Classification of Program Activities Nonprofits Create Social Value Paper THE CASE STUDY IN (PDF FILE )THE REQUIREMENT AND Assignment Guidelines IN (WORD F

Classification of Program Activities Nonprofits Create Social Value Paper THE CASE STUDY IN (PDF FILE )THE REQUIREMENT AND Assignment Guidelines IN (WORD FILE )2000 WORD administrative
sciences
Article
Classification of Program Activities: How Nonprofits
Create Social Value
William Brown
Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA;
wbrown@tamu.edu
Academic Editor: Rita Mano
Received: 13 February 2017; Accepted: 10 May 2017; Published: 17 May 2017
Abstract: This paper defines and describes a framework to classify program activities utilized by
nonprofit organizations to achieve public benefit objectives. Drawing on theory and practice from
strategy, nonprofit management, and program planning, the paper proposes five program activities
differentiated by the value created. Several factors define and differentiate the approaches and serve
as decision areas for nonprofit managers when developing program strategies. Classifying program
activities facilitates further research as it provides a common language and framework to analyze
strategic choices enacted in nonprofit organizations.
Keywords: nonprofit strategy; program services
1. Introduction
Nonprofits engage in a variety of programs to produce public benefit outcomes. The United
States Internal Revenue Service refers to these activities as “program services” and requires tax exempt
organizations to detail “program service accomplishments” in part III of the form 990. The instructions
define “a program service is an activity of an organization that accomplishes its exempt purpose”.
The proposed classification system emphases public benefit outcomes as the key distinction among
activities. This paper defines and describes five program strategies that each result in different types of
outcomes. This paper seeks to address a gap in both nonprofit management and the strategy literature
that extends understanding on how managers enact programs to realize public benefit outcomes.
Placing the paper in the context of strategic management provides an approach that is less common
in nonprofit management literature [1–3] and extends program planning and evaluation literature.
The nature and content of program activities are described in other areas [4,5] but less so in relation to
nonprofit strategy. Program strategy is comparable to ‘business’ strategy, which is defined as the tactics
utilized to meet a distinct market opportunity [6]. In the nonprofits context, tactics are utilized to
meet public benefit needs [7] which is analogous to ‘market opportunity’. Business strategy literature
explores, describes and analyses generic business approaches [8], but comparable literature is limited in
the nonprofit context. The classification of program services supports further research that can compare
utilization and performance of program strategies in nonprofit organizations. Classification supports
analysis and understanding of nonprofit program activities [9,10]. The classification system facilitates
research because it identifies variables that influence implementation and performance outcomes as
well as providing an overall framework to understand how portfolios of program activities are utilized.
2. Program Activities
The classification of program activities is guided by framing intended outcomes across
different levels of analysis (individual, community, and socio/political) and considering the focus
of program activities. Outcomes are the benefits and change created as a result of program
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 12; doi:10.3390/admsci7020012
www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 12
2 of 7
activities [11]. The classification of value creation systems [12,13] is distinct from efforts that
classify organizations [14–18]. Nonprofit organizations may simultaneously address multiple types
of outcomes [19], but the classification of program activities is based on the idea that there is
unique actions related to each outcome of type. This draws on a perspective that conceptualizes
program activities as the transformation mechanism to create outcomes [20]. The paper proposes
classifying the approaches used by nonprofits organizations based on the value those program activities
create. For classifications to be conceptually sound the categories should be mutually exclusive and
conceptually exhaustive [21]. These program activities are conceptually distinct because they create
different types of change. Consequently, each approach has a focus of activity that aligns with the
intended outcome. The classification system is comprehensive as the outcome categories are drawn
from the roles and functions of nonprofits [15,17] and consequently encompass the range of functions
nonprofits play in society. The paper seeks to elaborate the distinctions among different approaches by
identifying features that have particular strategic and managerial implications.
Classifying program activities is important because explaining the range of program options and
the challenges of those approaches facilities understanding of program choice options for managers [22].
This also facilitates research to compare and contrast program choices implemented in different
contexts. Each program activity is based on a slightly different interpretation of social issues and
requires unique competencies [23]. There is substantive variation within each program area, but that
does not negate the distinctions between approaches. The five program areas are: service provider,
community builder, advocacy actor, creator/innovator, preservation player (see Table 1).
Table 1. Classification of Program Activities.
