Abstract
Community-based hybrid nonprofits, defined as organizations that combine social services with organizing or advocacy, play a crucial role at the neighborhood level. Considering their nonconformity to conventional organizational forms, they face specific challenges and advantages in achieving their combined advocacy and service mission. Using neo-institutional theory to provide context to our data, this qualitative study of 18 nonprofits working in one neighborhood examines how hybrid nonprofits are categorized as well as processes for legitimacy for these organizations. We find that at the neighborhood level, hybrid nonprofits are identified as “grassroots” by both hybrids and non-hybrids alike and draw on this “grassroots” identity to achieve legitimacy. We examine the settings for this “grassroots” legitimacy and its challenges and conditions. Through cultivating a better understanding of community-based hybrid nonprofits, this study adds to the literature on how nonprofits provide services and organize at the neighborhood level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
ACORN (disbanded as of 2010) stood for Association for Community Reform Now, a group of community-based organizations in the USA that worked with low-income families on a variety of social issues.
We only included budgets when information for their neighborhood efforts was available from Guidestar. Three CBOs used a fiduciary for their 501c3, so we did not include this in the budget breakdown. In addition, we excluded the four branch offices of larger organizations since their 990s included significant work outside of the neighborhood.
References
Allard, S. W. (2009). Out of reach: Place, poverty, and the New American welfare state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Anasti, T. (2017). Radical professionals? Sex worker rights activists and collaboration with human service nonprofits. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 41, 416–437.
Armstrong, E. (2002). Forging gay identities: Organizing sexuality in San Francisco 1950–1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Battilana, J., & Matthew, L. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing-insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441.
Berry, J. B., & Arons, D. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Brooks, F. (2005). Resolving the dilemma between organizing and services: Los Angeles ACORN’s welfare advocacy. Social Work, 50, 262–270.
Chetkovich, C. A., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Cooney, K. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 17, 143–161.
D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 636–661.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Gates, A. B. (2014). Integrating social services and social change: Lessons from an Immigrant Worker Center. Journal of Community Practice, 22, 102–129.
Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. M., & Polletta, F. (2001). Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hannan, M. T. (2010). Partiality of memberships in categories and audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 159–181.
Hasenfeld, Y., & Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations: The contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 1, 97–112.
Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2014). Hybrid activism: Social movement mobilization in a multimovement environment. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 1047–1103.
Hsu, G., Hannan, M. T., & Koçak, Ö. (2009). Multiple category memberships in markets: A formal theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74, 150–169.
Hyde, C. (1992). The ideational system of social movement agencies. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hyde, C. (2000). The hybrid nonprofit: An examination of feminist social movement organizations. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 45–67.
Karriem, A., & Benjamin, L. M. (2016). How civil society organizations foster insurgent citizenship: Lessons from the Brazilian landless movement. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 27, 19–36.
Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review, 69, 265–291.
McQuarrie, M., & Marwell, N. (2009). The missing organizational dimension in urban sociology. City & Community, 8, 247–268.
Meyer, M. (2010). Social movement service organizations: The challenges and consequences of combining service provision and political advocacy. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Minkoff, D. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 377–401.
Mosley, J. (2010). The policy advocacy role of human service nonprofits: Incentives, involvement, and impact. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mosley, J. (2012). Keeping the lights on: How government funding concerns drive the advocacy agendas of nonprofit human service providers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 841–866.
Negro, G., Koçak, Ö., & Hsu, G. (2010). Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 31, 3–35.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Salamon, L. (1999). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: The Foundation Center.
Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1389–1438.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Edward Walker and Sara Terrana for their comments on earlier drafts and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.
Funding
This research was partially funded through the generous support of the UCLA Graduate Research Mentorship Award.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wells, R., Anasti, T. Hybrid Models for Social Change: Legitimacy Among Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations. Voluntas 31, 1134–1147 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00126-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00126-3