m a t i o n about our g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s to the f o l l o w i n g groups i n order to achieve the f o l l o w i n g purposes. Consumers Other Agencies The Public Funders Awareness Co o p e r a t i o n / Support 2. 3 10. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n order to o b t a i n funds i t i s important to have a w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l of our programs. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y 111 d i s a g r e e programs ti) (3) n e u t r a l agree agree s t r o n g l y 11. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we g i v e the f o l l o w i n g p r i o r i t y to w r i t i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l of our programs. " to no p r i o r i t y low some h i g h h i g h e s t 12. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we communicate i n f o r m a t i o n about our programs to the f o l l o w i n g groups to achieve the f o l l o w i n g p u r p o s e ( s ) . (Please t i c k a l l a p p r o p r i a t e boxes.) . • Consumers OtherAgencies The P u b l i c Funders Awareness <& . ? Cooperation 5 L Support 5 5 O 164 13- In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funis i t i s important to have a a l i n e budget f~J a de ta i l ed l i n e budget / % / a funct iona l budget /J/J M 0"0 A r U CO \k. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to preparing a budget. _1 2 ** C * ) 5 no p r i o r i t y low some high highest 15. In our organizat ion we communicate the information contained i n our budget to the fo l lowing groups for the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness 3 Cooperation 5 1 <3 Support 1 3 7 16. In our organiza t ion , i n order to obtain funds i t i s important to have a d e s c r i p t i o n of our management s t ructure . 0) SZ) ... , - ,., 1^—— .1. disagree disagree neutra l agree agree s t rong ly s t rong ly 17. In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to preparing a d e s c r i p t i o n of our management s t ruc ture . 4 z O ) T ( 3 \ U ( 5 ) disagree disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly s trongly 165 1 8 . In our organizat ion we communicate information about our management s tructure to the fo l lowing groups to achieve the the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k all appropriate boxes). C onsu i e r s Other Agencies The Pub l i c Funders Awareness H 3 C Cooperation 3 / H-Support •a- a. 19« In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds i t i s important to p u b l i c i z e our organiza t ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 T fa) W6) 6 CaJ disagree disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly s t rongly 2 0 . In our organizat ion we give the fo l lowing p r i o r i t y to p u b l i -c i z i n g our organiza t ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s . _i i iCti_ ^5) 5 (n no p r i o r i t y low some high highest 2 1 . In our organizat ion we communicate information about our organiza t ion ' s a c t i v i t i e s to the fo l lowing groups f o r the fo l lowing purpose(s) . (Please t i c k a l l appropriate boxes.) Consumers OtherAgencies The Publ ic Funders Awareness T 7 7-Cooperation 5 Support 5 7 2 2 . In our organiza t ion , i n order to obtain funds i t i s important that we produce an Annual Report. 3 ( 0 »C3, <j(t) neutra l agree agree s t rong ly _1 2 disagree disagree s t rongly 166 23. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we g i v e the f o l l o w i n g p r i o r i t y to producing an Annual Report. 1 no p r i o r i t y low s o m e h i g h h i g h e s t 24. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we communicate the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d m our Annual Report to the f o l l o w i n g groups f o r the f o l l o w i n g p u r p o s e ( s ) . (Please t i c k a l l a p p r o p r i a t e boxes.) g Consumers Other Agencies The P u b l i c Funders Awareness s 6. L 9 C o o p e r a t i o n 1 3 8 Support 1 3 5" 25- In our o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n order to o b t a i n funds i t i s important to prepare an e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t . p a x 1 C O d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e n e u t r a l £ 3 j agree i l l ) agree s t r o n g l y 26. In our organization we give the following p r i o r i t y to preparing an evaluation report. Y 1 no p r i o r i t y low (2) some high :Cr) ;Cl) h i g h e s t 27. In our o r g a n i z a t i o n we communicate the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d iL°^r a-U a t l°n r e p ? r ? t 0 , t h e following groups to achieve the f o l l o w i n g p u r p o s e ( s ) . (Please t i c k a l l a p p r o p r i a t e boxes.) Consumers Other Agencies The p u b l i c 'Funders Awareness H 4- f Cooperation i 5" / 5 Support 3 3 9 167 28. In our organ iza t ion , we f i n d that the greater the number of communications with other agencies, the more aware those agencies are of us. J U 2 iOJ 4 0 - 0 disagree disagree neutra l agree agree s t rongly s t rongly 29, In our organiza t ion , we f i n d that the more aware other agencies are of us, the more they cooperate with us. 1 disagree disagree neutra l agree l igree s i n g l y . s t rongly 30. In our organizat ion we f i n d that the more cooperative other agencies are with us, the more supportive funders are towards our requests. 