Level of Benefit
Individual
Community
Socio/Political
Innovation
Preservation
Type of Activity
Service
Provider
Community
Builder
Advocacy Actor
Creator and
Innovator
Preservation Player
Example
Activities
Education,
health care,
counseling
Social capital
building, public
education
Advocacy and
lobbying
Research or
artistic
activities
Historical or
ecological
conservation
Definition of
Need
Individual
condition
Community
Institutional
Lack of
Innovation
Potential for loss
Focus
Service
recipient
Group or
community
Political or
economic entity
Creative
process
Artifact
Beneficiary
Engagement
Direct
Direct and
indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Output
Amount and
quality of
service
Number engaged
Number of issues
addressed
Number of
elements
created
Number of
elements preserved
Example
Outcomes
Improved
beneficiary
Social capital and
norms
Influence
structures
Innovative
artifacts
Heritage
Social Value
Proposition
Healthy,
knowledgeable
individuals
Healthy, stable
relationships and
communities
Functioning and
just political and
economic systems
Informed and
beautiful
society
Historical and
ecological
appreciation and
value
These program activities can operate concurrently in the same organization. It is not uncommon
that organizations carry out services and community building or advocacy type activities [24]. This is a
potentially intriguing research question to explore how portfolios of program strategies are integrated
in organizational systems. For instance, Mitchell [25] clustered service delivery portfolios of NGOs that
reflected the approaches used to accomplishing organizational missions. These included: direct service
delivery, grassroots mobilization, capacity building, public education, advocacy, and research. There
is, however, no universal classification of delivery modalities framed as a strategic choice of managers.
Mitchell’s [25] work is of particular salience because it suggests the ability to organize the program
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 12
3 of 7
delivery activities according to levels addressed. From the individual level of service delivery through
community level grassroots organizing to social level activities associated with public education and
advocacy [26]. What is missing from many classification systems is a recognition of nonprofits are
also active in preservation and creative initiatives which are distinct from other forms of nonprofit
program delivery methods [10]. Table 1 summarizes each activity area and details how they differ
across a number of dimensions. These dimensions are drawn from systems program planning and
include how need is defined, the focus of activities, level of beneficiary engagement, typical outputs,
and intended outcomes [27,28].
3. Program Content Dimensions
The features in column one differentiate each approach. These dimensions inform the logic
of action inherent in each approach [29,30]. That logic is grounded in distinct formulations of the
social value proposition [31]. The social value proposition serves as the normative justification for
action [12,32]. A primary step that informs program design is the assumption of need [4,7]. Need is
conceptualized as an undesirable condition that requires remediation. Organizations with varying
levels of specificity define and describe the nature and character of the problem. The worldview or
philosophical perspective of the actor influences how social issues are defined and interpreted [33].
This interpretation guides organizational activities [29]. How the problem is framed and how the
organization defines its purpose then become a justification for program activities. The definition of
the social concern facilitates articulation of the solution and furthers the nonprofit’s objectives.
Each program activity is based on a different interpretation of need. In reference to services,
individual deficits tend to reflect prominently in how the need is conceptualized. There is a gap or need
within an individual or perhaps family unit that merits intervention and support. Conversely, the other
program activities shift the level of analysis from the individual to the community or socio/political
level. If an organization utilizes a community builder approach the need often reflects a concern related
to social patterns, power, or cultural norms [34]. If an organization utilizes an advocacy approach the
need is conceptualized as a deficiency in institutional systems [35]. This includes political, legal, or
economic systems. If the organization is implementing a creative approach, the need is conceptualized
as a lack of innovation or the necessity to foster creative actions that do not currently exist [36]. If the
approach is preservation, then the need is conceptualized as the potential for loss. Whether that is an
environmental, cultural, or historical loss the concern reflects artifacts (broadly conceived) that should
be preserved.
Related to need is the focus of activity. Focus of activity is defined as what is enacted upon to
achieve change. Drucker [37] and others [38] identify the focus of human service activities as the
person that needs services (e.g., child in classroom). This relatively self-evident conclusion (service
activities tend to be enacted on or with those they are designed to help) becomes more instrumental
in defining the focus for other methods. For advocacy initiatives, the focus is the institutional entity
(e.g., legislative body) that controls policy making. This distinction is prevalent in how organizations
define the beneficiary of intended activities.
For nonprofits engaged in providing services, the direct beneficiary of those activities forms a
coherent and logical cluster of stakeholders. It is through the delivery of services to the beneficiary that
the nonprofit creates social value. The condition of these individuals’ changes as a result of engagement
and organizational objectives are tied to that outcome [39]. In an education context, for example, it is
the students and their learning that constitutes beneficiaries. In direct engagement beneficiaries gain
advantages through the output production of the provider. As services are provided the focus and
beneficiary are synonymous and consequently beneficiaries should, in principle, gain increased benefit
through increased engagement [40].
Moving from direct engagement of the beneficiary as focus to indirect interventions that seek to
change social structures or community dynamics requires a shift in conceptualization regarding the
nature of interactions. Rather than social value creation through the direct engagement of beneficiary,
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 12
4 of 7
public benefit outcomes are achieved indirectly either through shifts in social structures (advocacy
type activities) or shifts in culture or social capital features (community building activities) [41,42].
This is an indirect method to achieve social benefit objectives and moves the beneficiary from a direct
actor in program service activities to an indirect beneficiary of program activities. Indirect activities
produce benefits through the outcome of organizational activities. The volume of program outputs is
less consequential to beneficiaries in this approach as benefits are only accrued when systems shift
or alter.
