Taking Nonprofit Intermediaries Seriously: A Middle‐Range Theory for Implementation Research

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02306.x
• Author: Jennifer Shea
• Date: 01 January 2011
• Published date: 01 January 2011

Focus on Seminal

Nonprof‌i t

Management

Issues

Jennifer Shea is an assistant professor

in the Department of Public Administration

at San Francisco State University, where

she teaches and conducts research in

public policy and nonprof‌i t management.

Her current research focuses on policy

implementation frameworks and community

empowerment initiatives that rely on non-

governmental actors for their success. Her

doctoral dissertation in public policy focused

on the impact of Compassion Capital

Fund Demonstration Program funds on the

f‌i eld of high-risk youth services in Boston,

Massachusetts.

E-mail: jshea@sfsu.edu

Taking Nonprof‌i t Intermediaries Seriously 57

intermediaries are tasked with providing subawards,

capacity-building, training, and technical assistance to

FBCOs that deliver a range of services in one of the

priority areas identi ed by the Department of Health

and Human Services in low-income communities.

Public managers look to non-

pro t intermediaries to help

implement policies because

those intermediaries are seen

as better able to identify and

support local FBCOs whose

work may be e ective but whose

organizational capacities make it

impracticable to partner directly

with the federal government

(White House 2008). More

than conduits of funding or

implementation arms of the

federal government, nonpro t

intermediaries add value for

all parties in the r elationships

they mediate. At a minimum, they reduce transaction

costs by facilitating exchange for public managers and

FBCOs, but they also may play other roles (Benjamin,

forthcoming; Benner 2003; Brown and Kalegaonkar

2002). Nonpro t intermediaries that fail to add value

to public agencies and FBCOs may face crises of  nan-

cial viability or legitimacy (or both).

 ese two funding programs are part of a change

process that is referred to as indirect, third-party, or

collaborative governance, in which the federal govern-

ment surrenders direct control over policy implemen-

tation and instead relies on networks or coordinated

models (Hill and Hupe 2009; Kettl 2002; Rhodes

2007). As providing federal funding to FBCOs

through nonpro t intermediaries has gained popu-

larity over the past decade, it has sparked a range of

debates, frequently centered on the merits or de cien-

cies of indirect governance or controversies related to

the funding of faith-based organizations (De Vita and

Twombly 2006; DiIulio 2007; Kennedy and Bielefeld

 e federal government often works through nonpro t

intermediaries to reach and empower communities

in the United States. One increasingly popular policy

strategy is to o er grant funding to intermediary

organizations in an e ort to strengthen communities.

Funded intermediaries are tasked

with building the capacity of

faith-based and community

organizations at the local level,

but the policy theory that informs

these programs does not specify

how these capacity-building e orts

will lead to stronger communities.

Missing is a middle-range

implementation theory that

links inputs to community-level

changes through the actions of

an intermediary. Derived from

empirical case study evidence

using process-tracing analysis,

the theory of the community-

integrated intermediary posited in

this article helps  ll that gap.

In the United States, the federal government

often works through nonpro t intermediaries

to reach and empower communities. Interme-

diaries are seen as partners, helping federal agencies

reach faith-based and secular community-based

organizations (FBCOs) so that those organizations

can, in turn, serve and strengthen communities in

need. For example, since 2002, the Administration

for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, has

awarded $174,822,888 to support nonpro t capacity-

building initiatives through the Compassion Capital

Fund (CCF) Demonstration Program (see http://

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ccf/about_ccf/index.

html). Based on the CCF model, the Strengthening

Communities Fund of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act awarded another $34 million in

 scal year 2009 to nonpro t intermediary organiza-

tions through the ACF (DHHS 2009a). Funded

Taking Nonpro t Intermediaries Seriously: A Middle-Range

 eory for Implementation Research

Jennifer Shea

San Francisco State University

Public managers look to

nonpro t intermediaries to help

implement policies because

those intermediaries are seen

as better able to identify and

support local [faith-based and

secular community-based

organizations (FBCOs)] whose

work may be e ective but whose

organizational capacities make it

impracticable to partner directly

with the federal government.