1 zO) {.*>) sfc> disagree disagree n e u t r a l a g r e e a g r e e s t rong ly s t rongly 31. In our organizat ion , we f i n d that the more dependent we are • on a s ing le funding source, the more we communicate with them. _1 ^ disagree disagree neut ra l agree agree s t rong ly s t rongly 32. In our organizat ion i n order to obtain funds, i t i s important fo r the executive, d i r e c t o r to have l i n k s with: (rank 1 most, 6 leas t ) Consumers Z37 ^ ^ Other Agencies /JJJ The Publ ic Z57 Funders /TJ Profess ionals /EJ P o l i t i c i a n s /JJJ 168 33- ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? 34. P lease i n d i c a t e the t ime i t took to complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i ^ ^ 3L. minutes THANKYOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN TO: S. Willms School of S o c i a l Work U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 169 copy APPENDIX I I I SPARC-SPAR Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Covering L e t t e r SOCIAL PLANNING AND REVIEW COUNCIL of BRITISH COLUMBIA 0109 - 2 1 8 2 W e s t 1 2 t h A v e n u e . V a n c o u v e r B C V6K 2N4 • (604) 736-4367 736-6621 M a r c h 18, 1980 D e a r E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , C u r r e n t a n d a n t i c i p a t e d d e v e l o p m e n t s w i t h i n t h e f u n d i n g a r e n a may s i g n i f i c a n t l y I m p a c t u p o n y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n . Some o f t h e o p t i o n s p r e s e n t l y u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by s e n i o r l e v e l s o f g o v e r n m e n t w i l l b e n e f i t f r o m i n p u t f r o m t h e v o l u n t a r y s o c i a l s e r v i c e c o m m u n i t y . C h a n g e s a r e t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t t h a t r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s t h e f u n d i n g o f c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s . A l s o , t h e new f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t , I n v o l v e d p r e v i o u s l y i n a r e v i e w o f s o c i a l s e r v i c e s l e g i s l a t i o n , I s e x p e c t e d t o n e g o t i a t e a d i f f e r e n t f u n d i n g f o r m u l a w i t h t h e p r o v i n c e s . T h e J o i n t C o m m i t t e e o f t h e S o c i a l P l a n n i n g a n d R e v i e w C o u n c i l ( S P A R C ) o f B . C . a n d ' t h e S o c i a l P l a n n i n g a n d R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t ( SPAR ) o f t h e U n i t e d Way o f t h e L o w e r M a i n l a n d was e s t a b l i s h e d In 1977 t o s e r v e a s a m o n i t o r i n g b o d y I n t h i s a r e a a n d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e v a r i o u s p r o p o s a l s t h a t h a v e come f o r w a r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o s o c i a l s e r v i c e s f i n a n c i n g , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e s h i f t f r o m c o s t - s h a r i n g t o b l o c k - f u n d i n g . ( S e e A p p e n d i x I I ) . In 1978 t h e H o n o u r a b l e M o n i q u e B e g i n , M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h 6 W e l f a r e , met w i t h t h e C o m m i t t e e a n d e n c o u r a g e d t h e g a t h e r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m v o l u n t a r y c o m m u n i t y a g e n c i e s I n o r d e r t o d o c u m e n t m a j o r p r o b l e m s , c l a r i f y i s s u e s a n d u l t i m a t e l y t o d e v e l o p v i a b l e f u n d i n g p o l i c y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . 171 No. OP.n/Vi11 ZAT 10' Th e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n t h i ^ s e c t i o n w i l l e n a b l e u s t o c a t e g o r i z e y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n by t y p e o f s e r v i c c ( s ) . s i z e , a r e a s e r v e 1, e t c . 1. W o u l d y o u o l c.Tse d e s c r i b e t h e g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s o f y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r a t t a c h t h a t p a g e o f y o u r C o n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h d e s c r i b e s t h e n " . ' h a t g e o g r a p h i c a r e a d o e s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n s e r v e ? 3. How many p e o p l e a r e i n t h i s a r e a ? 4. How n a n y p e o p l e u s e y o u r s e r v i c e s o r p r o g r a m s ? 5. What i s t h e n u m b e r o f v o l u n t e e r v / o r k c r s i n y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ? B o a r d a n d a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s D i r e c t s e r v i c e v o l u n t e e r s 6. What i s t h e n u m b e r o f p a i d w o r k e r s i n y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ? P r o f e s s i o n a l : f u l 1 -1 imef p a r t - t i m e [ A d m i n i s t r a t i o n / C l e r i c a l : f u i l - t i nie | | p a r t - t - t i me 7 . P l e a s e l i s t t h o s e d i r e c t s e r v i c e s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e s 8. P l e a s e l i s t t h o s e i n d i r e c t s e r v i c e s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e s . 172 FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL RELATIONS We would l i k e some feedback on your awareness of and response to the proposals that v/ere presented f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n which would have changed the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s funding arrangement between the Federal government and the P r o v i n c e s . 1. Are some or a l l of your services/programs cost-shared under the Canada A s s i s t a n c e Plant 19^ £ and/or the Vocational R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Disabled Persons Act \%M 2. Were you aware of proposed changes to the Canada A s s i s t a n c e Plan such as the suggested block-funding a l t e r n a t i v e ? 3. If yes to 2., d i d you consider the consequences f o r your o r g a n i z a t i o n ? U. Would you l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n f u t u r e f e d e r a l / p r o v i n c i a l d i s c u s s i o n s regarding the f i n a n c i n g of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s ? 5. If yes to U., in which ways would you do t h i s ? Yes flo • Yes • Ho Yes • no Yes • Ho a 6. Which funding arrangement would you p r e f e r at the fe d e r a 1 / p r o v i n c i a ! l e v e l ? c o s t - s h a r f n g Q block-fund! n g Q condi t l o n a l block-fund i n c f ~ ~ | don' t know! I other (please s p e c i f y ) 1 — 1 173 J H FUNDIIIC T h i s s e c t i o n a d d r e s s e s g e n e r a l f u n d i n g p r o b l e m s l e a d i n g t o t h e e r o s i o n o f a n o r n o n i z a t i o n 1 s r e s o u r c e b a s e a n d a t t e m p t s t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t s a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s o f g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g p o l i c i e s w i t h i n t h i s c o n t e x t . 1. I s f u n d i n g a p r o b l e m f o r y o u r o r q a n i z a t i o n ? Y e s 1 ( 2. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e d i f f i c u l t y y o u h a v e i n s e c u r i n g ' f u n d s ? P l e a s e c i r c l e the appropr iate number. no d i f f i c u l t y ft 1 2 3 5 g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y C h a n g e s i n f u n d i n g p a t t e r n s h a v e a f f e c t e d a l l v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s q u e s t i o n a t t e m p t s t o d e a l w i t h some o f t h e m a n i f e s t p r o b l e m s a n d e f f e c t s t h a t o c c u r a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e s e , " s h i f t s " . 3. Has y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e d a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h r e s p e c t t o g o v e r n m e n t f u n d s ? a ) a n i n c r e a s i n g t e n d e n c y f o r f u n d e r s t o d e f e r o r d e l a y f u n d i n g d e c i s i o n s . b ) i n c r e a s i n g l y , a m o u n t s r e q u e s t e d a r e e i t h e r t u r n e d down o r a l e s s e r sum i s a w a r d e d . c ) f u n d e r s p r o v i d i n g i n a d e q u a t e o r n o c o s t o f l i v i n g i n c r e a s e . d ) a s h i f t f r o m c o r e f u n d i n g t o u n i t c o s t f u n d i n g . e ) a t i g h t e n i n g o f c r i t e r i a t o e x c l u d e p r e v i o u s l y f u n d e d p r o g r a m s a n d / o r c o s t ' f ) o t h e r - p l e a s e s p e c i f y h e r e If NO Q g o t Q q u e s t ; o n g If YES Q use l e t t e r 1 f 1 In the matrix INSTRUCTION 1 Rate the funding problems you have experienced from the above l i s t in order of importance by placing the letters corresponding to the problems in the brackets in the response matrix below. EXAMPLE: If you have experienced problems a, e, and c in that order of importance to you, put (a) in the f i r s t brackets, (e) in the seebnd, and . (c) in the third. Leave the others blank i f no other problem applies to you. 174 RESPONSE MATRIX FUNDING PROBLEMS (See I n s t r u c t i o n 1) ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTS (Sec Instruction 2) MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT MOST • LEAST IMPORTANT IMPORTANT P o s s i b l e N e g a t i v e E f f e c t s 1 - r educed c a p a c i t y f o r i n n o v a t i o n and deve lopment 2 - r educed s e r v i c e e f f e c t i v e n e s s 3 - r e d u c e d management e f f i c i e n c y ( s t a f f s u p e r v i s i o n , p l a n n i n g 6 C o - o r d i n a t i n g ) 4 - r e d u c e d l e v e l o f s e r v i c e 5 - r e d u c e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y t - lower s t a f f s a l a r i e s / w a g e s 7 - r e d u c t i o n in s t a f f i n g 3 - lower mora l e among worke r s 9 - o t h e r e f f e c t - s p e c i f y h e r e use* 9* In M t r t x 175 JZ GQVEP.MMEflT A L L O C A T I O N S TO VOLUNTARY ORGAN IZAT IONS . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e A l l o c a t i o n P r o c e s s - - T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l d e a l w i t h t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t e i n a l o c a l n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t a n d a r e Involved i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g p r o c e s s . F c d c r a 1 P r o v i n c i a 1 M u n i c i p a l How o f t e n d o y o u m e e t w i t h f u n d e r s t o d i s c u s s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s f u n d i n g n e e d s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f u n d e r ' s p r i o r i t i e s ? o n c e a y e a r q u a r t e r l y m o r e t h a n h D o c s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n s p e a k t o d c c i s i o n - m a k e r s p r i o r t o f u n d i n g d e c i s i o n s b e i n g made ? Y e s Mo 3. A r e y o u o r y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n a n y a d v i s o r y b o d y t o g o v e r n m e n t f u n d e r s ? Y e s No V/ould y o u d e s c r i b e t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s f u n d i n g p r o c e s s a s i n v o l v i n g c i t i z e n s i n t h e d e c i s i o n -mak i n g ? Y e s No 5. I s t h e l e v e l o f i n v o l v e m e n t s a t i s f a c t o r y ? Y e s No 6 . Is t h e f o c u s o f y o u r s e r v i c e s i n f l u e n c e d by g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g c r i t e r i a ? a g o o d d e a l some n o t a t a l l t i m e s a y e a r [ | • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 176 Information and A s s i s t a n c e A l s o of i n t e r e s t i s the amount and q u a l i t y of information and a s s i s t a n c e that i s made a v a i l a b l e by government funders t o the a p p l i c a n t s and r e c i p i e n t s of g r a n t s . 1. In your experience, how c l e a r l y do the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f government " s p e l l o u t " the f o l l o w i n g components of the funding process? Please i n d i c a t e whether you were made A)-»very aware, a good understanding B)-merely informed or C)-poor e x p l a n a t i o n and understanding. Fu r i o I r : n PROCESS Fodera1 • ProvInc i a 1 Municipal A n C A B r A 0 C Objectives and e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a i Stages of approval i Rationale or reasons for recommendation Ratio n a l e or reasons for f i n a l d e c i s i o n s Appeals process Funder Information needs, I.e. general r e p o r t i n g Funder's e v e l u a t l o n needs INSTRUCTION 2 Each specific funding problem experienced may have had one or more EFFECT(S) on your organization. Consult the l i s t of effects and for each funding problem you have indicated with a letter above, use the number corresponding to the effect to indicate how important this has been to your organization by placing the most important in the f i r s t space, the second most important effect in the next space etc. working from lef t to right in the response matrix. EXAMPLE: If you think "4 - reduced level of service" was the most important negative effect of "a - delay in funding", put 4 in the f i r s t space next to the problem (a). If "2 - reduced service effectiveness" was the next most important effect, put a 2 in the next space, and so on un t i l you have recorded a l l the effects you feel have occurred. Leave blank i f no effect occured. 177 Have you experienced cutbacks in the l e v e l of funding provided by government? Please i n d i c a t e at which l e v e l t h i s occured. Yes Mo Federal • D P r o v i n c i a l 1 1 I 1 Municipal Q Q If your answer to was yes, what do you think are the reasons f o r t h i s ? 