The first three approaches function through a continuum of direct engagement with beneficiaries
as the focus of activities (services) to indirect engagement political advocacy that engages policy
actors to shift practices. The intermediary method of community building engages beneficiaries, but
objectives are tied to group or community outcomes (safer neighborhoods). Community building is
indirect in the sense that, by working through individuals, the social and community context changes.
This continuum recognizes that program activities can operate on multiple levels simultaneously.
For instance, organizations may provide educational programs (services), foster social cohesion
(community building), and petition municipalities (advocacy actors) to address neighborhood issues.
The last two approaches seek to achieve outcomes that are distinct from those just discussed.
First in relation to the creator/innovator method, the outcome for this method is the creative artifact.
Need is defined as the lack of innovative artifacts or approaches [43]. This strategy is about the creation
of something new and includes the range of creative outputs such as artistic, cultural, intellectual,
and social. Beneficiaries in this case are those that gain advantage from the creative product. Society
benefits indirectly from innovative initiatives. Not every innovation results in social value benefits, but
the approach is justified by the belief that fundamentally new and creative insights add value to society.
Conceptualizing the creator as a potential beneficiary is understandable, but the approach is less about
the creator and more about the created artifact. If the problem definition is conceptualized as a deficit
(or need) of the creator then a series of program services are enacted to enrich and benefit the potential
creator. If, however, the problem is conceptualized as a lack of creative artifacts and approaches, then
capable actors are a prerequisite and organizational efforts are targeted toward fostering creative
production. Consequently, the focus of activity in this approach is the creative process. Outputs are
related to the number of works created. Outcomes are related to how those artifacts improve the
human and social condition.
In reference to preservation activities the outcome is related to safeguarding of artifacts. That can
take a variety of forms, but the objective is continuity of valuable elements. This includes any variety
of elements that include historical, cultural, and environment features that are determined to be at risk
or in need of preservation. The need is defined as potential for loss and nonprofits become a vehicle to
foster continuity. The rationale for preservation is related to the belief that conservation of resources,
historical heritage, or appreciation of lost elements is important for societies. There are countless
methods to achieve and support preservation initiatives and consequently the focus of activity is the
preservation process. Outputs are the number and variety of elements preserved. Beneficiaries gain
advantage through the existence of preserved elements. The social value justification is a belief that
preserving artifacts enriches the social condition.
4. Conclusions and Implications
Nonprofits often seek multiple and complimentary public benefit outcomes. Nonprofits provide
direct services, engage in community development, advocate for issues, and foster preservation
initiatives. Blending and combining approaches to achieve objectives [25]. They create objectives
that relate to multiple and concurrent outcomes that cut across the spectrum of approaches. The
classification of program activities provides modest clarity to the range of programs utilized by
nonprofits to create social value and highlights the distinctions among each approach. This clarity is
important because it articulates and explains how the approaches are unique and require distinctive
competencies. This supports research to explain how nonprofits create social value [13]. Furthermore,
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 12
5 of 7
the classification across outcomes reiterates the portfolio of program options nonprofits, funders,
and policy makers might consider. While approaches might operate in concert, there is substantive
conceptual and operational value to distinguish how and when different approaches are utilized and
how organizational resources are invested [44]. While these program options are recognized and
appreciated by managers, there is relatively little in the way of conceptual models that elaborate and
compare approaches.
There are a series of research questions that can follow from such a classification system. This
includes questions about organizational characteristics and capabilities that support implementation
and performance [45]. For instance, what organizational capabilities are required in relation to each
approach? Do organizational capabilities support multiple approaches or are capabilities tied to
strategies utilized? There are a number of issues related to how organizations select approaches
and the composition of approaches utilized. For instance, are there common portfolios of program
service activities used concurrently? There are also questions that explore the relationship between
organizational objectives and program service activities utilized. Are there commonalities in how
organizational objectives are articulated and the methods utilized [8]? Do organizations with similar
approaches utilize a common justification for action? There are also questions in relation to how
environmental characteristics influence approaches utilized [46]. For instance, how do other providers
operating in a common industry affect organizational strategies? There are also questions about
performance and how organizations might be more or less successful to achieve outcomes and produce
social value. For instance, what are the performance outcomes and how might these be associated
with program portfolios?
It is also necessary to explore and test the proposed classification system. Are there additional
classification systems that can provide further specification of methods utilized by nonprofits?
Given the large number of service strategies utilized, it would be useful to further classify within
types. This includes classification of outcomes [10] and approaches and how organizations use these
strategies to achieve program service objectives.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Brown, W.A. Strategic Management in Nonprofit Organizations; Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, MA,
USA, 2014; ISBN-10: 1449618944.
Phills, J.A. Integrating Mission and Strategy for Nonprofit Organizations; Oxford University Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2005; ISBN-10: 0195171284.
Stone, M.M.; Bigelow, B.; Crittenden, W. Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations.
Adm. Soc. 1999, 31, 378–423. [CrossRef]
Netting, F.E.; O’Connor, M.K.; Fauri, D.P. Comparative Approaches to Program Planning; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment