Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How a Nonprofitness Orientation Influences Collective Civic Action: The Effects of Civic Engagement and Political Participation

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations volume 33, pages 1051–1063 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

This research addresses the question of how the institutional frame of “nonprofitness” shapes the civic activities pursued by community-based nonprofit organizations (CBOs). Specifically, we study how an organizational commitment and orientation to traditional nonprofit values affect activities that foster collective civic action. We draw on the theoretical frame of institutionalism to examine the role of CBOs as organizational actors that foster civic health through their collective civic action. Our research employs a structural equation model to test associations among several constructs, highlighting the interaction of key variables and activities. Based on our analysis of original survey data, we argue that nonprofits develop a civic capacity through the praxis of nonprofit values, civic health activities, and collective civic action. Our findings extend existing research through new measurement tools that capture the institutional orientation of community-based nonprofits that shapes the nature of their involvement in civil society and collective civic action.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Albrecht, K. (2018). Institutional logics and accountability: advancing an integrated framework in nonprofit-public partnerships. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 4(3), 284–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwell, M., Bridgeland, J., & Levine, P. (2017). Civic deserts: America’s civic health challenge Retrieved from National Conference on Citizenship. Washington, DC: https://www.ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017CHIUpdate-FINAL-small.pdf

  • Alexander, J., & Fernandez, K. (2020). The impact of neoliberalism on civil society and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 12(2), 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J., & Nank, R. (2009). Public—nonprofit partnership: Realizing the new public service. Administration & Society, 41(3), 364–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ba, Y., Berrett, J., & Coupet, J. (2021). Panel data analysis: A guide for nonprofit studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00342-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A., Boenigk, S., & Willems, J. (2020). In nonprofits we trust? A large-scale study on the public’s trust in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 32(2), 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Neuhaus, R. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffardi, A. L., Pekkanen, R. J., & Smith, S. R. (2017). Proactive or protective? Dimensions of and advocacy activities associated with reported policy change by nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1226–1248.

  • Child, C., Witesman, E., & Spencer, R. (2016). The blurring hypothesis reconsidered: How sector still matters to practitioners. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1831–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, J. J. (2018). Service-providing nonprofits working in coalition to advocate for policy change. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K. (2017). Nonprofit participation in collective impact: A comparative case. Community Development, 48(4), 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K., & Shumate, M. (2012). Interorganizational Collaboration Explored Through the Bona Fide Network Perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, J., & Ospina, S. M. (2016). Nonprofits as ‘“schools of democracy”’ a comparative case study of two environmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 478–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, K., & Alexander, J. (2017). The institutional contribution of community based nonprofit organizations to civic health. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 39(4), 436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, K., Robichau, R., & Alexander, J. (2019). Fostering civic health: An analysis of the generative and mediating activities of community-based organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 762–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrow, E. E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2014). Institutional logics, moral frames, and advocacy: Explaining the purpose of advocacy among nonprofit human-service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 308–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy, F., Shier, M. L., & McDougle, L. M. (2014). Nonprofits and the promotion of civic engagement: A conceptual framework for understanding the “civic footprint” of nonprofits within local communities. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(1), 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasenfeld, Y., & Schmid, H. (1989). The life cycle of human service organizations: An administrative perspective. Administration in Social Work, 13(3–4), 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommerich, C. (2015). Feeling disconnected: Exploring the relationship between different forms of social capital and civic engagement in Japan. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, H., & Suárez, D. (2019). Beyond service provision: Advocacy and the construction of nonprofits as organizational actors. In H. Hokyu, A. C. Jeannette, & S. D. Gili (Eds.), Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority. Vol. 58, pp. 87–109.

  • Jeong, H. O. (2013). From civic participation to political participation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(4), 1138–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2007). NGO research program: A collective action perspective. Policy Sciences, 40(3), 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keating, E. K., Fischer, M., Gordon, T. P., & Greenlee, J. S. (2005). Assessing financial vulnerability in the nonprofit sector. Available at SSRN 647662. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=647662

  • King, D., & Griffin, M. (2019). Nonprofits as schools for democracy: The justifications for organizational democracy within nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 910–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, W. L., & Brock, K. L. (2014). Introductory essay: From a closed system to an open system: A parallel critical review of the intellectual trajectories of publicness and nonprofitness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1113–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapworth, L., James, P., & Wylie, N. (2018). Examining public service motivation in the voluntary sector: Implications for public management. Public Management Review, 20(11), 1663–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2020). Which voluntary organizations function as schools of democracy? Civic engagement in voluntary organizations and political participation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1–14.

  • LeRoux, K. (2007). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K., & Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 514–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichterman, P., & Eliasoph, N. (2014). Civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 120(3), 798–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longhofer, W., Negro, G., & Roberts, P. W. (2019). The changing effectiveness of local civic action: The critical nexus of community and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. (2015). Organizational or social benefits? The progressiveness of policy advocacy in nonprofit human service organizations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(5), 509–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4_supp) 177S-203S.

  • Mathews, M. A. (2020). The embeddedness of nonprofit leadership in civic governance. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(1), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosley, J. E. (2020). Social service nonprofits: Navigating conflicting demands. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 251–270.

  • Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NCoC (2006). America's civic health index: broken engagement. National Conference on Citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2006BrokenEngagementCHI.pdf

  • Olivier, T. (2019). How do institutions address collective-action problems? Bridging and bonding in institutional design. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 162–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., Mosley, J. E., & Grogan, C. M. (2018). Do residents of low-income communities trust organizations to speak on their behalf? Differences by organizational type. Urban Affairs Review, 54(1), 137–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, X., & Liang, C. (2019). Before nonprofit organisations become social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 460–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. Edited by W. Lance Bennett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 97–118.

  • Robichau, R. W., & Fernandez, K. (2017). Intersectoral experiences: Nonprofit managers and sector influences in child welfare Agencies. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1193586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robichau, R. W., & Wang, L. (2018). Marketization strategies and the influence of business on the management of child welfare agencies. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(2), 146–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robichau, R. W., Fernandez, K., & Kraeger, P. (2015). An integrated framework of inter-sectorality: Nonprofitness and its influence on society and public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., McAdam, D., MacIndoe, H., & Weffer-Elizondo, S. (2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), 673–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. A. (2007). Connections and disconnections between civic engagement and social capital in community-based nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 572–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. S., & Donovan, J. T. (2001). The five life stages of nonprofit organizations: Where you are, where you're going, and what to expect when you get there. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation

  • Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Making sense of the civic engagement debate. In Civic engagement in American democracy, 1–26. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

  • Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, D. (2020). 20. Advocacy, Civic Engagement, and Social Change. In W. Powell & P. Bromley (Ed.), The Nonprofit Sector (pp. 491–506). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Sullivan, G., & Arino, A. R., Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suykens, B., Meyfroodt, K., Desmidt, S., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Does performance-based accountability impact how non-profit directors perceive organizational performance? Insights from rational planning. Public Management Review, 1–28.

  • Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Ki, E. (2018). Membership matters: Why members engage with professional associations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, C. (2020). The perceived differences: The sector stereotype of social service providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1293–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., & Guo, C. (2021). No advocacy without representation? Nonprofit representational mix and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21479

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members and leaders of the San Antonio Nonprofit Council for their funding and collaboration in the implementation and study of the State of the Sector research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, College for Health, Community & Policy, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, USA

    Kandyce Fernandez

  2. Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

    Robbie Waters Robichau

  3. University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, USA

    Jennifer K. Alexander

  4. University of Alabama at Huntsville, Huntsville, USA

    William I. Mackenzie

  5. Trinity University, San Antonio, USA

    Robert F. Scherer

Authors
  1. Kandyce Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robbie Waters Robichau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer K. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William I. Mackenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert F. Scherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kandyce Fernandez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Survey Items

Appendix: Survey Items

“Indicate how well the following statements describe your organization's work.”

Nonprofitness Orientation (NP)

Act as an alternative to government by protecting and promoting individual and community values and interests. (NP1)

Experiment or be innovative in programs, processes, and service delivery. (NP2).

Drive social change. (NP3).

Serve poor, under-represented, or disadvantaged individuals. (NP4).

Provide or supplement services government and businesses cannot or do not offer. (NP5).

Community and Individual Engagement (CIE)

Actively facilitates opportunities for stakeholders (e.g. staff, volunteers, and clients) to engage or network with one another through events or meetings. (CIE1)

Holds meetings, events, or activities that engage clients AND members of the broader community (those not directly served by your nonprofit). (CIE2)

Fosters awareness among clients of community issues that may impact them. (CIE3).

Promotes client/citizen participation in community related events or activities. (CIE4).

Has members of the client community on the board. (CIE5).

Has structured ways for members of the client community to shape programming within my organization, other than serving on the board. (CIE6)

Political Participation (PP)

Represents client interests to governmental agencies. (PP1).

Represents client needs in larger, inter-organizational settings/meetings. (PP2).

Acts on behalf of clients by articulating local policy responses to community-based issues impacting them. (PP3)

Collective Civic Action (CCA)

Engages with other organizations to address broader community issues. (CCA1).

Promote causes and policies on behalf of clients and communities. (CCA2).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez, K., Robichau, R.W., Alexander, J.K. et al. How a Nonprofitness Orientation Influences Collective Civic Action: The Effects of Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Voluntas 33, 1051–1063 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00445-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00445-4

Keywords

  • Civic health
  • Institutionalism
  • Nonprofitness
  • Collective civic action
  • Community-based organizations

Search

Navigation