10. Which of the f o l l o w i n g income sources rank them in order of p r i o r i t y from 1 do you see as most important? Please - most Important, to 10 - least Important, User charge Business donations Uni ted Way Foundat ions | 1 P r i v a t e Donations 1 | Memberships | | Fund-raising s a l e s / | | s e l f - g e n e r a t e d revenues • • • Do you consider your o r g a n i z a t i o n to have an appr o p r i a t e balance of p r i v a t e (non-government) and p u b l i c (govern-ment) funding support?, i . e . a good funding "mix" . p o l i c y l i m i t i n g the amount of government percentage of your t o t a l budget? Do you have a funding as a Are you attempting to reduce your dependency on government funding? Do you f e e l that government ought to be p r o v i d i n g more f i n a n c i a l support f o r your program? Please e l a b o r a t e -Federal d ) P r o v i n c i a l \ | Municipal | [ Yes|Zl No Q Y e s O No Q Y e s O Uo Q Y e s O No Q ] 178 A c c o u n t a b i 1 i t y G e n e r a l R c a o r t i n r ) - V i r t u a l l y a l l f u n d i n g b o d i e s d e m a n d s o m e t h i ng i n t h e w a y o f e e d b a c k f o r t h e f u n d s t h e y d i s b u r s e . 1. What i s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e o v e r a l l t i m e a l l o c a t e d by y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o c o l l e c t , c o m p i l e a n d r e p o r t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e m a n d e d by a l l y o u r f u n d e r s ? 2. Do y o u c o n s i d e r t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e s p e n t t o be e x c e s s i v e ? 3. How many m e m b e r s o f y o u r s t a f f s h a r e t h i s r e p o r t i n g r e s p o n s i b i 1 i t y ? Mo r R e p o r t i n g a n d P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n - Of t h e many r e a s o n s t h a t f u n d e r s may h a v e f r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e o n e m o s t o f t e n c i t e d i s t o g a u g e t h e i m p a c t o f p r o g r a m s . 1. What p r o v i s i o n s , i f a n y , d o f u n d e r s make f o r f u n d i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t h - v r e q u e s t / d e m a n d ? - N o s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s - T h e y r e q u i r e a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e p r o g r a m f u n d s b e a l l o c a t e d t o e v a l u a t i o n - O t h e r : ( P l e a s e s p e c i f y ) Tick the statement(s) which best describe(s) your views about the changes, i f any, i n funders' approaches to c o l l e c t i n g information f o r the purpose of "evaluating" program performance. Please check the a p p r o p r i a t e box. Over the l a s t three years, funders appear to have — - Increased t h e i r demands f o r information p e r t a i n i n g both to f i s c a l and operational aspects of programs. - Increased t h e i r demands f o r information p e r t a i n i n g s o l e l y to f i s c a l performance. - Increased t h e i r demands f o r information p e r t a i n i n g s o l e l y to programming matters (e.g. amounts/types of services rendered, program outcomes, e t c . ) . - Not changed t h e i r demands f o r information p e r t a i n i n g to f i s c a l and oper a t i o n a l aspects o f programming. - Reduced t h e i r demands f o r information concerning both f i s c a l and operational aspects of programming. - Reduced t h e i r demands f o r information p e r t a i n i n g to f i s c a l performance. 179 3. P i c k the statement which best d e s c r i b e s the focus of the e v a l u a t i o n s requested by funders. —The e v a l u a t i o n s are expected to focus p r i m a r i l y on program performance, • —The e v a l u a t i o n s are expected to focus p r i m a r i l y on the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n / I | o r g a n i z a t i o n of the program. • —The e v a l u a t i o n s are expected to pay equal a t t e n t i o n to program performance and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e processes. ' i . When, and i f , your funders demand e v a l u a t i o n s of e i t h e r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s or the e f f i c i e n c y of your programs, how much d i s c r e t i o n do they permit you i n regard to d e c i d i n g how the e v a l u a t i o n w i l l be conducted? — V i r t u a l l y a l l my funders permit no d i s c r e t i o n w i t h respect to how the e v a l u a t i o n w i l l be conducted; they demand that we r e c r u i t someone from o u t s i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n to conduct the e v a l u a t i o n . — More than h a l f of my funders permit no d i s c r e t i o n . — Less than h a l f o? my funders permit no d i s c r e t i o n . — V i r t u a l l y a l l of my funders give us complete d i s c r e t i o n ; we can e i t h e r r e c r u i t an o u t s i d e e v a l u a t o r or complete the study o u r s e l v e s . • • • • 180 1 PURCHASE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS A major p o l i c y change o f the government has been t o i n t r o d u c e p u r c h a s e o f S e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s . Two i m p o r t a n t a r e a s o f c o n c e r n a r e the broad p o l i c y i s s u e o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between government and v o l u n t a r y s e c t o r , and the more s p e c i f i c i s s u e s o f c o n t r a c t management. 