Paternalistic or Participatory Governance? Examining Opportunities for Client Participation in Nonprofit Social Service Organizations

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01996.x
• Author: Kelly LeRoux
• Published date: 01 May 2009
• Date: 01 May 2009

Kelly LeRoux

University of Kansas

Paternalistic or Participatory Governance? Examining

Opportunities for Client Participation in Nonprof‌i t

Social Service Organizations

Promoting

Participation

Inside

Government

Kelly LeRoux is an assistant professor

in the Department of Public Administration

at the University of Kansas. Her research

interests include service contracting,

government–nonprof‌i t relations, and civic

engagement.

E-mail: kleroux@ku.edu

Nonpro f‌i ts represent a substantial group of third-party

agents that deliver public services, yet little is known

about the extent to which these organizations embrace

participatory governance practices. Using survey data

from nonprof‌i t social service agencies in Michigan,

the author examines how these organizations provide

opportunities for client participation and identif‌i es

factors that contribute to these practices. Four methods of

securing client involvement are examined: participation

in agency work groups, client feedback surveys, advisory

boards and committees, and client service on the

agency board of directors.  e results indicate that

government funding plays a systematic role in promoting

these activities within nonprof‌i ts.  ese f‌i ndings carry

important implications for the government–nonprof‌i t

contract relationship by demonstrating that government

funding shapes the practices of nonprof‌i ts in ways that

promote democratic governance.

Local administrative agencies have a long history

of seeking input from their citizens in the form

of public hearings and feedback surveys, and

providing opportunities for participation through

citizen advisory boards, commissions, steering com-

mittees, task forces, and similar forums.  ese venues

are designed to ensure democratic participation by

giving citizens a voice in service planning and in

local administrative decisions.  ese forums were

also designed with the goal of

enhancing administrative ac-

countability. Given the inability

of the electorate to hold public

employees directly accountable,

these measures of‌f er at least an

indirect means for citizens to

promote accountability among

local bureaucratic agencies. Yet

the rise of third-party govern-

ment has created a new dilem-

ma for democratic participation

and administrative account-

ability. Over the past several

decades, public organizations

have increasingly engaged private providers in the

delivery of public services, which raises an important

question for the f‌i eld of public administration: What

happens to democratic participation when the delivery

of public services is entrusted to private providers?

Private nonprof‌i t organizations represent a substan-

tial group of third-party agents that deliver public

services.  e trend toward privatization of health and

human services that began in the 1960s has gradu-

ally shaped the American welfare state in such a way

that nonprof‌i ts now directly deliver the majority of

government-funded social welfare services (Salamon

1995). Salamon (2002) demonstrates that govern-

ment funding to the nonprof‌i t sector increased by

195 percent between 1977 and 1997. Other evidence

indicates that government revenues to the nonprof‌i t

sector reached $207.8 billion by the end of twentieth

century (Independent Sector 2002) and accounted for

approximately 52 percent of all income for the social

service sector (Salamon 2002). With more than half of

their revenues coming from government, private non-

prof‌i t social service agencies have grown increasingly

“public” by virtue of their funding. Although many

nonprof‌i ts function as extensions of the state, little

is known about whether these organizations adopt

a commitment to public values such as democratic

participation, or how this commitment translates into

organizational practices.

 is analysis contributes to the

knowledge base by examining

the extent to which nonprof‌i t

social service agencies display

participatory governance by

establishing forums for cli-

ent input. Borrowing from

the literature on methods of

citizen participation in local

government (Crosby, Kelly, and

Schaefer 1986; Kathlene and

Martin 1991) and the literature

on participation in nonprof‌i t

…the rise of third-party

government has created a

new dilemma for democratic

participation and administrative

accountability‥‥ [ is] raises

an important question for the

f‌i eld of public administration:

What happens to democratic

participation when the delivery

of public services is entrusted to

private providers?

504 Public Administration Review • May | June 2009