1. Hove y o u , o r hove you had, a p u r c h a s e o f s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t w i t h government? .2. P l e a s e s p e c i f y w i t h w h i c h M i n i s t r i e s o r depar t m e n t s you have o r have K i d a c o n t r a c t . Yes • No r j 3. Has the method o f f u n d i n g t o your o r g a n i z a t i o n changed from p r o j e c t s and g r a n t s f u n d i n g to p u r c h a s e o f s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s ? Yes i U o «f. Do p u r c h a s e o f s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s mean any o f the f o l l o w i n g t o y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ? Y e s • flo a) a l o n g e r - t e r m committment by the f u n d e r t o s u p p o r t you? j j } \ b) more c o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s ? | | | ) c) more f l e x i b i l i t y f o r your o r g a n i z a t i o n ? [ | | [ d) more f l e x i b i l i t y f o r the f u n d e r ? ( | | | e) a dependency upon government? [ | | j f ) an i n d e p e n d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h government? | J J | g) an i n t e r d e p e n d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h government? | | | [ h) more c o n t r o l by you r o r g a n i z a t i o n ? | | [ | i ) more c o n t r o l by the f u n d e r ? j j | j Do you see you r o r g a n i z a t i o n as an e q u a l p a r t n e r i n the . • c o n t r a c t u a l p r o c e s s ? Yes I I 5. Do you see t h e s e c o n t r a c t s t o be l e g a l l y b i n d i n g ? Yes £ Mo 6 . Do p u r c h a s e o f s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s a f f e c t y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e l a t i o n s t o s t a f f ? I f y e s , i n w h i c h ways? Y e s [ | No I I 181 Should there be a procedure of n o t i f y i n g agencies that c o n t r a c t s are a v a i l a b l e so that they can f r e e l y compete fo r them? Do c o n t r a c t s r e q u i r e s p e c i a l s k i l l s i n order to ne g o t i a t e s e r v i c e rates and c o n t r a c t terms? From your p e r c e p t i o n s , what are the main advantages and disadvantages of the purchase of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t both f o r the funder and the o r g a n i z a t i o n ? Yes • Uo D Yes • Uo • 182 TT F I N A N C I A L DATA 1376/77 - 197?/°0 Please i n d i c a t e the source and amount of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s income below; you may f i n d i t use f u l to consult your annual a u d i t / r e p o r t f o r the required amounts. ••' Please i n d i c a t e next to the amount whether i t i s — (s) s u s t a i n i n g / c o r e grants - r e f e r s to ongoing b a s i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l monies (p) p r o j e c t grants - time l i m i t e d , short-term demonstration or "seed" money (c) purchase of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s - purchase of defined u n i t s of s e r v i c e at f i x e d rate under s p e c i f i e d terms. SOURCES OF FUNDING 1. Federa l Government Hea l th I We l fa re : - Research Grant - Demonstration P ro jec t Sec re ta ry o f S t a t e : - P a r t i c i p a t i o n Grant - Student P r o j e c t Grant •79/80 •78/79 •77/78 u u '76/77 to u Employment & Immigration - L I P - LEAP - Youth Job Corps - Young Canada Works - Canada Works Sol l e i t o r General 183 ^ SOURCES OF FUNDING '79/80 •78/79 •77/78 •76/77 $ $ —, u $ o $ \ u C U p . tn 2. P r o v i n c i a l Government M.H.R. : ~ Community Grants Hea l th : -At to rney -Genera l : " Development Fund P r o v i n c i a l Sec re ta ry : Other: 3. Mun ic ipa l Government 1 - 1 U n i t e d Way 5- P r i v a t e Donat ions 6 . P r i v a t e Foundat ions 184 SOURCES OF FUNDING ' 7 9 / 8 0 '78/79 ' 7 7/78 ' 7 6/77 $ 7. Co rpora te Donat ions •v. o > H . XX. '« $ s/p/c/ $ s/p/c/ $ s/p/c/ 8. Membership 5. Fund R a i s i n q S a l ^ / 5 e l r - g e n o r a t e d r e -venues 10. O ther Comments: THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION. C D P lease send summary of f inal! report 185 A P P E N 0 I X JOINT COMMITTEE SPARC/SPAR The Committee'S terms of reference a r c : 1. the ongoing monitoring of l e g i s l a t i o n in the f i e l d of s o c i a l s e r v i c e f i n a n c i n g and s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y ; ?. the s o l i c i t i n g of input from the volu n t a r y s e c t o r i n D.C. w i t h regards to the development of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and p e r t i n e n t l e g i s l a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in reference to the Canada A s s i s t a n c e Plan and the Vo c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i -t a t i o n of Disabled Persons Act 3. the development of a comprehensive document on community s e r v i c e funding p o l i c i e s of government to i n c l u d e : a) a d e f i n i t i o n and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of pr o j e c t funding, purchase of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s and s u s t a i n i n g g r a n t s . b) a statement o u t l i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of p r i v a t e / p u b l i c - f u n d i n g to non-p r o f i t community s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . c) a d e l i n e a t i o n of issues r e l a t e d to c r i t e r i a , e v a l u a t i o n and c o - o r d i n a t i o n of s o c i a l s e r v i c e funding. FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS Although p r i m a r i l y a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the provinces, the Federal government became i n c r e a s i n g l y involved in s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and enacted the V o c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Disabled Persons Act in 1961 and Canada A s s i s t a n c e Plan In 1966 in order to enable the provinces and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to provide c e r t a i n c o s t -shared s e r v i c e s to persons " i n need". Growing d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h Canada's s o c i a l s e c u r i t y system, however, p r e c i p i t a t e d the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Review i n 1?73« For a number of reasons, i t s focus s h i f t e d to s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and i t i d e n t i f i e d a compelling need to extend, develop and improve s o c i a l s e r v i c e s In a l l parts of the country. Canada As s i s t a n c e Plan was a l s o f e l t to be Inadequate because, b a s i c a l l y , i t d i d not provide funding f o r s e r v i c e s on a u n i v e r s a l b a s i s . A c c o r d i n g l y , B i l l C57, the S o c i a l S e r v i c e s A c t , was introduced In 1377 to replace the welfare s e r v i c e s p r o v i s i o n s of Canada A s s i s t a n c e P l a n , the V o c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Disabled Persons Act and Young Offenders Agreement In some prov i n c e s . It broadened c o n s i d e r a b l y both the types of programs e l i g i b l e f o r c o s t - s h a r i n g and the e l i g i b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s under which c o s t - s h a r i n g would apply. 186 It q u i c k l y became e v i d e n t , however, t h a t the f u n d i n g f o r m u l a was no l o n g e r a p p r o p r i a t e . The p r o v i n c e s demanded more autonomy in the s e l e c t i o n and p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s , the F e d e r a l government wanted g r e a t e r c o n t r o l o v e r e x p e n d i t u r e s and b o t h c l a i m e d the a r r a n g e m e n t was t o o c o m p l e x . C o n s e q u e n t l y , B U I C 55. the S o c i a l S e r v i c e s F i n a n c i n g A c t , was p r o p o s e d . It d i f f e r e d f r om C57 o n l y i n I t s f i n a n c i a l f o r m u l a . The b l o c k - f u n d i n g a p p r o a c h was l e s s c o n d i t i o n a l and more f l e x i b l e than t h e c o s t - s h a r i n g o n e . However , i t was r e g a r d e d w i t h s k e p t i c i s m b e c a u s e o f i t s l i m i t e d p o t e n t i a l - t h e r e was l e s s i n c e n t i v e f o r g rowth and d e v e l o p m e n t . Some thought t h a t t he e l i m i n a t i o n o r r e d u c t i o n o f F e d e r a l c o n t r o l wou ld l e a d t o a r e d u c t i o n of s e r v i c e s bot'.i q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y and t h a t minimum s t a n d a r d s wou ld o n l y p e r p e t u a t e r e g i o n a l d i s p a r i t i e s . In I'.ovember 1*37? t h e b l o c k - f u n d i n g p r o p o s a l was t e m p o r a r i l y w i t h d r a w n b e c a u s e o f the d e c i s i o n t o adopt a p o l i c y o f f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t . P r e s e n t l y , t h e r e Is o p p o s i t i o n t o b l o c k - f u n d i n g t h a t l a c k s m e a n i n g f u l F e J e r a l c o n d i t i o n s . It Is l i k e l y t h a t a resumed F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l s o c i a l s e r v i c e s I n i t i a t i v e w o u l d e v o l v e a r o u n d the c o n c e p t o f " c o n d i t i o n a l b l o c k - f u n d i n g " . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095061/manifest

Comment

Related Items